1997-11-12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 1997
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
ROBERT MC NALLY
ROBERT KARPELES
BRIAN CUSTER
PAUL HAYES
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-JOHN GORALSKI
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CHRIS ROUND
TOWN COUNSEL
-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-97 WR-1A MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN
APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
JONATHAN HARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-We did read the application into the record, and I left the public hearing open for
any comment that was made. So what I would like to have read in now is Mr. Stewart’s notes that
are attached, to start out.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. This is an appeal under the New York State Town Law Section 267,
267-a and -b from a September 5, 1997 denial of a building permit for the construction of a six
thousand eight hundred thirty (6,830) square foot home with a four thousand six hundred sixty-
seven (4,667) square foot building footprint. The ground for denial is that the submitted plans
were not ‘consistent with the variance resolution’ No. 63-1995. The subject variance resolution
granted an area variance containing three (3) conditions, referred to as “Stipulations”: 1. That the
height of the building not exceed thirty-three (33) feet. The submitted plans comply. 2. That the
proposed structure will adhere as closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as
the artist’s rendering that was submitted as part of this application. The plans and specifications
have adhered ‘as closely as possible’ to the rendering. 3. That neither the proposed boat storage
facility nor the existing boathouse be used in any way to increase living space on the property. The
submitted plans comply. The Executive Director Zoning Administrator’s September 5, 1997 letter
of denial adds a fourth condition: That the resolution ‘stipulates the residence in question will be
four thousand (4,000) square feet in area,’. No such “stipulation” is contained in the Resolution,
and none may be inferred. A copy of the Resolution is attached and, although the narrative
description of the proposed project speaks of a four thousand (4,000) square foot house, and
although the Zoning Board of Appeals had the right under Section 267-b(4) of the Town Law to
impose such a condition, it did not do so regarding the size of the house. Item “5” to the Variance
application submitted August 30, 1995, a project description, describes the new house as a ‘new
3400 square foot (footprint), four bedroom two-story wood frame structure including a 600 square
foot attached garage.’ The submitted site plan (Sheet 2 of 3, Proposed Site Plan) showed a
building footprint. A note referring to the building indicates ‘Building footprint is 3400 s.f.
including an attached 2 car garage.’ The site plan used for presentation as the September 20, 1995
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was colored. The colored area of the building in question was a
four thousand six hundred (4,600) square foot footprint area, consisting of a four thousand (4,000)
square foot footprint area for the house and a six hundred (600) square foot area for the garage.
The architectural rendering presented at the meeting shows the front configuration of the house to
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
include that footprint area represented by the colored site plan. That footprint area was four
thousand six hundred (4,600) square feet including building and garage. During the September 20,
1995 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the project description was read into the record by Zoning
Board of Appeals Secretary Chris Thomas describing the new house to be a '‘3400 square foot
(footprint), four bedroom, two-story wood frame structure including a 400 square foot attached
garage.” Inexplicably, this description which included the word “footprint” does not appear in the
minutes of the meeting, although a review of the tape recording of the meeting reveals the following
language: The removal of the existing Main Camp, an approximate 2,700 square foot, two story,
1,714 square foot footprint wood frame structure and replacement with a new 3,400 square foot
footprint, four bedroom, two story, wood frame structure, including a 600 square foot attached
garage. During the questioning by the Zoning Board of Appeals member Mr. Menter (refer to
page 48 of the meeting transcript), Mr. MacElroy, Mr. Cantanucci (incorrectly identified as Mr.
Wallace) and Mr. Stewart each identified the building area in terms of “footprint”. Mr. Stewart
specifically identified that if reducing the footprint occurred, then the building would go higher.
Parenthetically, the proposal submitted at the September 20, 1995 Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting showed square footage in the context of a footprint, and there was no restriction of gross
building area imposed, either as to footprint or gross building area. Attached is a the case of
Sabatino v. Denison 203 A.D.2d 781, 610 N.Y.S.2d 383 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1994), in which
Respondent City argued that items discussed at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting became an
express condition of the variance. The Appellate Division Third Department disagreed. We
disapprove of respondents’ assumption that every item discussed at the public hearings on the
application became an express condition of the approval. To the contrary, it was the Zoning
Board’s obligation to clearly state the conditions it required petitioners to adhere to in connection
with the approval. A review of the subject Resolution reveals that the Zoning Board of Appeals
clearly stated three (3) conditions, and gross building area, however defined, was not among them.
The attached Resolution is highlighted to show the conditions (called “stipulations”) imposed by
the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Administrator has improperly and unilaterally imposed a fourth
condition which does not appear in the Resolution. Had the Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to
impose a building area condition when granting the area variance, they need only have said: One
stipulation to this granting would be that the total square footage of all floors of the building not
exceed four thousand (4,000) square feet. They did not do so. Since a dissatisfied applicant has
thirty (30) days to judicially challenge a “condition” imposed in connection with the grant of an
clearly
area variance, it is the obligation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to state the conditions it
required the Applicant to adhere to, thus putting Applicant on notice of the condition and providing
an opportunity to judicially challenge the condition. In this case, the Zoning Board of Appeals
clearly stated three (3) conditions, and none related to building area. The Administrator’s second
theory of denial is based on his opinion that the plans and specifications do not “adhere as closely
as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as the artist’s rendering that was submitted as
part of this application.” The Zoning Board of Appeals imposed such a condition. Unfortunately,
it is so vague as to be impossible to determine what standard to apply when interpreting such a
condition. Who should determine whether there is a close adherence to the rendering, and whose
standard is applied when determining what is possible: the architect, the owners, the
administrators? The stipulation regarding appearance is vague and uncertain and, at its best,
requires a person to guess at the meaning. As a result, no reviewing entity can reasonably enforce
it, and it is, therefore, an impermissible condition.”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. There’s a letter from John Goralski. This one here.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I’ve seen that.
MR. HARVEY-Mr. Chairman, I have a folder within reach of you in which I have put the letter
from Mr. Goralski as well as a copy of the variance and the two renderings which are under
discussion, to make life easier.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’ll make it easier.
MRS. LAPHAM-It would definitely make my life easier.
MR. HARVEY-I took the liberty of highlighting the language from both the variance relating to the
conditions and in Mr. Goralski’s letter with respect to the denial.
MR. THOMAS-This one here, read that one.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Town of Queensbury, September 3, 1997, Mr. Michael Cantaucci, 9
Cardinal Court, Clifton Park, RE: Building Permit application Permit File No. 97-500, single
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
family residence, Brayton Lane, Assembly Point “Dear Mr. Cantanucci: This letter is to inform
you the Town of Queensbury has denied approval of the above referenced building permit for the
construction of the “Main House” at Brayton Lane site in Assembly Point. The basis for the denial
is indicated as follows: Conditions contained in the resolution granting the Area Variance 63-1995
allowing the construction of two (2) principal dwellings on a single building lot stipulates the
residence in question will be 4000 square feet in area, and “will adhere as closely as possible in
both structure and exterior appearance as the artist’s rendering that was submitted” as part of the
variance application. Based on a review of the architectural plans and information contained on
the building permit application, the proposed residential structure is approximately 6830 square
feet in area with a building footprint of 4667 square feet. Additionally, the elevations provided on
the building plans differ considerably with the rendering provided with the variance application.
Specifically, with the exception of a single second story structure on the south side of the house (as
depicted on the artist’s rendering), no second story structures were originally proposed. The
building plans indicate second story structures to be located at the east and west wings of the house
(as well as the south side) increasing the building scale and overall visual impact on the lakefront.
It should also be noted the lake elevation (as depicted on the building plans) is nearly all glass-in
stark contrast to the aforementioned artist’s rendering. Therefore, the building plans submitted to
this office are found not to be consistent with the variance resolution and should be modified for
compliance. If you have any questions please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely,
John Goralski, Executive Director Zoning Administrator Community Development” Copies to
Tabor Construction, Dennis MacElroy, Mark Schachner, David Hatin. Town of Queensbury
Community Development Department Memorandum, Date: 11/5/97, to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, from Community Development Department, RE: Cantanucci’s appeal of Zoning
Administrator’s denial of building permit “The matter before the Board is the applicant’s appeal
of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a building permit for the construction of a single
family residence, the Cantanucci Brayton Lane Residence. The Zoning Board of Appeals has the
power and authority to modify any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of
the Zoning Administrator, Town of Queensbury Code 179-88 and New York State Town Law 267.
Mr. Michael Cantanucci was granted an Area Variance 63-1995, on September 20, 1995. The
Variance granted relief from Section 179-16C, requiring a minimum of one acre per principal
building and Section 179-12, allowing no more than one principal building on any single lot in a
residential zone less than two acres in size. Relief was also granted from height restrictions and
shoreline setback restrictions. The variance application reviewed by Staff and by the ZBA at the
time of application indicated the footprint of the proposed residential structure in question was
3400 square feet. The variance resolution indicated the structure as 4,000 square feet, and the
proposed structure will adhere as closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as
the artist’s rendering that was submitted as part of this application. The Zoning Administrator
denied building permit application 97-500 for the residence in question on the basis of the proposed
residence as indicated on the building permit application was 6,830 square feet in area and not
4,000 as per the variance resolution. Additionally, it is the opinion of the Zoning Administrator
that the building permit elevation drawing, specifically the lake elevation, varied significantly from
the artistic rendering submitted with the variance application.” And then there are various
attachments here, the variance application, our meeting minutes and so forth.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Stewart, would you like to?
MR. STEWART-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Attorney Jonathan Harvey who
has been the personal attorney for the Cantanucci family for many, many years, and we have
agreed tonight to split responsibility. He would argue the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
decision and, hopefully, I won’t be required to say anything, but I will argue the application for a
new variance if, in fact, it comes to that, at the end of the evening.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY-Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to come here tonight and
speak with you and all of the members of the Board, on behalf of Michael and Kim. I’m not from
the Town of Queensbury, but I learned how to swim about 50 years ago at the Canoe Island
Lodge. So I figure that probably qualifies me for at least coming up here. I thank Bob for asking
me to help him and work with him on something which I don’t normally do. In fact, the only time
I’ve been to a zoning meeting in probably the last 20 years was here three or four weeks ago, when
I came to realize that, although Michael and Kim’s house is not the smallest house on Lake
George, or proposed house, it certainly isn’t the largest one by a long shot. I was here when the
Morse application was heard. I brought with me, incidentally, sort of a larger set of the two
renderings which I’ve included in the package for you. I think the ones that you have in the
package are just as helpful as the one’s I’ve put up there. You know, what started out as a dream
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
for Michael and Kim is now becoming something else. In September of 1995 when they made their
application for variances, and I did want to point out, incidentally, that the November 5, 1997
document from the Community Development Department has an error in it. If you look at the
second paragraph, and more particularly the last sentence of it, it says that relief was also granted
from height restriction, and I’m sure Bob will jump up and tell me I’m wrong if I am, but my
recollection is there was no relief sought from height restrictions, that the height restrictions in
effect in September 1995 were 35 feet, and this was 33 feet. Still is 33 feet. So no variance was
granted with respect to that. No relief was granted with respect to that. We really have two issues
with which to struggle, and with which John Goralski struggled and with our understanding. The
first is the fact that there are various references in the minutes and in the variance to the mention of
4,000 square feet, and the question of whether those references can constitute a condition. I think
that if you review all of the cases over the years with respect to conditions that are imposed by a
Zoning Board of Appeals in the granting of variances, it’s pretty clear, at least as far as I can tell,
and in fact I think a judge up here recently decided that, that if there’s going to be a condition to the
granting of an Area Variance, it ought to be clearly stated, and the reason it ought to be clearly
stated is so in this particular case Michael and Kim would have had an opportunity to say, wait a
minute, we are not conditioning this application, we don’t agree to the conditions of this
application, that the house be 4,000 square feet. The original application which was submitted
talked in two separate places. When it talked about the project description, it talked about the
footprint. The footprint of the old house. The footprint of the new house. It was never their
understanding that it was to be a condition, and in fact, I’ve given you, in the packet, the variance,
and I’ve highlighted the three, and some of you were here then, that I’ve highlighted the three
conditions to the granting of the variance. The first condition to the granting of a variance was that
it not exceed a certain height. The second condition to the granting of the variance was that the
proposed structure will adhere as closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as
the artist’s rendering that was submitted as part of this application. I think it’s helpful to
remember the context of the application. Here you have two people who have signed a contract to
purchase this land and have not yet purchased it. It’s this sort of hourglass shaped piece that I
think some of you looked at. The contract had, obviously, contingencies in it, because Michael and
Kim wanted to be able to build a cottage or house that they wanted, and if they weren’t able to
build a house of that sort, then they weren’t going to buy the land, and so before the design process
was very far along, as it normally would not be because here you’ve got a situation where they’ve
contracted to buy it but they haven’t even bought it yet, a rendering was drawn and it was
submitted, and a mistake was made in the footprint square footage which was set forth on the site
th
plan which was produced on September 20, and it was a mistake that was carried forward.
There’s a little description to the right of the site plan that talks about a 3400 square foot footprint.
