2000-02-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
CHARLES ABBATE
ROBERT MC NALLY
ALLAN BRYANT
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
NORMAN HIMES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2000 JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR
APPELLANT IS APPEALING SECTION 179-9B OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH LOCATION OF A DISTRICT
BOUNDARY FOR TAX MAP PARCELS; 4-1-9 AND 4-1-11 IN A WR-1A ZONE.
JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-What do we want to read in this?
MR. HAYES-I think we want to read the tabling motion, initially, and then go right to the, I think
we’ll go to Chris’ letter. Would that be the best way to go?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following
request at the below stated meeting, and has resolved the following. Motion to Table Notice of
Appeal No. 1-2000 John, Jr. & Kathleen Salvador, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Until we have had sufficient time to study the materials
submitted in defense of the applicant’s position, and to do the necessary research to corroborate the
applicant’s statements. We will use due diligence to pursue this matter and render a decision, one
that the Town boundaries have not been adequately mapped or, in our opinion, have been adequately
mapped within 30 days. Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2000, by the following vote: AYES:
th
Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty”
MR. BROWN-I think there’s an updated version of the resolution. The wording is changed a little
bit.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Yes. There’s an asterisk inserted in the motion says, “Zoning District
boundaries with regards to Tax Map parcels 4-1-9 and 4-1-11. Clarification noted within resolution
by C. Brown, Code Compliance Officer, with respect to the tabled motion introduced and voted on
by the Zoning Board of Appeals”.
MR. BROWN-Okay, just so you have the updated file.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Christopher
Round, Zoning Administrator, dated January 19, 2000, regarding Notice of Appeal No. 1-2000,
Salvador, “Limits of zoning district on tax parcels 4-1-9 & 4-1-11. The zoning district boundaries
are identified on the Town “Zoning Map” – a single sheet depiction of the Town of Queensbury
commonly available through the Town Clerk’s office. The district boundaries are more clearly
represented on a series of tax maps located in the planning office. This set of maps takes precedence
over all other “zoning maps” when determining district boundaries (§ 179-9). The zoning map
identifies tax parcels 4-1-9 & 4-1-11 as within the WR-1A zone. The zoning map does not delineate
the northern limits of the WR-1A zone. The appellant seeks clarification on the northern limits. The
Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with the determination of district boundaries when requested or
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
other means of interpretation are inadequate as defined in § 179 B. Our interpretation is the
northern limit of the WR-1A zone, in the Dunham’s Bay area, is the Town boundary line or the
northern limits of the tax parcels in question.”
MR. HAYES-What I’d like to do at this time is we tabled the motion, in the prior month, to give
everybody a chance to get comfortable and research the materials provided by Mr. Salvador. We
only have five members tonight. So I want to, before we proceed, I’d like to make sure that there’s a
sufficient, everybody’s comfortable with their command of the facts at issue. If not, we’ll table it
again until next month for a full Board. I guess I’d just like to take a quick informal poll. Are you
ready to proceed? There’s only five of us now. So that’s kind of an important issue.
MR. BRYANT-I’m still not comfortable.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m comfortable.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. Salvador, what would you like to do, then? We have four people that feel
like they’re comfortable with the information that you provided.
MR. SALVADOR-I would hope all of you are comfortable.
MR. HAYES-Well, that was the reason for the tabling motion. So I wanted to be consistent.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, are there any questions as a result of your review of the material?
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’ve got a procedure (lost words). So we’ll follow the Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t going to a tabling motion
before we had Mr. Salvador spend his time or ours. So, go ahead, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I had a statement here I was going to read, but I’d like to come back to
Chris Round’s. I mean, there’s one way to interpret this. Our interpretation is the northern limit of
the WR-1A zone in the Dunham’s Bay area is the Town boundary line. That’s all I was arguing. The
point is, it’s not on the map. That’s the problem. It’s not properly mapped. So, with that, I would.
MR. HAYES-We’re just going to stipulate that?
MR. MC NALLY-No, don’t stipulate to anything.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right.