The fact is that if you take a ruler and use the scale set forth on every document submitted on
behalf of Michael and Kim, you will see that the square footprint of the house is 4600 plus or
minus a couple of feet, right straight through. So the question is, Number One, did the Zoning
Board of Appeals in September of 1995 impose as a condition of the granting of the variance that
the house be only 4,000 square feet? And I think the answer to that is found in the case law here in
the Town of Queensbury and in our higher courts. The Appellate Division essentially said that
they do not agree that every item discussed at the public hearing, and I’m quoting now “on the
application becomes an express condition of the approval. To the contrary, it was the Zoning
Board’s obligation to clearly state the conditions that required petitioners to adhere to in connection
with the approval”. And so with respect to all of you who, you know, this is a volunteer job. It’s
not an easy job, but I think that what needs to be said is that in the event this Zoning Board of
Appeals in September of ’95 intended to hold Michael and Kim’s feet to the fire on a 4,000 square
foot total area up and down house, they ought to have said it, and I don’t think they did, and I don’t
think there’s any question about that, and I don’t think there’s any question about the law. The
second issue is a much more troublesome one, and I’m glad I’m not in John Goralski’s shoes, and
I’m glad I wasn’t the one to have to sit there and deal with it, and it’s that language about the
house adhering as closely as possible to the rendering. Well, I’ve been in the business 31 years,
and Bob has probably been in it a couple of years longer than I have, and I’m here to tell you that
that’s got to be one of the most difficult standards to try and interpret or analyze. I don’t know
what “as closely as possible” means. What I do know is that the house that they want to build has
a reduced bulk here. They’ve taken this front family room and reduced the size of it. I do know
that the house that they want to build is tasteful, that it’s elegant, that it uses materials and colors
which are not only suitable but really unavoidable for the Lake George area, that this house is a
marvelous house. It’s a beautifully designed house, and it will be a marvelous addition to Lake
George. I do know that parts of this house have been voluntarily moved back farther from the lake
than you saw in the original site plan which was submitted on September 20, 1995. I do know that
this house faces north and so that when you talked at the Morse application about this concept of
glass and glare and that kind of thing from the lake, I used to do a fair amount of sailing on this
lake, so I know what you’re talking about, particularly when you’re heading into the glare, you’re
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
not going to have that problem with this house because it faces north. So I think that the only issue
with which you have to struggle is whether you think, when the Board said that you ought to
adhere as closely as possible, what they really said is, it ought to be exact. Mr. Salvador, at the
Morse meeting, and I never met him in my life. Still haven’t met him, said something about, they
ought to say exact, and he made a very good point. Would have, should have, could have, they
didn’t. The Board did not say, the house that Michael and Kim Cantanucci want to build must be
exactly the same as this rendering, and I have to tell you, as a practical matter, I don’t know how
you could. Here’s somebody coming in, they haven’t even bought the land yet. You’re going to
tell them it has to adhere exactly? I mean, supposing they want to change the wood? Supposing
they want to change the color of the slate? And incidentally, going back to this question of this
roof line here and the second story here, you can see the second story here, and so that’s not new.
It’s here and it’s here. The angle of this rendering prevents you from seeing the second story on the
other side. One of the problems you have with the rendering. It’s an artist’s rendering. It’s not a
blueprint of the exact design, and I don’t think it would ever be the intent of a Board to hold
somebody to every stick and every inch and every board. It simply wouldn’t be practical. I think
that what you have here is an eminently suitable house. I think what you have here is a house
that’s far smaller than other houses which have been built on the lake. You have a house which is
not only smaller than other houses but take, again, the example of the Morse house. Michael and
Kim’s lot is larger. They’re at 1.9, a tenth of an acre short of two acres. That other house was, I
think, 1.5, and almost twice, over twice as big. So, I really don’t think it’s an issue of size. I
think, in so far as height is concerned, you have height restrictions that cover that. In so far as
bulk is concerned, you have side setback requirements, and I think that if you ask the question
Mike Simansco the Architect, who I’ve asked to be here tonight, will tell you why he’s designed
these two ends the way he’s designed them for structural reasons, to support the house, to support
the roof structure, and to avoid any possible violation of the side setback, because once again
you’ve got that hour shaped lot that sort of makes it difficult. My reading of the minutes, and it’s a
terrible death to be talked to death. So I’m not going to do that, but my reading of the minutes tell
me that the things that people were focusing on were the septic system issues, and in this case
they’ve been move back further, that they were not questions of the size of the house. Nobody
asked the question, and the funny part about it is, the only place in these applications where the
size of the house even becomes an issue is when you do the site development data, and it asks for
the building area proposed, and in this case it was 6500. It’s about 5, 600 feet more than that. I
may be a couple of hundred feet off, but it asks for the building area. What this application is
focusing on, and you may change in the future, but what this application is focusing on, as far as I
can see, is coverage, but what the Board wants to know and what the reviewing body wants to
know is how much building is going on how much land, and coverage can only mean footprint,
because if they’re focusing on the question of how much bulk, that’s not a problem, because you
have a height restriction. You can only put so much building and it can only be so high. This
residence complies in every respect, then and now. I really ask you to let them get on with it.
Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Goralski, is there anything you’d want to say, or are you going to
stand on your letter?
MR. GORALSKI-You have my letter. That’s why I made the decision the way I did.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. What I’ll do now is I’ll open up the public hearing, and anyone that would
wish to speak in favor of this interpretation come forward and speak now, in favor of this
interpretation? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed to this interpretation?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOE TORNABENE
MR. TORNABENE-I’m in favor of it. My name is Joe Tornabene from Assembly Point, and I’ve
known Mr. Cantanucci quite a few years, and whatever he does is always a Class A act, and he
wouldn’t do anything detrimental to the lake or its area, and it’s difficult to know when you’re
going to have something for himself and Kim to have any restrictions on it, especially when it’s
going to be to what it was. That piece of property was kind of a beat up piece of property before
he took it over, and he will make it very nice. That’s all I can say for right now.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you.
MIKE GRASSO
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. GRASSO-My name is Mike Grasso. I’m a resident. Actually my property borders the
Cantanucci property. It’s toward the back. It says Rapaport, but it’s no longer Rapaport. I
bought it two years ago. Normally speaking, I’m not in favor of very large houses. I’m not crazy
about the McCall residence or the old Aaron residence which is now owned by the Brailles.
However, as this building has progressed, at least the boathouse and the small residence, I’ve gone
over and looked at the workmanship, and the colors being used, the wood being used. It’s very
typical of the old Adirondack camp style, which certainly we like to see at the lake and which I
think enhances the beauty of the lake. The boathouse as it stands right now with the cedar and the
stain and the detail and the slate roof, I’d like to be able to afford a slate roof on my house, but it’s
really gorgeous. I think that, normally speaking, we’re opposed to this kind of thing, but in this
particular case, because of the design, the materials being used, the nature of the workmanship,
that I’m definitely for it. It’s going to be a signature house, and I think it will blend good with the
landscaping and with the contours of the land. He’s re-doing the stone wall. Again, this is all
unbelievable workmanship. The mason who’s there now is doing a painstaking job, and the nature
of the color of the stone and again, the wood just blends in perfectly. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed or in favor of? If
not, one letter to be read in.
MRS. LAPHAM-I think there are four letters.
MR. THOMAS-Four letters. Okay. Read them in.
MRS. LAPHAM-October 15, 1997, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Zoning Board Chairman, RE:
Michael Cantanucci project “Dear Mr. Thomas: I am in support of Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci’s
project. I express this opinion for several reasons. The property was a mess prior to the
Cantanucci ownership. The three structures were falling apart. The sea wall was falling apart,
and the property was unsightly. Over the past six months, I have visited the site on several
occasions. I was extremely pleased with what I saw. Their design is tasteful and in keeping with
the character of Lake George. It will truly be one of the great camps of the Adirondacks. I was
also impressed to see how well balanced the new structures fit the site. Their new driveway idea
came out beautiful. It enhanced the value of not only their property but also their neighbor’s
property as well. The Cantanucci’s also eliminated unsightly overhead power lines for their
property and their adjacent neighbor’s property as well. Their plans and designs make it obvious
to me how sensitive they are to the visual impact from the lake. In closing, this is a great plan.
The project will certainly be one of the jewels of the lake. Very truly yours, Joseph J. Tornabene”
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “Dear Zoning Board: This letter is in reference to the
request of Mr. Michael Cantanucci for a meeting concerning denial of his building permit”, this
was written October 29, 1997. “The neighborhood Mr. Cantanucci has chosen to build in is a
close knit area with small and moderate sized houses. Although Mr. Cantanucci has elegant taste
and quality construction, it still remains that the neighborhood is of limited sized homes. What
happens when the present owner passes the property to the next owner? Unless the new owner is
of similar means as the past owner, larger structures become broken down into condominiums, this
is a concern of mine as I look at the example of large homes all along the road to Bolton Landing
that are now condos, associations, or multiple housing. These houses were once the private homes
of people with means. It is my concern that our clustered neighborhood will fall to the same
dramatic fate in the future. Queensbury and like towns must limit the size of new houses to be in
proportion to the neighborhood where they are built. It is the duty of the Planning and Zoning
Boards to have the insight to protect the shores of Lake George from becoming over developed to a
greater extent than they have been already. I ask you to examine the neighborhood and act in a
manner that meets the needs of the people who live there, who live in it at the present and in the
future. Florence E. Connor 4 Holly Lane, Lake George” Mr. Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning
Board of Appeals “Dear Mr. Thomas: I am Mr. Cantanucci’s neighbor three doors to the east.
My entrance is adjacent to his property, and I can see his new construction from my house. As of
this date, I have never met or talked to Mr. Cantanucci. I have followed his building application
process, construction and his approved plans. This letter is written to support his residential
project, whether it is 4600 square feet or 7,000 square feet. I think the neighbors should be
appreciative of the planning, quality and taste of this development. Some older buildings should be
razed to incorporate new design and building technologies. Recognizing the size and cost of the
subject site, a 6830 square foot two story home as requested seems reasonable to me. Thank you
for letting me express my thoughts. Sincerely yours, Thomas Harding” Mr. Chris Thomas,
Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Cantanucci appeal, “Dear Chris: This letter is being written to
possibly clarify some issues relative to my September 95 motion approving the variance for the
Cantanucci project. One stipulation of the motion was that the proposed structure will adhere as
closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as the artist’s rendering that was
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
submitted as part of this application. The Adirondack style of the building was a nice feature of
the project and it appears that the new version is very similar in exterior appearance and well
within the scope of the exterior appearance portion of the stipulation. Not having all of the
comparative structural and location information at this point, I cannot comment on other aspects of
the project. Sincerely, David L. Menter”
MR. THOMAS-All right. That’s all the correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. As far as I can tell here. Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.THOMAS-Are there any members of the Board that have questions for Mr. Harvey or Mr.
Goralski?
MR. MC NALLY-I have a couple of questions. If I understand the proposed project, you’re not
asking and there was never any requirement for, strike that. As it is now, you’re within the
shoreline setback?
MR. HARVEY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Of the current ordinance, and the existing home is within the side lot
restrictions?
MR. HARVEY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And at the time the original variance was secured, the height restriction was 35
feet?
MR. HARVEY-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And you plan 33?
MR. HARVEY-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And it’s 32 that your current plan is at, or is it 33?
MR. HARVEY-I think it’s 33.
MR. MC NALLY-Thirty-three.
MR. HARVEY-When the variance was granted, that was not an issue.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any more questions? I’ve got a couple here that I wrote
while Mr. Harvey was doing his soliloquy there.
MR. HARVEY-Thank you. That’s a compliment.
MR. THOMAS-You were saying that as the application process went through, that 4,000 square
foot was always mentioned, but in actuality, all the drawings indicated 4,680 square feet, okay.
Now, who first said 4,000 square feet? Was it the applicant? Or was it somebody from?
MR. HARVEY-I think that the answer to that question is that it was Sue Cipperly on the Staff who
reviewed it, and it just got carried through, and nobody focused on it because they weren’t focusing
on the square footage of the residence. It was the footprint.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but everything’s verbal. Both sides carried on as saying 4,000, both sides,
and in actuality, you know, if you wanted us to take out the measurements on the map and come up
with 4,680 square feet, okay. It’s what you said, and all the maps that were submitted said 4,680.
MR. HARVEY-If you measure.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, if you measure, but everything verbal was 4,000.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. HARVEY-But the application wasn’t, and more importantly, whatever it was, it wasn’t made
a condition. I mean, that’s the real key here. I think you have to focus on what the conditions to
the granting of the variance were. It didn’t say that this variance is conditioned upon this house not
exceeding 4,000 square feet. It didn’t say that, and that’s what that case is talking about when it
says that you can talk about a lot of things here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Well, there’s two of us sitting here now that were here for the original,
and the other four members are picking this up cold.
MR. HARVEY-I understand.
MICHAEL CANTANUCCI
MR. CANTANUCCI-Excuse me, Chris, if I could say something.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CANTANUCCI-I think that the application back in September of ’95 did say “footprint”.
MR. HARVEY-Proposed building area 6500 square feet, that’s the original application.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I’ve got that right here.
MR. HARVEY-So it’s (lost word) 6500 square feet. It was a little short because they didn’t
include the 600 foot garage, and that’s 7100.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. As far as the rendering, okay, what I believe what Mr. Menter meant, or had
in mind, not specifically stated, but when he said as closely as possible, was to have the view from
the lake not change. When he said as closely as possible, I myself, translated that to, you know,
you could make changes to the texture of it, the color, and the material, but the original drawing
doesn’t show the two towers on either end.
MR. HARVEY-It shows one, right here. Right there. You’ve got to look at it. It’s a little tough
to see there, but it’s there.
MR. THOMAS-It’s tough to see, but you know the original drawing shows one chimney, and all of
a sudden three appear.
MR. HARVEY-I think that a couple of things are important. First of all, it’s very difficult to say
what was in Mr. Menter’s mind. We do know that he’s written a letter tonight telling us that in his
opinion, as a former member of this Zoning Board, that this is what was in his mind. I mean, you
raised the real critical issue with respect to the use of that language.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. HARVEY-We could spend our lifetime trying to figure out what everybody meant, and it’s
like that old story about the story that, you know, you’re in a circle, and by the time it gets back to
you, you’re in another universe.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but for my recollection of a little over two years ago, the artist’s rendering
showed very little glass on the front, you know, on the.
MR. HARVEY-There is it, that’s the one.
MR. THOMAS-Right. I’ve got it right here, and this new rendering shows a lot of glass on the
front.
MR. HARVEY-Well, what happened was this room was reduced in size.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. HARVEY-So less mass, moved back, and instead of this wood here, you have windows, but
as I said, it’s a northern exposure, and more importantly, I really have to go back to my position
with respect to how you can enforce a condition like that. It’s just impossible of enforcement. I
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
don’t believe any reviewing authority could enforce it. They’d look around and say, well, I don’t
know what they meant. One person interpreted it to mean we weren’t going to have any more
windows. Another person might say, well, I wanted, I thought we were going to have this wood,
and now they’re using slate. I mean, I don’t think that by any stretch of the imagination you can
characterize that language as requiring an exact replica of this. If you wanted it, you should have
said it.
MR. THOMAS-No. I know that’s what we should have said, if we wanted an exact replica, but,
you know, Mr. Menter saying as closely as possible left you some latitude, like I said, as to
texture, color and materials.
MR. HARVEY-Well, I don’t know that.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it wasn’t stipulated in the, but I know what we talked about because I was
here, okay. Mr. Karpeles was.
MR. HARVEY-But there’s no way to review that.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it was on the tape, if you wanted to listen to the tape.
MR. HARVEY-I did.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but it was talked about.
MR. HARVEY-I mean, I guess the point I keep coming back to, and I’m a broken record, is that at
some point an owner has to be able to know upon what to rely, and that’s a condition that I think is
virtually impossible to interpret.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. CANTANUCCI-Chris, when it was discussed that night and the stipulation was suggested, it
was at the very end of the application. Somebody said, you know, maybe we should make a
stipulation about the house looking as close as possible to this rendering. It was like an
afterthought. I’ve listened to the tape also.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It was probably me, because wood is natural to the Adirondacks, not glass.
MR. CANTANUCCI-It wasn’t you. It was Sue Cipperly who suggested it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, because that’s something I usually come up with.
MR. CANTANUCCI-It wasn’t you, and I agreed to that because when you say as close as
possible, my understanding, my perception of that was that it denoted some flexibility. If you had
said that it has to look exactly like the rendering, it would have given me an opportunity to tell you
that it’s too early for me to be able to tell you that I can do that. I haven’t purchased the property
yet. I haven’t designed the floor plan to know where I would even want a fire place. This was very
preliminary for me, and I think if you look at the two renderings, they are remarkably similar.
MR. THOMAS-Well, Mr. Goralski didn’t think so, and that’s what we’re here to decide, I think.
Okay?
MR. CANTANUCCI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant, or Mr. Goralski? All right. Lets talk about
it. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, Mr. Harvey certainly makes a good case. He pointed out a lot of things in his
arguments that I think are germane, and certainly I wasn’t here for the last application, so I wasn’t,
you know, it’s updating or even new dating for some of us newer members, but Mr. Harvey
pointed out that if it’s not in the variance or his argument in my mind relied a lot on interpreting the
variance just as it is on paper and he presented good law to back that up, if that’s the way that it
should be interpreted. So, as I read the resolution and read the minutes, I guess I’m going to focus
particularly on “as closely as possible”. I believe that Mr. Goralski was correct. I don’t believe
that this plan and those pictures match the Board’s, the new plan matches the old plan as closely as
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
possible. I believe Mr. Goralski’s interpretation of the resolution is correct, and that’s where I
think the appeal fails. So I would be opposed to the appeal.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I, too, am opposed on a different basis. The Area Variance resolution states the
4,000 square foot house, and that, to me, is almost an implied stipulation by the applicant
themselves, and even though that’s an incorrect figure, that actual figure was 6500, and now
you’re asking for 7500. That’s still almost a 20% increase in room space, square footage, and I
feel that Mr. Goralski also is correct when he applied that to the argument, although somewhat
vague, of the “as closely as possible”, and I’d like to see be again looked at later here in the
evening. I think it’s a favorable approach to it.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m curious, because you’ve got a variance on for later, and if you came to me
first and said you were building this house, you’re not going to go closer to the lake than you’re
supposed to or closer to the side line than you’re supposed to, you could build this house basically
as it is right now if you wanted to anyway, the variance, and I don’t doubt the Cantanucci’s would
do a good job and plan on doing a good job in constructing this home. The issue is whether or not
the existing variance’s language, I think we can either decide to affirm or reverse Chris’s
determination, and like Brian and Jamie said, I do look at the actual variance, the resolution itself,
and it does premise itself on the construction of a 4,000 square foot house, with a 600 square foot
garage, and it’s expressly set forth in the resolution. Now it’s certainly not phrased as a
contingency, but it is part of the resolution, and it’s something that was assumed in granting this
variance. I think the Appellate Division basically said that every item spoken at during the Zoning
Board meeting is not incorporated into the resolution, but the converse of that is not necessarily so.
That just because it’s not spoken as a contingency doesn’t mean that an applicant’s expected to be
bound by it. Had everyone sat back and said you wanted exactly 4,000 square feet back then, you
folks would have said, no, and maybe we would have sat back and said, the record’s wrong and
corrected or done something, but you didn’t. The variance speaks for itself, and it says the
application is 4,000 square feet. Now, I think the point is that the Cantanucci’s have to have some
kind of language which is certain and unambiguous enough so that they’re not confused as to what
they’re allowed to do and what they can do. I don’t know how, we get into semantics sometimes,
as to what you mean substantially the same, but I know that Zoning Board across the State have
always made conditions or certain (lost words) to their variances like have to maintain plantings.
That’s subject to a lot of interpretation as to have to maintain plantings, just like building
substantially in conformity with the existing diagram, subject to some interpretation. If an
application for 4,000 square feet was approved here, and he came back with 4,200 or 4,500, we’d
have something to argue about, and I don’t think anybody would disagree substantially the same,
but the proposal at 6,830 square feet, as I see it, I don’t know if 200 feet would be different. I
don’t know if 500 would be different, but 2,830 feet more seems to me a substantial change. I’d be
more than inclined to grant the variance under the existing circumstances, but we’re being asked
whether or not Chris’s interpretation of the building permit, based on the variance that was issued a
year or two ago is a correct interpretation, and with all due respect, I’d be more inclined to say that
it was a correct interpretation. By the same token, as I’ve said, I think that your home is lovely,
and if you were to apply for a variance, I don’t think I’d have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-I think you’re talking about Mr. Goralski interpreting that.
MR. MC NALLY-Excuse me.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t want to get implicated in this any more than I am. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I’m not totally sure. The problem that bothers me the most is the legal
implications of it. I really do not, as a rule, ever want to approve of two houses on less than two
acres on the lake. I’ve gone on record as saying I don’t approve of these overly large homes, but
the legal part, where it says, Mr. Harvey’s point, we disapprove of Respondent’s assumption that
every item discussed at public hearings when the Board met in ’95. I wasn’t here, so I don’t speak
for all of you, but stipulations could have been made then and probably should have, and if it is
less ambiguous, then maybe it was up to the applicants to try to find out what you were saying, but
it was up to the Board to make itself clear. So I think I would probably support the appeal and not
Mr. Goralski’s interpretation, at this point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. KARPELES-Well, I was here. I was a very strong supporter of that house the way it was. I
thought it was a beautiful job and I thought it was pretty well finalized at the time. I was under
that impression that it had been well thought out and was pretty final. I think that if Mr. Goralski
had approved this building permit, he would not have been doing his job. I think there’s a
substantial change. I’ll read the minutes here. It says, “There’s a section of it that is two stories
high, but that is in the middle of the building and toward the rear”. Now we’re being told tonight
that, really, we always had two stories on one end. That isn’t the way I remember it. So I think
that there’s a substantial difference in the house, and my opinion all the way through was, we were
talking about a 4,000 square foot house, and so there was no reason why we should have stipulated
it. All he was asking for was a 4,000 square foot house. That was my recollection.
MR. THOMAS-That was my recollection, too, that everything was spoken as 4,000 square foot
house and a 600 square foot garage, for a total of 4,600 square feet, set back 50 foot from the lake.
I think that I agree with Bob that John Goralski made the right call when he denied the building
permit when it came in for the 4,680 square foot footprint and a 6,000 however may square foot
house it was, because that’s what we were talking about through the whole meeting was, like I
said, a 4,000 square foot house and a 600 square foot garage. The stipulation that it not exceed 33
feet, that was just something thrown in by Mr. Menter. At the time, the height limit was 35 feet,
and as far as the “as closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance to the artist’s
rendition”, well, I think, like I said before, as closely as possible translates to, you know, you can
change the texture, color, materials, minor changes, but in my opinion, the artist’s rendering from
1995 and the artist’s rendering today is significantly changed, and like I say, and like Bob said in
the minutes, there was a second story centered on the back. Now all of a sudden there’s a second
story right on the end of each wing, and I don’t believe that this adheres as closely as possible to
what the applicant asked for. So I would be in favor of upholding Mr. Goralski’s decision.
Having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-97 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI
,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
And find that the Zoning Administrator was correct in his interpretation of the zoning motion made
on Variance No. 63-1995, meeting date September 20, 1995.
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mrs. Lapham
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-So the application is denied.
MR. HARVEY-You mean the appeal?
MR. THOMAS-The appeal. The application comes later.
MR. HARVEY-Thank you very much for your patience.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY-I hope you’re going to have some more.
MR. THOMAS-That’s all we’re here for is patience. That’s what we run on.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-3A JOHN MATTHEWS
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CEDAR POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
ENLARGE AN EXISTING SUMMER HOME TO A YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 AND
SECTION 179-60 AND 50 PERCENT EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE; SECTION 179-79 CROSS REF. SPR 42-97 TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 LOT
SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1997, John Matthews, Meeting Date: November 12,
Project Location:Description of
1997, Originally heard October 15, 1997 “ Cedar Point Road
Project:
Applicant proposes a 1565 square foot expansion of a non-conforming residential
structure in the WR-3A zone. The application was heard and approved on October 15, 1997. The
Relief Required:
application and Staff Notes incorrectly identified the site as zoned WR-1A. The
proposed project requires relief from §179-79 restricting expansion of non-conforming structures
to a 50% threshold. The structure is currently located within the 75 foot shoreline setback
(approximately 32 feet from shore). The proposed project also requires relief from the setback
requirements of §179-16. The required side setback is 20 feet, the proposed setback is 19 feet.
The required shoreline setback is 75 feet. The proposed shoreline setback is approximately 32 feet.
Criteria for
The shoreline setback request is based on conversion of a porch/deck to living space.
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant:2.
The applicant would be allowed to construct an addition to an existing home.
Feasible alternatives:
Alternatives are limited to an expansion less than 50 percent of the existing
floor space or no construction and/or no construction/conversion activities within 50 feet of the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
shore. The relief from the 50 percent
expansion rule of non-conforming structures cannot be gauged relative to substantial. The setback
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
relief is interpreted as substantial. Minimal
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community. No.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
See above. Minimal
impact to the neighborhood/lake front character is anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
The plans have been reviewed for conformance to the 28 foot height restriction. The proposal will
SEQR Status:
be reviewed by the Planning Board. Unlisted”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I was just looking on this thing here, under “Feasible Alternatives are
limited to an expansion of less than”, is that supposed to be 75 feet of the shoreline?
MR. ROUND-Yes, it should be 75 feet. That was a carry over from the previous.
MR. THOMAS-We don’t want any more carry overs. Mr. Matthews, is there anything you want
to?
MR. MATTHEWS-My name is John Matthews. I’m the owner. What I have is a substantial pre-
existing, nonconforming structure, good sound condition, that I would like to add to and make it a
year round residence. What I’m trying to do is fit the structure to fit the landscape, so that we
don’t have to drill or blast and do a lot of excessive filling, and change the nature of the slopes and
whatnot that are on the lot. What I’ve done is made a design which fits the elevations and the steps
that are already existing on the lot. I’ve also taken into consideration the placement, where it is
now, as to not obstruct any neighbor view, any more than necessary, and without cutting down any
trees and without changing the total topography of the lot. That’s basically what we’re trying to
accomplish.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? The only reason we’re hearing this again
is because of a mistake in the advertising in the paper, the legalities of it. This is in a Waterfront
Residential Three acre zone, not Waterfront Residential One acre, as previously advertised and
submitted on the application, and one of the differences is, there’s a 75 foot front shoreline setback
required in a three acre zone, where it’s 50 foot in a one acre zone. Okay. Having said that, are
there any questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-The project is otherwise unchanged? It’s the same as when you were here last
time?