MR. SALVADOR-We are here this evening as a result of your motion to table our Appeal No. 1-
2000, which was first heard on January 19, 2000. Our appeal, pursuant to Section 179-9B of Chapter
179 of the Town Code lays claim to there being inaccuracies and uncertainties in the location of the
Zoning District boundaries affecting not only our lands along the shoreline of Lake George, but also
others who’s lands border the Town boundary. We were able to show that because of these
inaccuracies and uncertainties, some zoning districts within the Town do not close. Those zoning
districts within the Town that should extend to the Town boundary do not. Some land area within
the Town boundaries is not zoned, and some land area within the Town boundaries is not shown on
the tax maps. We were also able to show that, in fact, there is no good reason for these uncertainties,
since the boundary of these zoning districts in question, which coincides with the Town boundary,
was mapped as recently as 1966, and although it’s very faded, that is the map, the DEC map, that
identifies the 317.74. The Board elected to table our appeal in order to better familiarize themselves
with some of the evidence we’ve produced in this matter. It is my understanding that since your
January 19 ZBA meeting, you have had an opportunity examine the historical documentation and
th
maps we used to support our arguments. We trust that you have assimilated sufficient of these data
to make a finding that inaccuracies exist in certain zoning district boundaries, and that this Board, as
empowered by Section 179-9B, can correct these inaccuracies by a declaration as to where the zoning
district boundary should be located. While you have familiarized yourselves with the data submitted,
and because this problem is precipitated from the fact that the underlying tax section maps are in
error, I have done the following since January 19. I’ve made a presentation to the Warren County
th
Supervisor's Committee on Real Property Tax Services with copies to our two hour part time Town
Assessor. I’ve written a letter to the Chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, with
copies to each of the Supervisors, and I’ve communicated with the State Office of Real Property
Services, seeking enforcement of their regulations. Now this has little to do with this Board. I just
wanted to tell you what I’ve been doing. The underlying problem we have in this Town is that the
Town elects to utilize the tax maps that are produced by the County as the underlying document for
their zoning mapping, and it’s these tax maps that are in error. They are in error, and I’ve brought
that to the proper authority’s attention. I understand it’s very convenient for the Town to use these
tax maps for their zoning maps. The work is already done, and zoning is sort of a function of the
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
property ownership and that sort of thing. However, the accuracy in this regard is not sufficient for
our purposes. So much for tax maps. We are all experiencing the dilemma in which we find
ourselves, when our local government’s actions are inconsistent with the people’s safeguards
contained in the Federal and New York State Constitutions. As a citizen of the State of New York,
our rights are protected by the New York State Constitution. In this Article I in the Bill of Rights,
we read here, “No member of the State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or
privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land”, and Section Seven of the Bill
of Rights says, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Section Fourteen of the Bill of Rights says that “Such actions of the legislature of the State or parts
there of as are repugnant to this Constitution are hereby abrogated.” We also have, in the U.S.
Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, “No person shall be deprived or life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.” The 14 Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1, “No State shall make or
th
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States,
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor deny
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. This is the turning point of this
whole argument, that the zoning district boundaries are not equitably designed, laid out. They’re not
accurately laid out, and therefore they’re not equitable, and therefore, we don’t have the equal
protection of the law, in our particular case. If you fail to re-locate the zoning district boundary
along the shore of Lake George at 317.74 feet above mean sea level, we will be continued to be
denied our property with due process. You will be taking our property without just compensation,
and at the same time denying us equal protection of the law. I think in so many words Chris Round
is, in his memo, he says, “Our interpretation is the northern limit of the WR-1A zone, in the
Dunham’s Bay area, is the Town boundary line or the northern limits of tax parcels in question.” It’s
not only the tax parcels in question, it’s all tax parcels.
MR. MC NALLY-But you only own, as I understand it, tax parcels 4-1-9 & 4-1-11?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-Now, if all of these tax parcels are not, if the Town boundary does not define the
limits of each of these tax parcels bordering the lake in an equitable fashion, we are being denied
equal protection of the law. We’re being treated differently from others. That’s our point here. So I
believe it is incumbent upon this Board to declare the Town boundary at 317.74 above mean sea
level as has been statutorily established by the New York State Legislature.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I believe we left the public hearing open the last time, but at this time, is there
anybody that would like to come forward and speak in favor of the Appeal? Anyone speaking
against the appeal?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time for us to talk about it, and we’ll start with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I think that Mr. Salvador is astute enough to realize that there is a problem with
the northern boundary of the zoning district. He’s suggested a solution which has some attraction to
it, but we’re here, I think sitting as a quasi judicial body. We’ve got a discretion, and if the Zoning
Code doesn’t describe accurately the northern boundary, then we have the discretion to choose what
that northern boundary is. I start from the assumption that the Zoning Code was intended to
include all the parcels in the Town. Mr. Salvador mentions that at the very beginning of his
arguments. It’s hard for me to believe the Town Board ever intended that a parcel would not be
zoned, or would have no zoning whatsoever. If you look at 179-11, it says that basically all the area
of the Town is falling within certain zoning districts, and I think that, while Mr. Salvador’s argument
about the entire boundary of the zone being uncertain, you really only have standing with respect to
your parcels. So those would be the parcels, if I’m not mistaken, which are related to lots 11 and 12
in the French Mountain tract, which are at least in part currently tax map numbers 4-1-9 and 4-1-11.