MR. MATTHEWS-Basically. The only change to the project was at the Planning Board last go
around, I conceded to the neighbor on the easterly side to change the position of the garage doors
on the garage structure and move the garage doors to the opposite side of the garage, so that they
wouldn’t be interfering with what’s there, they wouldn’t look at garage doors, basically. No closer
to the lake. Actually, in revising that, it will move back a little bit, that portion of the structure
would move back.
MR. CUSTER-Because we don’t have our paper work from the last time.
MR. THOMAS-No. We’re going on memory, which is only a month ago.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. CUSTER-I just don’t want him impinging any further on the lake.
MR. MATTHEWS-I’m not going any further forward.
MRS. LAPHAM-And the extra living space is going to be, some of it’s coming from that deck
that’s on the front of the house now?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, right now, there’s a closed in porch, which is part of the house. It’s
living space now. It’s screened in porch which is used. We propose to go above that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, but not closer to the lake?
MR. MATTHEWS-No closer to the lake.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The principal structure, is it less than 28 feet?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, 65% permeability, not less than?
MR. MATTHEWS-Actually, the permeability is 81.5%.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the side setback is still 19?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-On that.
MR. MATTHEWS-One short portion of it. The pre-existing, nonconforming side setback is
already nine feet.
MR. THOMAS-Right, but it’s just the new part is 19 instead of 25.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct, 20 it should be, really.
MR. CUSTER-Twenty, yes.
MR. THOMAS-My updated Code says 25 feet in a WR-3 Acre zone, for a side setback.
MR. ROUND-It depends on the lot width.
MR. THOMAS-How wide is the lot?
MR. MATTHEWS-The lot is 180 feet wide at its narrowest point.
MR. THOMAS-Greater than 60 feet and less than 150 equals 20 feet, on each side and rear
setback. It’s greater than 150 so it has to be the 25 feet, right?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. THOMAS-So he needs six feet, and we don’t have to worry about a front setback because
you’re way down. The lot depth is not applicable. Lot width is over 150. So that’s the only thing
really, is just that side setback. Instead of being one foot, as we granted last time, it would have to
be six feet, because the average lot width is greater than 150 feet, according to the new rules and
regulations which we get on a Xeroxed piece of paper. It’s not even in our book yet.
MR. CUSTER-And 43 feet on the shoreline.
MR. THOMAS-And 43 on the shoreline.
MR. HAYES-Which is unchanged, right?
MR. THOMAS-Which is unchanged. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in
favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN RICHARDS
MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls, and
I am here on behalf of the neighbor to the east, which is really the owner is the estate right now of
Evelyn Webber. With me tonight and sitting up here are the Executors of the estate, Michael
th
Webber and Susan Webber. Evelyn Webber died on October 7 of this year, and the notice that
went out, I think, was almost simultaneously with that, which is why things didn’t get opened and
reviewed by the family in the middle of all of this, and Sue Webber, I believe, did fax a letter up to
Chris Round the night of the hearing, which I think was too late to make it to the Board, but she
did, in that letter, express her concerns about the degree of the variance and the design that’s being
offered here, and asked in that letter for an adjournment of a few weeks to be able to discuss it with
Mr. Matthews. She wasn’t able to meet with Mr. Matthews and discuss it until after this Board
had already made its vote, and shortly, I think the day or two before the Planning Board meeting,
and as a result of that meeting, that’s when the garage doors were shifted over to the side, but with
the flaw in the notice requirements and the fact that this is now being heard once again, those
original concerns have never gone away. They’re still there, and she wanted to review those, and
actually I’m appearing here tonight first to suggest, before getting into the merits and maybe not
even having to get to the merits, that this matter be adjourned until the next Board meeting. I
understand there’s been a death in Mr. Matthews’ family, and it’s just been tough for the two
parties to sit down in a calm atmosphere and talk about some of the concerns that the Webber
family has. These have not been antagonistic neighbors, far from it, and they’d like to keep a good
relationship and have a chance to review it, and it’s just not been that with all the things that have
happened to both sides over the past month. So my first suggestion, and actually I guess I make it
to Mr. Matthews, is to adjourn this until the next Zoning Board meeting, and if that’s acceptable, I
wouldn’t say anything else tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Matthews, yes or no?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I feel I’ve spent a good deal of time and effort and thought of the
neighbors. I really don’t feel it’s necessary.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I guess we’re going to go on with it.
MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Well, we’ve made that suggestion because we really had wanted to keep,
and still hopefully can keep the good neighbor relations, and also because the Webbers certainly
don’t object to Mr. Matthews improving, beautifying, and making the property a year round
property. They would encourage that. That’s great, but they have some very serious concerns,
and would certainly strongly take issue with a couple of things that were mentioned in the
comments, Staff comments, and in the original application itself, and the primary, when you do
that balance of whether it meets the criteria of an Area Variance, the balance certainly comes down
hard against Mr. Matthews because of the impact on the adjacent neighbors. I’m not sure you get
a true feel for it just from the sketches, but if you first look at the sketch of the existing structure,
as set forth in the application, and I think you’ve all got that in front of you.
MR. THOMAS-Could we get that put up on the Board here so everybody can see it? It’s the one
out of, like I said, nobody here has the application.
MR. KARPELES-We don’t have it anymore.
MR. THOMAS-We don’t have the drawings anymore or anything. The original drawing out of the
file.
MR. RICHARDS-I’m most concerned about the existing, I want to go over the existing one if I
could. That’s not the existing one. That’s the proposed.
MR. HAYES-It’s overlaid.
MR. THOMAS-It’s overlaid.
MR. RICHARDS-It’s very difficult to see from that.
MR. MATTHEWS-I can make it easier.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Great. As you can see, this is a very modest structure that’s there now,
and you can see on the right hand side, as this sketch is set up, what is calls the deck and the frame
house of, that would be the Webber property, right to the right, and while this looks like it’s a
fairly significant distance in the sketch, let me pass around two photos taken from the deck of the
Webber property and looking over at the structure as it now exists, and you can see that it’s very
close, as a matter of fact, and in fact is about 30 feet or 20 feet in front of the Webber property,
closer to the lake, both because of the fact that the shoreline juts out and the fact that it’s just
closer to the lake front than the Webber house is to begin with. So it’s a very, very significant
impact to make any change to that structure. I think that’s clear. Do you see the deck there, Mr.
Thomas?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see the deck. I’m trying to see the lake, and I don’t.
MR. RICHARDS-The lake would be directly in front of the house portion, right down there.
MR. THOMAS-I can’t see it for the trees.
MR. RICHARDS-But if you take what is there now and looking at it from the Webber’s deck, and
then you envision this property being transformed to look something like that, and I’m now
showing the exhibit of the lake facing portion with the two story multiple windowed facade, and
two story right on top, that second story would be right on top of the structure that they look out
onto from the lake, you can see this is a devastating impact on the aesthetics of the Webber’s
parcel, and that’s exactly what people go to the lake for, obviously. So to say that it has minimal
or no impact on the neighborhood or on the adjacent owners is just not correct, and that’s just
beyond a mere perception of the owner. I think it’s subjective, just from looking at the photos. I
did have a question for Mr. Matthews. The increase of 1500 feet, the final area I think was to be
3600, roughly, is that footprint or is that total living space?
MR. MATTHEWS-That application requires footprint.
MR. RICHARDS-All right, and what would the total living space be on the completed structure?
MR. MATTHEWS-Total living space as per the worksheet that I just got this week filled out, total
living space including the garage is 4902.
MR. RICHARDS-So it’s really, including the garage, it’s close to 5,000 square feet, and the
existing living space is still 2200, isn’t it?
MR. MATTHEWS-Including the garage.
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. So you’re going not, you know, your increase in floor space, and, John, I
think it is the floor space we’re talking about, not footprint space, when you do the 50% threshold,
isn’t it? So the increase is not just barely over it. It’s not 70%, as it might appear in the
application. It is more like 125% or 150%. It’s going from 2200 feet to 5,000 square feet, and
that’s a huge increase on a lot that is already close, on a structure that’s already 40 feet closer to
the lake than it would have to be if it were built anew, and that is just a devastating impact on the
adjacent owners. I think the photos do show that the roof lines, if you just look at the roof lines
alone, by the way, you can see that it’s just a huge increase over the existing structures, and I’m
not sure that the lot, at its narrowest point, at least scaling it off, is even 150 feet. The average
may be 180 feet, but I think around the point where the structures are, it’s closer to under 150 feet,
but I’m not certain on that. So that’s the main concern we have, and I think that, in and of itself, is
enough to defeat this application, but the other question we have, and we just kind of did some
calculations here, and I would ask, the garage/workshop on the back, I believe, just judging by the
distances shown on the sketch, exceeds the 1250 square foot limitation to constitute an accessory
building. So I think what this variance also needs is a Use Variance for a second principal building
on the lot, and finally, the other concern we have is the height. Now, I understand from the
previous determination and just from the comments made tonight, that the height limitation of 28
feet has been met, and I assume that’s based on this one sketch on the north elevation. Two things
I would point out. One is that there appears to be a peak higher than the 28 feet on the elevation,
but even if that still is within the 28 foot threshold, the very fact that this is touching on the extreme
limits of height for a lake front house, and the height is our very biggest concern about this
property, once again, I think demonstrates that the impact on the adjacent owner is substantial. So
having said all that, and if there’s not going to be a time that we can talk to Mr. Matthews and
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
maybe work this out, that we’d have to go on record as being vehemently opposed to this structure
as it stands now, and ask the Board that it be denied.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for Mr. Richards? Thank you. Would anyone else like to
speak opposed? Any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. November 11, 1997, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, RE:
John Matthews, Cedar Point Road, Tax Map 2-1-9 “I am the owner of the adjacent lot to the
southwest of John Matthews’ summer home on Cedar Point Road. John and I have discussed the
proposed expansion of his house to a year round residence. It is my understanding that the setback
of the existing building is nine feet from my property line and will not change, and that the new
foundation will have 19 feet of setback from my line. Although I am not enthusiastic about this
addition, I do support John’s plan to expand, knowing that in the end he will have a new home and
will be an asset to the entire neighborhood. James J. Grande” Zoning Board, Town of Queensbury
Office Building “Dear Sirs: I received your notification with respect to the proposal by John
Matthews to expand his home on the lake and to make it his year round home. Although we can’t
attend the meeting, we would like to register our support for the project. I have known John for
more than 20 years as a good neighbor and as a respected citizen of the Lake George/Queensbury
area. John has described the changes planned and, to me, they are positive, conservative of the
environment, and will likely enhance the immediate area while not changing the character of the
neighborhood. It seems that no intrusion or obstruction of lake views will result, and this usage of
the lakefront property will not materially change as a result of the proposed expansion. I
appreciate your consideration and hope you will rule in favor of Mr. Matthews in his effort to
fulfill a long held vision. Very truly yours, James H. Fuhrer” And I think that that’s it at the
moment.
MR. THOMAS-That’s it. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Matthews?
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask what the time frame of your construction plans is?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, if we’re approved, we have to continue, finish the drawings and
wouldn’t start until next summer, but I have some, another map that I would like to submit to you
which shows the character of the neighborhood, basically, and the line, site lines of view of
neighbors, which have objected. So, when you look at that, you can see that I did give that some
thought.
MR. MC NALLY-How does this viewing angle change from your existing structure?
MR. MATTHEWS-It doesn’t. The only thing that changes is the elevation. They are, the deck
elevation there, is at approximately mid roof level of the new structure, and there’s a deck
proposed.
MR. CUSTER-So, John, right here is where the new second story goes?
MR. MATTHEWS-Right. Actually, the new second story starts back this way. There’s a deck on
the end of the house. We go up just about where that pine tree is, and then come back into here.
MR. MC NALLY-Have you had a chance to speak with your neighbors?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. I spoke with them last week or so, prior to the Planning Board meeting,
and we sat on their deck for an hour or so, and I made concessions to changing the driveway,
changing the way the cars would come in to the garage and what not, so it wouldn’t effect their
appearance, their view, and there’s ledges, there’s rock ledges right directly behind that existing
structure. So to go back any further would be a definite hardship, as far as trying to fit to the lay
of the land. It’s either that or go back even more and cut down a huge stand of very heavily grown
trees.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions?
MRS. LAPHAM-I have one. Do you plan to occupy this? This is not a building that you decided
to rehab later and put on the market?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. MATTHEWS-Absolutely not. It’s been my dream since I was a child. Actually, I helped the
previous owner build it and work on it.
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions?
MR. RICHARDS-Can we respond?
MR. THOMAS-No. The public hearing.
MR. RICHARDS-It’s new information.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ve already closed the public hearing, John.
MR. RICHARDS-Without additional information, it’s just a brief comment.
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS-The only thing I would say, not only the sight lines, is the privacy factor, too,
and you’re going to have a two story building now, with windows bearing right down on the
property. So it’s not just the sight line there. If you saw it, the photos speak for themselves.
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bonnie, what do you think?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, again, I’ve always been opposed to extraordinarily large houses, and
hearing the neighbors comment has made me stop and think, but again, it’s back to the same issue
that took over with the Cantanucci’s, and this was approved by the Board a month or so ago, when
I wasn’t here. It’s not Mr. Matthews’ fault, I suppose, that it was advertised incorrectly. So I’m
really on the fence. I don’t know quite what to do, because I really believe strongly in the legality
of things. If someone’s told something by a recognized Board of the community, they ought to be
able to rely on it, but on the other hand, I don’t think I would personally be, particularly the
neighbor’s comment, in favor of this house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. KARPELES-Well, I was opposed to it the last time, and I’m even more opposed to it now. I
feel that when you’re doing work as extensive as this on a house is the time to correct the setback,
and it’s been reinforced by listening to the neighbors. So I remain opposed to it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, we’re all on the record, of course, in the last hearing, but as then, I feel now
that it’s a good project. I like the design. I do believe that it’s designed to go with the lay of the
land, taking into account the difficulties of the rock ledges. I believe, when I drove down through
in there, there was two buildings, and he’s talking about making them one. I think, in the
cumulative sense, it’s an overall improvement, and I don’t think it’ll change the character of the
neighborhood. He’s commented that he has gone through the scrutiny of the Planning Board, and
they asked for some changes, and he made those as well. So I think there is a level of cooperation
that exists, and this is a big lot. I think that the size of, I really don’t have a problem with the size
of the house, based on the fact that it’s almost two acre lot, and that it seems to fit, to me. So I
would be in favor of the application.
MR. THOMAS-Brian?
MR. CUSTER-As I think I said, the last time this came before us, had this been a project that Mr.
Matthews was not going to build in the same footprint, I’d be more inclined to agree with Mr.
Karpeles and have him put it back to the proper setback. However, since it was a hardship created
by the original structure, and he intends to build off that footprint, and seeing the efforts and the
concerns he’s put into the design of the house, my thoughts really haven’t changed on the subject,
and I’m still in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Brian. The building really is going to be adding on in area in the
existing footprint, and the conversion of the already existing porch doesn’t seem to be a substantial
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
change. I think the neighbor’s concern is something we did not hear last time, and I am very
inclined to listen to what they have to say, but their concern, I think, is in some part dictated by the
lay of the land. Mr. Matthews home is more toward the end of the point that they’re on. They’re
naturally being on one side further back is going to adhere to that (lost words), but given the lay of
the land and the fact that there are steep shelves and rock ledges, I don’t know how you can build
or improve this property without actually going up. So I’d be inclined to approve this project,
irrespective of the setback change.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll agree with Jamie, Bob and Brian on the approval of it. Reading over the
balancing test, the Board of Appeals shall balance benefit to the applicant with detriment to the
health, safety and welfare of the community. The first question is whether benefit can be achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant. The only other real feasible alternative would be to tear
the structure down and build new, starting 75 feet and going back, and I don’t see where that’s
feasible because there’s an existing structure that’s there, that’s in good condition, and it can be
added to without a lot of changes to it. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character or
nearby properties? This may be on the fence on that one because of what the neighbors comments
were. Whether the request is substantial? Even though they’re going more than 100%, but for the
size of the lot, I don’t believe this is a real substantial change. Whether the request will have
adverse physical or environmental effects. I can’t see any. I think it’ll be an improvement to the
property, because I know the applicant is putting in a new septic system, as he stated in the last
meeting. Is the difficulty self created? No. Like I said, the house, and the other members said, the
houses exists, and there’s rock ledge there. The only real alternative would be to go through and
start blasting. You start blasting rock there, you’re going to blow that house right off the
foundation it’s on. There’s no way you could blast that rock out of there. It would have to be
drilled and hammered out, and that’s quite expensive. So, to me, the applicant, I think, has met all
the, or the balance of the criteria for an Area Variance. So, having said that, I would ask for a
motion.
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Thomas, before you make a motion, Mr. Richards brought up the question
of the workshop and whether that’s another principal structure. I want to be sure that you
understand, that question is something I’m going to have to address, but that is not part of any
variance that you’re granting right now. If, in fact, Mr. Richards is correct, then Mr. Matthews
would either have to construct a smaller building or come back for another variance.
MR. THOMAS-We understand that that building in the back is not part of this variance
application, and will not be addressed in the motion.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1997 JOHN MATTHEWS
,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
He proposes a 1565 square foot expansion of a nonconforming residential structure in the WR-3A
zone. The project will be of benefit to the applicant, in that he would be allowed to construct
addition to an existing structure. The alternatives are limited to an expansion above the existing
footprint as opposed to going back, because of the existing conditions of the land and the slope and
the presence of rock ledges. The relief is not substantial to the Ordinance, given the size of the lot
and the effect on the neighborhood and community, while there will be some effect is, in my
opinion, minimal. The difficulty is not self-created since it results in the existing conditions of the
current home on the current lot. The applicant seeks a 6 foot setback on the south side of their
property, in accordance with the plans he submitted with his first application, and a 43 foot setback
from the shoreline restrictions to convert an existing porch to living area. For these circumstances,
I’d move the approval of the variance. The motion also authorizes and approves an expansion of
the property and grants relief from Section 179-79, restricting expansion of nonconforming
structures to a 50% threshold.
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Karpeles
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-So I think we have a viable exact resolution here. Okay. There you go.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1997 TYPE II WR-1A MYRON RAPAPORT OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 16 BURNT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION
TO LIVING ROOM AND TO EXISTING DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 AND 179-60. CROSS REF. SPR 39-
97 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60
PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-I believe I left the public hearing open on that, and if you would just read in the
tabling motion and also the Staff Notes.
MRS. LAPHAM-“Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, 21 Pine Hollow Road, to Myron Rapaport,
Burnt Ridge The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the
below stated meeting and has resolved the following, Meeting Date: October 22, 1997, Variance
File No. 63-1997 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 63-1997 Myron
Rapaport, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles:
Until proper determination of the septic system by the Planning Department and proper advertising
nd
is determined. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.
Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham”
MR. THOMAS-Was the advertising correct?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Have we solved the septic problem?
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Cushing will address that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Cushing.
MR. CUSHING-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. We tabled my client’s proposal for Area Variance
to add about seven feet to a living room and a small area to a deck because we had included,
because of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance request for sewage disposal. At
that point in time, we agreed that we would table the application for a month so that I could review
the situation with my client, and we are officially withdrawing the request for variance with regard
to the sewer variance. Late this afternoon I received plans for the proposed new sewage disposal
system that would be erected as part of the building permit process to be added to the building
project on this site. To review, if I may, the areas that were included in so far as the variance is
concerned, we’re talking about a seven by a roughly twenty-one foot long addition to the living
room to be erected on the existing nonconforming deck, and we would request a three foot addition
to the deck in order to create a viable passage around the proposed living room addition, and as a
result of this situation, we’re looking for a small modification to the deck beyond the setback to
accomplish passage around a dining room addition which is within the setback requirement and
would only require a building permit. Basically, that’s where we are on the application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for Mr. Cushing? If not, I left the public hearing open.
Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak
opposed to this application? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence, any additional correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Cushing?
MRS. LAPHAM-Wait a minute. I’m sorry.
MR. THOMAS-We’ve got to open the public hearing back up.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because this is a Record of Telephone Conversation, date 10/24/97, 4:01
pm, between Maria Gagliardi, Planning Office, and a neighbor, RE: Myron Rapaport variance
“Mr. Rapaport received a variance a few years ago for extensive addition, almost to the extent of
the property line. The ecology and the appearance of area will be spoiled. Septic system is sheer
rock.” It’s not signed, or stated who phoned, just a neighbor.
MR. THOMAS-You didn’t get the name, Maria?
MS. GAGLIARDI-No.
MR. THOMAS-Didn’t give it to you?
MS. GAGLIARDI-No.
MR. THOMAS-Did you ask them for it?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-And they wouldn’t give it to you?
MS. GAGLIARDI-No.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we can disregard that one, then. All right. I’ll close the public hearing back
up.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-It’s my contention if you don’t sign it or state your name, it doesn’t mean a thing.
Lets see, if there’s no more questions for Mr. Cushing. Well, lets go.
MR. CUSTER-Paul, I want to make sure. That existing deck, is it going any closer, we’re not
impinging any closer toward the lake?
MR. CUSHING-Three feet.
MR. CUSTER-Three feet.
MR. MC NALLY-The new deck (lost words) existing structure.
MR. CUSTER-Okay, and you go around it, right? Okay.
MR. THOMAS-We need to read in the Staff Notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-1997, Myron Rapaport, Meeting Date: November 12,
Project Location:
1997 Tabled from October 22, 1997 “ 16 Burnt Ridge Road-Lake George
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 7 ft. by 21 ft. living room addition and a
9 ft. x 9.5 ft. dining room addition to an existing residential structure, and an addition/expansion of
Relief Required:
an existing deck. The proposed project requires relief from the setback
requirements of §179-16 and §179-60. The required shoreline setback is 50 feet, the proposed
Criteria
setback is 42 feet. The required side setback is 25 feet, the proposed setback is 20 feet.
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant:
The applicant would be allowed to construct an addition at the lakeside portion of his
2. Feasible alternatives:
property. Construction of an addition at an alternative location or no
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
construction. the relief is interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
minimal. The effects on the neighborhood are
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
interpreted as negligible. The selection of the lakeside as the
Parcel History (construction/site
desired construction location is interpreted as self-created.
plan/variance, etc.):6/20/84 Area
A summary of the prior variance approvals follows:
Variance No. 915
Relief granted from the shoreline setback restrictions (then 75 ft.) for the
construction of two (2) bedroom additions. The north bedroom addition (12.5 ft. x 20 ft.) was
constructed 45 feet from the lake, the south bedroom addition (14 ft. x 25 ft.) was constructed 60
12/18/85 Area Variance No. 1046
ft. from the lake. Relief granted from the shoreline setback
restriction (then 75 ft.) for the construction of library addition. The 13 ft. x 13 ft. addition to the
10/16/97 Area Variance 55-1991
south bedroom was constructed 45 feet from the lake. Relief
granted from the shoreline setback (then 75 ft.) for the construction of a lakeside bedroom addition.
The 10 ft. by 24 ft. addition was constructed 55 feet from the lake. Project was also granted relief
Staff comments:
from the 50 percent expansion of a non-conforming structure. The project site is
extremely steep. Construction at the desired location may pose unique engineering challenges and
should be addressed as part of the building permit application. The project is also subject to site
plan review. The applicant has indicated the on site septic system will be upgraded to conform
SEQR Status:
with current requirements. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. How wide is this lot, do you remember?
MR. CUSHING-One hundred and eighty-five feet.
MR. THOMAS-It’s 185 feet. All right. So we have to go by the 25 foot.
MR. KARPELES-You said something about the dining room, but I didn’t catch it. Is a variance
necessary?
MR. CUSHING-No. The dining room is beyond the 50 foot setback. So it is just a building
permit process.
MR. KARPELES-So you’re not changing the deck in that area either, right?
MR. CUSHING-Only a minor amount, right by where we’re re-locating part of the stairs, which is
on that corner where the dining room addition.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions before we start talking about this? Robert, we’ll
start with you.
MR. KARPELES-Well, I’m not for encroaching any further upon the setback from the lake.
When I went out there and I talked to Mrs. Rapaport, she told me that the deck wasn’t going to
have to be built any wider than it is, and I was surprised when I saw this three foot proposed deck
addition on there. So, I think that there have been enough building permits here, and as one of the
neighbors said the last time, it seems as though this is going to be going on forever, and there’s got
to be a stop some time. This would seem to be a good point to me.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob. I think that when you’re within a required setback and propose to
go further into the setback, that I would interpret that as substantial relief, and that, based on the
testimony of the neighbors and Mr. Rapaport when I spoke to him, there has been a series of
additions to this property, and that in a cumulative sense, the effect on the neighborhood, I think
you could establish that that could be negative if continued. So I would be opposed to the
application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. HAYES-I, too, am opposed. I can live with the dining room portion, the small portion on the
deck there. To me, it’s not substantial relief, but I’ve always been very consistent in my belief that
no further impingement should be allowed closer to the lake. If it’s there and you’re moving back
from it, I can live with that, but I draw the line at moving forward. So I oppose.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. When I looked at this property, I was impressed with how this house
has obviously been added on to over the years. In view of the neighbor’s testimony and the history
of this property, it seems that there’s a pattern of asking for additions to come closer to the lake or
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
additions which are just as close to the lake as the existing structures, their increases 50%
expansion of a nonconforming structure, and this just adds to the problem on the lake of property
that is going to be closer and closer and closer, and I know it might be minimal relief in the sense
that you’ve got a deck close to where the new one is going to be built (lost words) the intensity of
the property has changed. It’s no longer a deck now, it’s a living structure. I think there may even
be feasible alternatives. I’m not satisfied that there aren’t places where if there is additional living
space required that can’t be built elsewhere on the property, the effects on the neighborhood we’ve
been told, I can see are not negligible. I know they’re substantial, but certainly when I weigh that
factor in my mind, I don’t see that falls in Mr. Rapaport’s favor, and lastly, I really do see that this
problem is self-created. The selection of this particular property, which obviously is closest to the
lake which can afford the best view, but that choice is something I think within the setback should
not be allowed, where there are other options available behind the house or even the side of the
house, perhaps.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I’m going to abstain both from the comment and voting, as I did last time
because they are close neighbors of mine.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. CUSHING-Mr. Chairman, some clarification. The objections that have been raised relative
to my client’s coming back and asking for changes, part of the fact is due to the situation where the
setback requirements have been changed by Ordinance, and consequently some relief that may have
appeared substantial at that time is quite negligible at this point. I, frankly, think that perhaps
being an architect, I’m looking for a safe passageway around a proposed addition with regard to
this living room. I can live without having it, to be very honest. The deck is going to have to be
rebuilt anyway because it doesn’t conform to the building code as it is now stated. So it’s going to
be re-done as far as that end of it is concerned.