So that’s really the boundary that we’re confronted with tonight. You have a property interest or at
least a real interest in seeing what that boundary is.
MR. SALVADOR-Those boundaries on that tax map are not accurate with regard to our two tax
parcels. They are not accurate.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand that the Crown Lands were ceded to the people of New York in
1776, but I think that at that time there’s no question that the two tracts that Mr. Salvador owns were
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
not part of that conveyance. In other words, the Crown didn’t own the two parcels, and to the
extent it was privately conveyed in the early 1800’s, they’re still in Mr. Salvador’s ownership.
MR. SALVADOR-The State of New York.
MR. MC NALLY-Owns the bed of the lake, except as it’s otherwise owned by private property
owners, is what I meant to say. Is that fair to say?
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me again?
MR. MC NALLY-The State of New York owns the bed of Lake George, except for that portion
which is conveyed privately and owned by private citizens.
MR. SALVADOR-There is a distinction between State ownership and State trust. There is a
distinction. The State does not own the bed of Lake George. The State holds the bed of Lake
George in public trust.
MR. MC NALLY-For the people of the State of New York.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-I think I see your distinction, but the portion of your parcels which are
underwater, you own.
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. MC NALLY-Privately owned. It’s not owned by the State, in trust or otherwise. I think the
mean low water mark isn’t defined as the Town boundary anywhere, and you’re asking us to do that,
essentially. The mean low water mark is an artifice, which from the papers that I’ve read that were
submitted by you, was selected for the purpose of Section 15-A of the Public Lands Law, which was
designed to define a point beyond which property owners could not fill the water, and thereby
appropriate the State lands. So that boundary was for a specific purpose, not for zoning and not for
Town boundary necessarily, either. I don’t think there’s anything that requires our use of the mean
low water mark as the boundary to the zoning district. As far as I know, historically, any land, all
right, to the line which is north 80 degrees east, which is your northern boundary portion, has always
been in with the Town of Queensbury, and it’s only because the lake dam was built that the lands
were submerged, but historically it was always part of the Town, and nothing in 1859, when the
defined the boundaries of the Town of Queensbury indicated what was the east shore of Lake
George. I don’t think I’m required to choose the mean high water mark as the definition. I can’t
sensibly say that a 1963 or 1966 definition of the mean high water mark was ever intended in 1859,
when they defined the east boundary as being the boundary of the Town of Queensbury as being
intended to have been used. There’s some sense, I think, to choose a fixed elevation, but I think
that’s the decision of the State. I’m satisfied that the northern boundary of the taxing district with
respect to these two parcels would be the northern boundary of the zoning district, WR-1A, and
that’s how I would have to vote.
MR. SALVADOR-May I? Did you want to hear from the others first?
MR. HAYES-Sure. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The last time we met, Mr. Salvador, we had a rather lively discussion as I
recall, but I did read all of your historical research. I found it quite interesting, but I want to get
something straight. Would I be correct in stating that you are requesting this Board to make a
determination as to inaccuracy of the northern most zoning district of the Town’s WR-3A and WR-
1A zoning district of Lake George? Am I correct?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I certainly concur with you that there should be no uncertainties as to
firmly incorporated boundaries. Every citizen has an inherent right to know where a parcel of land
begins and where a parcel of land ends. This unquestionably would hold true for property owners,
particularly for those whose lands may be effected. That goes without saying. Now based on what I
have been able to conclude, it appears that the zoning district boundary of the Town’s WR-3A and
WR-1A on Lake George are imprecise. Beyond that, based on your brief submitted to the Board and
subject to any factual contradiction, it would appear that the correct zoning district boundaries for
the Town’s WR-1A and WR-3A zones are, as you imply, coincident with 317.74 feet MSL, the shore
of Lake George and Town boundary. It would also appear, subject to any factual contradiction, that
WR-1A and WR-3A zones on Lake George have a shared boundary of, as you suggested, 317.74 feet.
Mr. Round, the Zoning Administrator, concludes that the northern limit of WR-1A zone in the
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
Dunham’s Bay is the Town boundary line or the northern limits of tax parcels in question. Mr.