MR. THOMAS-I think what most of the Board members are objecting to is the addition of that
three foot toward the lake.
MR. CUSHING-I’d be happy to waive that.
MR. THOMAS-If you took it off there and put the proposed 21 by 7 living room where the
existing deck is now, and just built up from there, so you wouldn’t be encroaching any closer to the
lake than the existing deck.
MR. CUSHING-That would be perfectly acceptable as far as I’m concerned.
MR. THOMAS-Just let me run it down through the Board here real quick, and see what they think.
Bob, yes or no if they took the three foot off the front?
MR. KARPELES-I’d go along with that.
MR. THOMAS-Taking the three foot off the front?
MR. KARPELES-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-No problem.
MR. THOMAS-Brian?
MR. CUSTER-No.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not inclined to. It changes the entire use. A deck is not a living area. It’s
not an enclosed structure.
MR. THOMAS-What we’re talking about is that little three foot piece that’s going in front, that
they’re talking about putting on.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. MC NALLY-Moving that, but the seven by twenty-one foot deck is to be enclosed with a roof
and what not?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CUSHING-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I’d like that within a 50 foot setback. I’m sorry.
MR. CUSHING-Further clarification. Part of it is not within the 50 foot setback. Part of it is
beyond the 50 foot setback.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understood it, four to five.
MR. CUSHING-Four and a half feet.
MR. CUSTER-This part here is still behind that. The deck is there already. You’re now saying
you don’t like the enclosed? The deck is this expanse here, this solid line. Just so you know, but I
understand your argument.
MR. CUSHING-I disagree with the comment mainly because, yes, the site is very large, but you’d
be building another principal building on the site in order to.
MR. THOMAS-Well, anyway, going along with this, if they took the three foot deck off the front,
I wouldn’t have any problem with them putting the 21 by 7 foot living room addition on to the
existing deck and putting the appropriate roof over the top of it, and going along with that
variance, and as long as it doesn’t, you know, it meets all the other requirements of the zone,
specifically the height. Will it be under 28 feet?
MR. CUSHING-Yes, it will.
MR. THOMAS-And the side setback will still be required. Well, now you won’t need that deck
addition by the dining room either, would you?
MR. CUSHING-Probably not.
MR. THOMAS-No. So you wouldn’t need that 25 foot setback. Would you?
MR. CUSHING-It would meet it in so far as the dining room addition is concerned.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the dining room addition. That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-Shoot.
MR. MC NALLY-When you say within the 28 foot height restriction, how high is that deck from
the ground? Because when I stood there, it’s got to be 20, 30 feet from to start with.
MR. CUSHING-No, I’m sorry.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s why I’m asking if you could tell me how it is, because that’s pretty high
up in the air to begin with.
MR. CUSHING-Yes, it is. It’s a very steep slope.
MR. MC NALLY-(Lost words) I mean, this property is up on a hill. A steep slope.
MR. CUSHING-But it’s going to look exactly the way it looks now from the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-But it’s going to have a new roof and new walls and a new structure. Right
now it’s just deck. There’s nothing there.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. CUSHING-Yes, but when you go by in a boat, and you will see exactly the same thing (lost
words). It’s taking the same windows, moving it forward. It’s taking the same gable roof that’s
there, and moving it forward. We tried to design it as inevasive as possible.
MR. MC NALLY-But how high is that deck above the ground?
MR. KARPELES-Is this drawing, there’s an elevation here. Is this to scale? Can you scale that?
MR. CUSHING-I scaled it. It’s only about 13 feet to the grade at the edge of the deck.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, any more comments from any of the Board members? If not, I’ll ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1997 MYRON RAPAPORT
,
Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles:
16 Burnt Ridge Road, Lake George. The applicant proposes to build a 7 foot by 21 foot living
room addition, and a 9 foot by 9 and a half foot dining room addition to the existing residential
structure. The relief required under Sections 179-16 and 179-60, required shoreline setback is 50
feet, and the applicant will need five feet of relief, and on the side setback will need another five
feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant, will allow them to construct the two mentioned
additions. Feasible alternatives are minimal due to the constraints of the property, the pitch of the
slope, and relief is minimal, for reasons, the deck is already existing there, and we’re actually
coming back inwards. The effects on the neighborhood are interpreted as negligible, and the
difficulty, I don’t believe is self-created, due to the, again, the geographic confines, the topography
of the lot. That the required shoreline setback relief is relief from Section 179-16. No three foot
deck addition, as shown on the submitted drawing, and also the proposed deck addition and
realignment of existing stairs in front of the dining room will be eliminated per Mr. Cushing.
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. McNally
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-So that does it.
MR. CUSHING-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A AMERADA HESS
CORP. ANTHONY CARTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REPLACE EXISTING ID AND PRICE SIGN (ON LIGHT POLE) WITIH GOAL
POST STYLE SIGN. REQUESTED RELIEF FROM SIZE/SETBACK RESTRICTIONS
OF CHAPTER 140 (SIGNS). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO.
72-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 140 SIGN ORDINANCE
MR. THOMAS-Sign Variance No. 66-1997 has been withdrawn.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. KARPELES-It has? Good.
MR. THOMAS-I think we talked the man into coming into conformity.
MR. KARPELES-Good.
NEW BUSINESS:
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1997 SEQR TYPE II RR-3A JOSE GRAFALS OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 988 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
CARPORT THAT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 179-15. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-54 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-15
JOSE GRAFALS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-1997, Jose Grafals, Meeting Date: November 12, 1997
Project Location:Description of Project:
“ 988 Bay Road Applicant proposes construction of a
Relief Required:
10 ft. x 22 ft. carport 15 feet from side property line. Applicant requests relief
from the side setback requirements of §179-15 (RR-3A). The proposed setback is 15 feet, the
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
requested relief is 15 feet.
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be allowed to construct an addition
2. Feasible alternatives:
(carport) at a desired location. Construction at an alternative location.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
Relief may be interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
insubstantial. Minimal impacts are anticipated
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
on the neighborhood. The difficulty may be interpreted as self
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff
created. None applicable.
comments:
Minimal impact to the neighborhood is anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything you want to add, talk about, say?
MR. GRAFALS-No.
MR. THOMAS-Because I know there’s some questions, I know Mr. Karpeles has got, and other
Board members have, but I know Mr. Karpeles has got one.
MR. KARPELES-I don’t know how you can be a mind reader, but I’m just wondering, you say
there are no feasible alternatives. Couldn’t you build that in back of the house?
MR. GRAFALS-I couldn’t park a car or anything behind the house, no.
MR. KARPELES-It’s got a boat in it now, right?
MR. GRAFALS-Yes.
MR. KARPELES-And do you intend to use it for a car or a boat or what?
MR. GRAFALS-Well, when I can get the boat in the lake, yes, but right now the boat’s in storage.
MR. THOMAS-I was coming up with it’s already built.
MRS. LAPHAM-That’s what’s bothering me. It’s already there.
MR. CUSTER-I’d just like to know how it came to be built without a permit or?
MR. GRAFALS-Ignorance of the law. I didn’t realize that you needed a permit for, the structure
isn’t enclosed. So I didn’t realized that I needed a permit for it.
MR. CUSTER-Who discovered it, John?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know if Mr. Hatin discovered it or they made application.
MR. GRAFALS-Mr. Hatin, yes.
MR. CUSTER-He’s on top of things.
MR. GORALSKI-Tell the Town Board.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed to this application? Opposed?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll entertain a motion.
MR. CUSTER-No discussion?
MR. THOMAS-If you want to talk about it, yes. All right. We’ll start with Brian. What do you
think, Brian?
MR. CUSTER-Well, I think it’s what we’ve said in the past. We don’t like to look at these things
after the fact, obviously. We have to look at them as would we have granted the relief had you
come to us and requested it prior to, and I look at the relief being granted, 15 feet is approximately
50% of the setback, and not hearing any objections from any neighbors, I’m inclined that I would
support it at this time, although I feel that we should slap Mr. Grafals on the wrist for ignorance of
the law, but I’ll move along.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Brian. It seems like an insubstantial structure. It was 15 feet from
the line, and the neighbors aren’t here. When I visited the site, I noticed that there was a nice flat
area behind the house, and I thought that a car could get down there. That’s the only alternative.
It is a self created problem, though, but on balance it’s a small problem, and I don’t see any major
impact on the neighborhood, as I balance the interest of this property owner and the neighbors.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Except for the fact that it’s already there, I don’t see a problem with it, and I’m
sure I probably would have voted for approval if they had come before us for a variance, because I
also stated that it’s an insubstantial structure, and my memory of that house for having shown it is
it has a flat piece behind it, but it’s steep to get down there. So it would make it difficult.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with Bob pretty much. I’m not 100% sure that I would have gone
along with it, but I don’t think it’s that important, and there are no neighbors here objecting. So I
guess I’d go along with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members. It’s minimal relief, and I can’t anticipate any
negative impact on the neighborhood. I’d be in favor.
MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. I don’t see any problem with this. The
only thing is that I would like to see added into the motion is that the addition to the carport not be
closed in on any of the sides that are now open. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1997 JOSE GRAFALS
, Introduced
by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
The applicant proposes to erect a carport on the north side of his home for either car or boat
storage. The relief requested is 15 feet, which on the face of the project can be constructed as
minimal, even though it is 50% relief. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be allowed
to construct his addition, the carport, at desired location. There are feasible alternatives, but they
would be difficult to do, because of the lay of the land, where this house is located. The relief may
be interpreted as insubstantial with minimal impacts anticipated on the neighborhood. The
difficulty is self-created, only in that the Grafals want a carport, and that to go further, add that an
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
approval of this project, that it be stipulated that there will be no closed in sides, and it will remain
a carport and not mysteriously become a garage.
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-All you’ve got to do now is get your building permit.
MR. GRAFALS-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff. As far as the elevation now, we do not consider
chimneys as far as?
MR. ROUND-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A MICHAEL
CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING
WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA OF 5,955 SQ. FT. AND AN ATTACHED 900 SQ. FT.
GARAGE. APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16 LIMITING
ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING PER ACRE OF PROPERTY AND MAXIMUM
STRUCTURE HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 6-3-17 LOT
SIZE: 1.9 ACRES SECTION 179-12, 179-16A, 179-16F
BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-1997, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: November 12,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1997 “ Brayton Lane, Assembly Point
Relief
Applicant proposes construction of a second principal building on a 1.9 acre parcel of land.
Required:
Applicant requests relief from §179-12, §179-16A, and §179-16F. Section 179-12C
(5) indicates “….. a maximum of one (1) single family dwelling may be constructed per lot,
regardless of size. Construction of additional single family dwellings…” requires a subdivision of
land be performed. Section 179-16A requires a minimum of 1 acre of land per principal building
and a minimum of 2 acres for clustering in the WR-1A zone. Section 179-16A also reflects the
language indicated in §179-12. The request for relief from Section 179-16F pertains to the height
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
restriction of 28 feet.
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be allowed to construct a second
2. Feasible alternatives:
dwelling on a 1.9 acre parcel of land. Feasible alternatives are limited.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
The relief is interpreted as insubstantial.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Effects on the neighborhood and community
may be attributed to the scale of the proposed structure and not relative to the nature of the relief
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
requested. The difficulty may be attributed to both self created
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
and non-self created circumstances.
Staff comments:
History of the parcel is presented with the application. The matter before the
Board is unique. The applicant was granted a variance for the same or similar relief request in
1995. The applicant has committed substantial finances and effort on the basis of the relief
granted. Since the issuance of the variance the height, restriction has become more stringent (from
32 to 28 feet limit). The language contained in the restriction(s) regarding a limit of one (1)
SEQR Status:
principal building per one acre has also changed. Unlisted”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Stewart.
MR. STEWART-For the record, my name is Robert Stewart. I’m an attorney with offices in
Glens Falls, and I’m here tonight representing Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci in connection with this
variance application. I want to be as brief as possible, and I certainly do not intend to go back and
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
re-argue or re-hash that which you have already heard tonight. It is essential for me, however, to
go back very briefly and advise the members of this Board, particularly the ones who were not on
this Board back in 1995, the general background and circumstances that lead up to this, because if
I don’t do that, you won’t understand, and I will not have done a fair job for my clients. Back in
the summer of 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci became interested in buying this piece of property,
down along the side of Assembly Point. The property at that time was divided into three lots. One
lot was fairly large in size. It was a legal lot. The other two lots were tiny lots, substandard. They
didn’t meet any requirements except they were there. They were pre-existing, nonconforming uses.
They were legal. They had the right to be there forever. There were two buildings on the larger
lot, dilapidated, but two buildings, one building on what I’ll call the second lot, very dilapidated.
The third small lot did not have a building, but whoever owned it had an absolute right to put one
up because it was a pre-existing use. On the main parcel, there was a main building which was 32
feet away from the lakeshore frontage. Near it was a building that still remains, that I refer to as a
one bedroom lake cottage. That’s the one that has been refurbished lately, if some of you have
gone to look at the site lately. That was there, but in terrible shape.
MR. HAYES-That would be to the right as you’re looking at the lake?
MR. STEWART-That would be to the left of the main house. As you’re looking at the lake, okay.
I thought you said from the lake. There was a boathouse, quite a nice boathouse. It needed work,
but a nice boathouse. They needed two variances in order to put that package together. First, they
wanted to build a new, modern, and elegant home. They wanted to save the small lake cottage
because Mr. Cantanucci has a large family and when they came to visit, he wanted some
accommodations for them. To have two principal residences on a lot that was 1.9 acres required a
variance then and it requires a variance now. The other variance they needed was the fact that the
new house to be built, the old main residence that was 32 feet from the lake front was to be torn
down, and now has been torn down. The new residence was to go in in it’s place, but that would
be set back 50 feet from the lake frontage. Under the Ordinance at that time, you had to have 75
feet setback from the lake frontage. So we needed a variance in that respect. We don’t, tonight,
need a variance because as you know the setback has been reduced to from 75 to 50. So we’re fine
in that regard. We didn’t need any variance for height in those days because the height restriction
was 35 feet. We went through the Board. We got the variance. The project has gone through the
Planning Boards for site plan review on, I believe, it was two occasions, and everything has been
approved, and then we ran into the situation that you’ve already heard about tonight, that I’m not
going to reiterate. So now with this, by way of background, we come to what we need by way of a
variance tonight, if this project is to go forward. We, again, need the variance from the 1.9 acre
restriction. We want two houses, and we would need two acres without a variance and we have
1.9 acres. Shore frontage, we don’t need that any more, but at the time, the approval of the
variance was granted in ’95, we were given a specific height limit by this Board of 33 feet, and in
two years the architects have been working on this house and they’ve finally come up with a final
design, at 33 feet, but now in the last year you have amended your Ordinance to reduce the height
to 28 feet. So we need a variance from that new restriction in order to go forward. Those are the
two variances that are required. As we went through the last hearing in 1995, certain things were
evident. I can state fairly that the neighbors were delighted, and certainly in general terms, to have
those three lots merged into one big lot. In addition, by the way, to the three lots, there was a right-
of-way, a fairly substantial right-of-way that went across neighbor’s lands to the main highway to
provide access to this land. That was abolished, and given back to the neighbors as part of this
transaction, and of course they were pleased with that, not having to worry, the vehicles over the
years would be going across their property, because as we put the whole thing together, we could
come into our property, the new merged lot, from a new direction and not have to use the right-of-
way.
MR. HAYES-They were given that by Mr. Cantanucci?
MR. STEWART-Yes. This was part of the package, the proposal that we had. So you’ll see
some reference here to somewhere that there used to be four lots. That’s not quite true. There
were three lots plus this right-of-way that was abandoned.
MR. CUSTER-When I drove up, what’s that North View Lane, whatever that is, that was the old
right-of-way?
MICHAEL CANTANUCCI
MR. CANTANUCCI-Yes.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. CUSTER-I got stuck there.
MR. CANTANUCCI-We put a new driveway in to avoid having to drive by their property to get
in ours.
MR. STEWART-All right. At the time everybody was very, very pleased with the merger because
they knew that the lots were going to be sold, and the value of Lake George property being what it
is, and camps of some type were going to be built there, while here there’d be a merger, a cleaning
up, the demolition of these old buildings and a beautiful home. So it went through. There was not,
as I recall, an objection from any of the neighbors at the time. There was some questions, mostly
focused about the rear land, as to whether there were any wetlands on adjacent lands and whether
there’d be a problem with septic and that type of a thing. Also, everyone was delighted with the
fact that the old septic systems for the existing camps which were closer than 100 feet to the lake
front, were to be demolished and moved way to the rear of the property and new, modern, up to
speed septic systems were going to be installed. So with that, by way of general background, the
original variance was granted. I say this to you because it’s required of me to try to explain to this
Board, your job is to balance the equities, the disadvantage, the advantages to one side, the other to
try to do what’s fair, and one of the problems that Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci had is in reliance upon
the issuance of the earlier variance. The first thing they did, of course, is they bought the property.
They did not own the property, and they did not have any commitment to buy the property unless
they got that first variance. They bought the property. They tore down two of these old houses.
They tore out the septic systems. They have refurbished the boathouse. I don’t know if it’s quite
complete, but it’s most of the way there. There is that pre-existing one bedroom lake cottage, and
they have spent a great deal of money re-habbing that and putting in all new foundations and
footings. Septic system, I don’t know that the rear septic systems have been installed, but the dirt
has been put in to settle and all the site preparation to do that has been done, and so they, of
course, are deeply committed, and of course we’ve got two years of architectural studying and
planning and agony over the design of the house. So obviously in so far as they are concerned,
there would be an enormous benefit to them, and that’s what your test is, if this variance could be
granted. As far as whether or not there is any detriment to the neighborhood, to offset the benefit
to the owners, I would suggest to you that there isn’t. The benefits that the neighbors got, wanted
then, want now, and have now is the merger of those substandard lots, is the tearing down of those
old shacks, is the cleaning up and the investment, and this has been done. I don’t believe anyone
would disagree with me if I say that what’s there now is just an enormous improvement over what
was there before and what was legal before and what people could go on and build and use, as they
had before. These camps were being used, and there was no way anybody could make them go
away. They were legal at that time. So I don’t see where the neighborhood is harmed in any way
if the Board sees their way clear to grant this variance. The next question, the stock question that’s
always asked by your forms, are there feasible alternatives to this variance. There really aren’t.
The commitment to buy the land and tear down the buildings and all, that’s been done. There’s no
way to go back and undo it. Two years and large sums of money, obviously, have been spent to
the planning and designing of the house. The request being made would not seem to be significant.
It’s true that a portion of this roof line, 12 linear feet I believe, would be over your 28 foot current
requirement, but it was designed over two years and relying on a variance that specified 33 feet,
and it would, the additional few feet do not seem significant under the circumstances, and it would
be a heartache to try and go back and just tear these designs all apart to reduce that few feet of roof
clearance. Those are the technical questions that you, as a Board, ask me, and those are my
answers to those questions, and I think I’m correct. One final point I feel I should make. It’s clear
here that Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci have gotten entrapped in an awkward situation, and have
proceeded in good faith and now they need some help. Now, I want, however, to make one thing
clear. The members of the Board who were here back in 1995 will recall that I represented Mr.
and Mrs. Cantanucci at that presentation, and I feel very, very badly that this trouble has arisen. I
have been practicing before this Board since 1967, so I ought to know what I’m doing, but I did
not spot that 4,.000 square foot confusion, if you can call it that. From the moment I was on the
case, it was my understanding it was going to be a 4,000 square foot footprint. That was essential
to know because we had to show the Boards whether or not we were going to cover more of the
ground area than the law allowed. We weren’t even close, you know, that was a walkway there,
and this house nowhere, then or now, exceeds or even comes close to the percentage of
coverability. At that time, your Ordinance, when it talked about building square footage,
specifically said you count only the ground floor. In commercial construction, your Ordinance said
you count both floors and add the, but in those days, for residential, you counted only the ground
floor. So I didn’t sense the problem. Perhaps I should have, and another thing I could say is that
the size of the house, during that entire evening, was never the issue. The then Chairman
commented, as I recall, upon the size of the house. I do not believe that any of the other members
of the Board expressed any concern about the size of the house, and the audience never expressed
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
any concern about the size of the house. The only concern the audience had was are there wetlands
in the back, and they wanted to make sure people had looked at that, and that no development back
there would cast water over on them. Other than that, the audience thought this was the swellest
thing they’d ever seen because it was just a salvation for them over there, and maybe for that
reason that we weren’t debating the size of the house truly, we weren’t agonizing over the size of
the house, that it slipped by me, that the phrase in the final resolution said 4,000 square foot house
instead of saying 4,000 square foot footprint. I say that not to re-argue the last thing, but I
wouldn’t want this Board to feel that the Cantanucci’s tried to take advantage or abuse this Board
in any way or mislead this Board in any way. That certainly was not my intent, but we’re here.
The mistake has been made, and the resolution is to grant the variance requested. I think it’s
reasonable in size and scope. I think it will be a magnificence improvement over what has been
there for many, many years, and with that I’ll shut up and answer any questions that you might
have.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll ask the obvious two. Is there any way that Mr. Cantanucci can acquire
4,356 square feet of property to come up with two acres?
MR. STEWART-I would say, no, not to my knowledge, although I’m not going to pretend I’ve
studied that, but let me say one thing. Even if we could, we couldn’t go forward under your
current rules because we’d have to apply for a subdivision and divide the property back into
smaller pieces again, which is exactly what your Staff and, frankly, the members of this Board did
not want us to do the last time. The idea of merging the sub lots together into one good legal lot,
everybody was ecstatic over that. Now to go back and start to cut it up again, if we acquired the
land and got more than two acres, then we’d have to subdivide into two lots to build the two
houses, which is, and if we wanted to keep it in the same ownership and not subdivide, because he
doesn’t want to subdivide to sell this thing, then we’d have to come back before this Board and get
a variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I said they were obvious. The other one was, is, you said it was 12 linear
feet above the 28 foot height?
MR. STEWART-Dennis MacElroy is here tonight, and he can verify that. That’s the diagram that
I’m shown, and that’s the representation, I believe it to be true.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. How many square feet is that above the 28 feet? How deep is that tower?
Is it 12 by 12, 144 square feet?
DENNIS MAC ELROY
MR. MAC ELROY-I’ll defer to the architect who’s here as well, Mike Simansko.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MIKE SIMANSKO
MR. SIMANSKO-Michael Simansko, Synthesis Architects. It’s about 160 square feet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So its 12 by 15.
MR. SIMANSKO-Somewhere around that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s the only part that’s above the 28 foot elevation?
MR. SIMANSKO-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Except for the chimneys, which don’t count.
MR. SIMANSKO-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-And what is that room that’s up there?
MR. SIMANSKO-It’s an attic space, so it has a staircase up to with an opening to down below, so
it has a walkway approximately three feet to four feet all the way around the perimeter.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about the architectural look? Is it going to look basically like this,
exactly like this?
MR. SIMANSKO-It should look, well, I hesitate to use the word “exactly”, but at this point we
don’t anticipate any further design changes to that.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what I’m looking at is an awful lot of glass, and it’s been my stand, ever
since I’ve been on this Board and one other Board I was on, that glass around the lake, the glass
isn’t part of the Adirondacks.
MR. SIMANSKO-Well, we’ve taken great pains, over the past two years in designing the building.
We feel that the glass is proportionate to the house and is working with a blend of window muntins,
color with the other materials that we have, and we don’t feel that it’s excessive. It’s not designed
to be a glass house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s all I’m looking for.
MRS. LAPHAM-When you have these kinds of renderings, they’re flat. Is this house going to be
angled at all anywhere, and not just be a flat expanse? Will it be more like that? Or exactly like
that?
MR. SIMANSKO-Yes. It will be exactly like that. The floor footprint that Environmental Design
has illustrated here is accurate, and provided to Environmental Design by our firm. The rendering
that is here is a computed generated rendering from the floor plans and elevations. So this is about
as accurate as we can portray a rendering, short of actually building the house and taking a
photograph.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, which shows it kind of angled rather than looking like a motel.
MR. SIMANSKO-Yes, it would. This is an accurate depiction.
MR. THOMAS-That yellow space there, as you’re looking down on it, so it would have the two
wings.
MRS. LAPHAM-I just wanted to make sure. Because when I see something like this, it’s scary.
MR. SIMANSKO-Right. The elevation is, it’s difficult when you’re portraying an elevation to
show all those.
MR. THOMAS-Is that the boathouse on the right hand side?
MR. SIMANSKO-This is the boathouse, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay.
MR. SIMANSKO-However, the depiction of the boathouse is from the earlier rendering, rather
than from how it’s being designed and how the permit was given.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Questions? Does anyone else have any more questions? If not, I’ll open
the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone
wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Correspondence?
MR. ROUND-I believe there’s a single letter. There were three letters from the appeal. I didn’t
know if they wanted to read them in, because they did have some bearing on this.
MR. STEWART-Mr. Stewart, do you want to read those three letters we read in for the appeal?
Do you want to read those into the record?
MR. STEWART-I wouldn’t necessarily ask that they be read in and take the Board’s time, but I
would ask that they be incorporated by reference.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STEWART-So if someone wants to look at this later, they’ll know that they were in front of
you and you considered them.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and there is another letter that I didn’t read before.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll read that one in.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. We’ll read this one in from Walden West, Robert Walden..
MR. THOMAS-No, that was on the interpretation.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it’s in this folder.
MR. ROUND-There should be, there’s a single letter that was brought in tonight. There are seven
copies of it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Public Comment, there is a letter from Thomas Harding of Brayton Lane,
Lake George, and it’s October 27, 1997; October 29, 1997 from Florence E. Connor of 4 Holly
th
Lane in Lake George; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph J. Tornabene, on October 15, and they are from
Assembly Point also, and then this one is from Sally Carey, 6 Rapaport Lane, Assembly Point,
Attention: Chris Thomas “In my absence at the hearing, I wish to express my concerns in writing
regarding Mr. Cantanucci’s requests for additions to his building permit on Brayton Lane. The
results of his latest request would create a building completely out of character for the existing
neighborhood. I can’t imagine the visual impact of a two-story building of over 9,000 square feet.