Round further states that the ZBA is charged with determination of district boundaries when
requested, and you have so requested. It would appear, subject to, again, factual contradiction, that
the Town boundaries with regard to Tax Map 4-1-9 and 4-1-11 have not been accurately mapped.
As such, Mr. Salvador, I support your request that this Board make the determination as to fact, that
the correct zoning district boundaries for the Town WR-3A and WR-1A zones are coincident with
317.74 feet, the shore of Lake George and the Town boundary. As a final note, a congratulations on
the time that both you and your wife have spent on the research material. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Salvador, I’m still not completely clear about this whole brief. Let me just ask
you a question. You don’t agree with the County Tax Map, as far as the boundaries are concerned?
Is that what the basis of that?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Because here in the zoning map, it’s necessary to look at the tax map to determine.
MR. SALVADOR-If I may. The Town makes a serious mistake in using the County Tax Maps as
their zoning district mapping. It is clear in the law the tax maps are prepared for one purpose only,
to identify tax parcel numbers and allow an Assessor to assign a value to that parcel of land. That’s
the only purpose they’re prepared for. The Town finds it very convenient to take these maps and to
overlay on top of it their zoning districts. They’re just not accurate enough in this regard for that
purpose.
MR. BRYANT-I think they do that also for identification purposes, because not every single piece of
property in the Town of Queensbury is shown on the zoning map. It’s not divided into parcels. It’s
just divided into big zoned areas. So I think it’s necessary to have a smaller map that they can relate
to, but your question really is with the County Tax Map and the northern boundary of the property.
Is it not?
MR. SALVADOR-That is a side issue. As I say, I’m taking that up in another arena. I’m pursuing
that problem, but it’s not something that you folks can make a determination on. The County is
charged with making tax maps in accordance with State regulations, and the State regulations state
that they must map and they must designate municipal boundaries. They haven’t done it. They
haven’t done it correctly, and that I am pursuing in another venue.
MR. BRYANT-Well, haven’t done it and haven’t done it correctly are two different. I kind of
concur with Mr. McNally that the boundaries are noted, and that’s where I stand.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I have to concur with Mr. McNally as well. I can agree and go along with the
criteria that he set down for establishing the northern boundary of the zoning district, and I guess
that’s about all I’ve got to say on it.
MR. HAYES-So you’re against the appeal then. Okay. As I read through your brief, again, Mr.
Salvador, I agree that it was extremely well prepared, and actually one of my first cases on the Zoning
Board was to hear a different version of this several years ago. In this particular case, you make a
classic due process argument as to the determination that’s involved, and I have to say that, while the
northern boundary, to me, I don’t think that’s really, I agree with the Zoning Administrator’s
determination as to that being the northern boundary of your property. I happen to agree with your
overall conclusion that the County Tax Map is inaccurate, versus the State designations as to the
boundary of Lake George. So in this particular case, I would vote in favor of the appeal, in that
regard, but being that you need four votes, and you have two, as I do my informal poll, I would ask
you, would you like to proceed, table?
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to comment on Mr. McNally’s presentation.
MR. HAYES-That’ll be fine.
MR. SALVADOR-At the January 19 meeting, I pointed out some of the legislative history of the
th
1963 enactment. There was a purpose for the 1963 enactment. It wasn’t for constructing crib docks
on Lake George. The purpose was to establish the mean low water mark of Lake George. There
was a scientific undertaking at that time to establish that. They did a 40 year survey. It was
important to establish it because people were encroaching on the public lands with their boat docks
and their boathouses, and there was no way to enforce and to levy fines for such encroachment.
You’re supposed to have an easement to occupy somebody else’s land, and we have that program in
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
place today. We don’t pay any attention to it, but we have it in place, but that was the sole purpose
of the 1963 legislation, and it took some six years, almost 10 years to finish the project. The date on
this revision is 1966, and they started it in 1956, with a legislative enactment authorizing the
Conservation Department at the time to map the shoreline of Lake George, and they did it. So, you
know, I know the way Section 15-A is written and all, and you’ve got to get way down to the last
paragraph to kind of interpret is, but all of the correspondence and comments by the various
Departments of the Government talks about the importance of this, of establishing this line, so that
the proper units of government can get on to their own jurisdiction. That was the purpose.
MR. BRYANT-Why didn’t those units of government jump on the band wagon and take that
scientific study and do something with it?
MR. SALVADOR-They are. Locally, we’re the only units of government that don’t recognize it.
MR. MC NALLY-It wasn’t mandated by the State. It’s an option that people had to choose.