I am most sympathetic toward those close neighbors whose view would be obstructed or at least
dominated. I also have a concern about the use for a ‘family’ home of this large size and the
amount of stress upon the sewage treatment; the boat traffic congestion and thus the lake’s water
quality; and automobile traffic. Our corner of the lake has had as one of its greatest appeals,
relative peace and quietness. Changes in these characteristics will have a definite negative impact
on land values and thus tax revenues for the town. I also worry that, at some later date, this large
complex could become a commercial endeavor. Sally Carey 6 Rapaport Lane Assembly Pt.”
MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me where Sally Carey lives, where her place is, in relation? She’s
over here? Okay. So it does border the property. Got it.
MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could make just one point? It wouldn’t be proper
for me to debate each letter and their points, but the reference to 9,000 square feet of house is
incorrect. The main house is 6,760 square feet, and that includes the first floor, the second floor,
the porches, the attic, and a covered entry way. So every bit of it is included in that figure of 6,760
square feet. So it’s not a 9,000 square foot house.
MR. GORALSKI-You didn’t mention the garage. Does that include the garage?
MR. STEWART-No, that does not include the garage.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I just want to make sure we’re clear.
MR. STEWART-So do I.
MR. THOMAS-Well, if you throw in a 900 square foot garage and a 1,050 square foot existing
cottage, that comes up to 8,710, and I haven’t even thrown in the storage building.
MR. STEWART-That’s right. That’s 1,645, a total of 9,455, but it’s not a 9,000 square foot
house. I just don’t want anymore confusion.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Is that all the correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant or Mr. Stewart? If not, before we get to a
motion, I do believe we have to do a Short Environmental Assessment Form.
MR. GORALSKI-Actually, we went over that with Jeff Friedland before he left, and he pointed
out a section of the SEQR Reg’s that says that an Area Variance for a single family dwelling is a
Type II Action. So, you do not have to do SEQR.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you, John. Are there any more questions?
MR. HAYES-I have one question, which is really for the members of the Board that were here.
Mr. Stewart has indicated that comments by the neighbors, in large part, were positive for the
original application. Is that an accurate depiction?
MR. KARPELES-I don’t remember any negative, other than they were worried about the septic
tank, where it was going, as far as wetland was concerned.
MR. HAYES-So you would say that was true, then?
MR. KARPELES-Yes.
MR. STEWART-And one last point on that connection. The angle of the house, the two wings of
the house are angled. That was done as a promise to, and at the specific request of the Young
family who own property behind there. By angling that wing, their house looks north down the
Bay toward the main lake, and we could improve their view by angling those, particularly the wing
to the top of the diagram. That was the one in question, and I remember they thanked us for that,
and that was made part of our approval at their request.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I just want to go over the lot area, we’ve got that. Lot width, 150. We’ve
got that. Setback from side, okay, okay. Shoreline’s no problem. The permeability is 65% or
more?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Building, principal height, we’re going to take care of that. Detached
accessory not over 16. What about the boat storage, is that over 16? That’s an accessory
building.
MR. ROUND-It’s not in front of you tonight.
MR. GORALSKI-I don’t know. I haven’t seen the plans for the boat storage building.
MR. THOMAS-It’s on the print there. I want to cover all the bases here. All right. The
important thing here, the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. GORALSKI-It meets the Floor Area Ratio requirement.
MR. THOMAS-Of 22%.
MR. GORALSKI-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the lot size, we’re in a WR-1 Acre. Okay. So all we need is the 28
feet, from 33, and two principal structures on a 1.9 acre lot. Are there any more questions for the
applicant, I’ll ask the Board members one more time. If not, I’ll entertain a motion. We’ll talk
about it. Bob down at the end?
MR. MC NALLY-My feeling is fairly straightforward on the earlier application with respect to the
appeal. I think it would be a great benefit to the applicant to allow them to construct a second
dwelling on a one point acre parcel of land. It’s a diminitive change, it would either be two acres
or 1.9 acres. I don’t see it as any substantial difference. The same thing goes with the height of
the structure. It seems to me that they’re asking for a 12 by 15, approximately, area, at 33 above,
up to 33 feet, which is minimal when you consider where they planned on it and designed it, with
the expectation that their earlier variance would allow them to do this. The property looks like it’s
going to be conforming to the kind of structures you want in the area. It’s certainly a lot better
than what was there. I don’t have a problem with this at all.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I’m not going to belabor it with more flowery words. Mr. McNally summed it up
pretty succinctly. I’m in favor of the project.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Yes. I agree with Mr. Stewart’s points, in particular I think it’s a balancing test,
and I think the history of the property has to be considered. I think that this was a major clean up
effort. I think as far as the neighborhood or effects on the community, I try to put myself as if I
lived next door, I think it’s a tremendous project. The construction, the materials, everything are
exemplary. I mean, I would be over the helping them lay the slate myself. So I think it’s a great
project and I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree. I like the last one better, but I think this one is pretty good. I
think it’s a big improvement. I’ve got one question. Where is the garage?
MR. ROUND-It’s on the rear.
MR. KARPELES-It’s on the rear. Yes. I have no big objection to it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, at the risk of being a little bit inconsistent, I will say I do think it’s a big
improvement over what was there, because I saw what was there at the time, that little green
cottage and the others, and the fact that the right-of-way is removed. I still have a problem with
two buildings on less than two acres, even though it’s 1.9 and that extra, that one tenth of an acre
shouldn’t be considered substantial. It is to me, but the crux of the matter, as far as I’m concerned
is the Staff comments themselves where the applicant was granted a variance for the same or
similar relief in 1995, and I do think when a Town Board or a Zoning Board or a Planning Board
hands down a verdict or whatever you want to address it as, the applicant should be able to rely on
that, and it would be unfair and capricious to change in mid stream, particularly with the amount
of money that was spent. So I will vote for it, particularly for that reason.
MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members that this is a very nice project. It’s a well
thought out project. It’s taken two years to think it out. I have no problem whatsoever with it.
Would someone like to make a motion addressing all the sections of the Ordinance from which
we’re giving relief?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1997 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
Brayton Lane, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes construction of a second principal building
on 1.9 acre parcel of land. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from Section 179-12, 179-
16A, and 179-16F, all of which are involved with constructing a second single family dwelling
where Statute requires only one constructed unit per acre, regardless of lot size, and, Two, he
requires relief from Section 179-16F, as it pertains to height restriction of 28 feet. The applicant
proposes construction of a portion of the house at 33 feet. I believe a total area of approximately
160 square feet. So the specific relief that’s being requested in that regard is for 5 feet of height
restriction. Concerning the criteria for an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant
would be allowed to construct a second dwelling on the 1.9 acre parcel of land. Based on the
nature of the property, the lot configurations and the conditions existing prior to the purchase of the
lot, the feasible alternatives were limited in this case. The applicant is not asking for relief from
lake setback or side yard setback. So I believe in the cumulative sense, the relief is insubstantial,
and I don’t believe that the difficulty is self-created, based on, again, the history of the number of
parcels that were combined, and the whole idea behind the project.
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. CANTANUCCI-Thank you very much.
MR. STEWART-Until you’re better paid, we thank you.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Thomas, under your last item “Other Business”.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Other business, Mr. Salvador. We have some more business before the
Board. So I’d like to get this rolling here. Mr. Salvador has a question or a comment.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Thomas, I sent the record officer of the Town a letter this week, and a
copy to yourself.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did.
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to ask you, and I will after I receive a copy, or an answer to my
letter, which I’m expecting in the next day or two. I would next ask you by what action this Board
took to transfer its powers to make those decisions, or to affect that agreement? How did you pass
this on to Mr. Goralski?
MR. THOMAS-How did I pass that on to Mr. Goralski?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-I did not.
MR. SALVADOR-You did not. Do you think you should?
MR. THOMAS-No, that determination went to the Warren County Planning Board.
MR. SALVADOR-They make the determination as to whether or not?
MR. THOMAS-No, I take that back. You’re right. Mr. Goralski makes that determination.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I’m questioning his authority to do that, since this Board, the Planning
Board, and the Town Board entered into the agreements with the Warren County Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-I ask how do you transfer your authority under this agreement to Mr. Goralski?
How have you done that?
MR. THOMAS-I didn’t transfer it to Mr. Goralski. I can’t say “I”. “We” transferred it to the
Zoning Administrator, whoever it is at the time. In the past it was Mr. Martin.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the Zoning Administrator. Excuse me. I happened to use the name
because he’s in that position now. Again, it’s been left that these three Town entities have to make
a determination that a project is of a very minor type, and first of all, I would ask you, how did this
Board agree to enter into that agreement? Did you vote?
MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember.
MR. KARPELES-What are we talking about?
MR. SALVADOR-I copied your Chairman.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, obviously, we’re not.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. THOMAS-I didn’t know this conversation was coming up or I would have had it printed for
all the members, but I will ask Mr. Round to make copies and send it out to all the members.
MR. SALVADOR-If I could, or Mr. Goralski can better explain.
MR. MC NALLY-This was not on the agenda, was it?
MR. THOMAS-Well, this is under “other business”.
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Salvador made a Freedom of Information request recently regarding the fact
that when we receive the applications in our office, we determine whether or not they are applicable
to Warren County and review by the Warren County, subject to review by the Warren County
Planning Board. You have, the Zoning Board of Appeals, I believe it was a year ago, entered into
an agreement, as did the Planning Board and the Town Board, with the Warren County Planning
Board that limited what applications would be sent to the Warren County Planning Board so that
actually less applications than the State Statute requires actually get referred to the Warren County
Planning Board, and Mr. Salvador is questioning how I got the authority to make the determination
of what gets sent to the Warren County Planning Board, and if you’d like, I can give you my view
of the situation. My view of the situation is that, historically, at least since I’ve been around in
1988, the Staff has made the determination for the Board as to what is applicable and what should
be sent to Warren County, and that’s the way it has historically been done, and we haven’t changed
that in any way by entering into this agreement with Warren County regarding what does and does
not get sent there.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, this agreement talks about very minor projects. It doesn’t talk about
minor projects. It talks about very minor projects. I mean, if the words have any meaning, what
you’re faced with here, and what brought this to my attention is this Morse project was determined
to be in this category, a very minor project.
MR. THOMAS-Which one is Morse?
MR. SALVADOR-Assembly Point.
MR. MC NALLY-It never went to the County Planning Board?
MR. THOMAS-Okay, Morse.
MR. GORALSKI-Would you like to know why it didn’t go to the County Planning Board?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m just trying to figure out what he’s saying first. You’re just saying that it
came to your attention that it really should have gone to the County Planning Board?
MR. SALVADOR-I was wondering what the County position was on this project was that’s right
on the lake. It needs five variances, or maybe six depending on how you look at it, and they said
they didn’t review it. That’s when I started to wonder why and question why, and stumbled upon
this agreement. As to whether or not the three Boards want to enter into this agreement with the
County is quite another issue. How do you discharge your responsibility to make determinations
under this agreement? This is my question. Can you pass on your authority in this regard? Can
the Planning Board pass on its authority, and can the Town Board pass on its authority?
MR. THOMAS-I believe on the bottom of a variance form, both Use and Area, it says, is this
project within 500 feet of a State, County, highway, drainage area, or something like that, and I
think if it’s not within that 500 feet, it is not required to go before Warren County Planning Board.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. That’s the State Statute. Then the agreement that the Zoning Board and
Planning Board and the Town Board entered into with Warren County states that any residential
project that is not within 20 feet of a right-of-way or municipal boundary and all those things does
not have to go to Warren County Planning Board. The structure is not within 20 feet of the lake.
It’s not within 20 feet of a County road or State road or municipal boundary. That’s why it wasn’t
sent.
MR. SALVADOR-But it’s always been interpreted that something on the lake went to the County.
It’s the project. The project is not the structure alone. It’s the whole lot. Everything that’s done
on that parcel of land is a part of the project, and if that land borders the lake, that land borders a
public right-of-way, the navigable waters of the State.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Salvador has procedural remedies that he feels that I made the wrong
determination, he’s certainly welcome to pursue those.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’m not going any further with this, because.
MR. SALVADOR-No. I’m using it as an example of how we go from a seeming innocent, save
work kind of approach to a 14,000 square foot residential dwelling on the lake as a very minor
project. I mean, I’d like to get the same treatment some day. That’s all I’m saying. You’re setting
the standards here.
MR. THOMAS-You bring in the project and we’ll make the determination.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Zoning Administrator will make the determination as to where to go.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, after I receive his answer to my first FOIL request, I will address
a letter to you, and the other three Boards as well. I think you have to take some overt action to
pass on this authority, if you can. If you can. You have authority to enter into the agreement. I
don’t deny that, but that you can pass on this authority to someone else without making a case by
case determination within the Board and vote, I’m not sure, but we’ll find out.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll find out one way or another.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. Did everybody have a chance to read the notes? We might
as well do them, and there’s only three sets.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 27, 1997: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1997
, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
September 17, 1997: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles:
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
September 24, 1997: NONE
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/12/97)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
th
Duly adopted this 12 day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer,
Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
38