MR. SALVADOR-Mandated? It’s quite clear, 317.74, I mean, that’s not a.
MR. MC NALLY-For purposes of Public Land Law Section 15-A, which prohibits filling along the
lakeshore. That’s a specific purpose.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, you own the bottom of Dunham’s Bay, you own land out into the lake. If
this is the lake, you own land out to there.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You would like us to say the zoning goes to the shore, but not to your property
line.
MR. SALVADOR-No, sir. I’m talking about the Town boundary.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m talking about the zoning boundary. We can’t decide Town boundaries.
MR. SALVADOR-You can’t zone outside of your jurisdiction.
MR. MC NALLY-The County law is the only one that allows you to bring a judicial proceeding in
order to contest a Town boundary. The Town boundary, the zoning boundary is coordinate, I’m
saying, with your property, even though it’s in the lake.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not arguing that.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that what you’re ask for, where does the zoning boundary end?
MR. HAYES-As to the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-He’s not arguing, though, that it goes to there. That’s the only thing we’re in
charge to hear. We’re not here to decide what the Town boundary is. That’s not our job. We don’t
have the jurisdiction.
MR. SALVADOR-No, and I’m not asking you to determine the Town boundary. I’m asking you for
a determination that the Town’s zoning district boundary map is inaccurate and has to be corrected,
and the simple way to do it is a declaration on your part that the limits of the zoning district
boundary along the lake are 317.74, which happened to be coincident with, okay, the Town
boundary, the public lands.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think there’s any dispute that the northern boundary has to be defined, and
that’s what I’m trying to do, and everyone here is trying to do. We disagree where you want to define
it, at the shore or at your property line.
MR. SALVADOR-Our property continues, that segment of park continues to the shore on the side.
MR. MC NALLY-Right, it’s north 80 degrees, east, right?
MR. SALVADOR-That line, yes. That line continues to the west shore, and the other parcel
continues to the east shore, and the intersection of that line with 317.74 is the identification of our
property.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NALLY-All you’re saying is that some people don’t own land under the water, to the shore.
You own land into the water by grant of deed.
MR. SALVADOR-All people who own lakefront property on Lake George own under water land,
down to 317.74.
MR. HAYES-Not all, but it would certainly be some. Because some people’s boundary is going to
be correct by accident, essentially, by where the lake lies, right?
MR. SALVADOR-If they had a vertical natural wall where 320.2 is here and 317.74 is here, it would
have to be perfectly vertical, then those lines are coincident, yes. Otherwise, there’s a section of land
that everyone, everyone owns under water land, and the point I make is that it is going untaxed and it
is going unzoned.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, by deciding that boundary extends to there, it’s going to be zoned.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s the same zone as your shoreline.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-It’s definitional.
MR. SALVADOR-If my neighbors who own under water land, okay, that is presently not on the tax
map, means it’s not being taxed, that is presently not on the zoning map, means it’s not being zoned,
okay, if they all of a sudden had their under water land incorporated in their tax parcel, and it was
properly taxed and zoned, then I would be being treated equally under the law. That’s all I’m saying.
I pay taxes on my under water land, and I’m not complaining about it. It’s our property, and we’re
obligated to pay taxes on it. No dispute.
MR. MC NALLY-But we’re not here as a civil rights tribunal to decide what is equitable for you as
compared to someone else. The rules should be applied across the board. To the extent you have
other alternatives, is suing the Town or as you please. We’re here just to decide what the boundary is
on your two parcels.
MR. SALVADOR-Please, Mr. McNally, in your determination, you’ve got to protect my civil rights.
MR. MC NALLY-I have to recognize that you have civil rights, and I’ll certainly abide by them, but
the issue in front of us is what the zoning boundary is, and to the extent we decide that it’s there, if
someone else came to us, next door neighbor to you, and we decided differently, it would be a
different question, but we haven’t, and I think I would recommend we have a uniform treatment
across the entire Bay, but that’s not the issue in front of us. The appeal is just the two parcels.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and the limits of those two parcels as they intersect the shore on the east and
west side, they are inaccurate.
MR. HAYES-As to the northern boundary.
MR. SALVADOR-Because it extends to 320.2 on the one side, 320.2 on the other. It should only
extend to 317.74.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see it. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Would you like to table your motion, Mr. Salvador, at this time, or withdraw?
MR. SALVADOR-What are the benefits of tabling my motion?
MR. HAYES-There would be two more members to possibly vote in favor.
MR. SALVADOR-One of them Mr. Stone. What I would like to do is I think I’d like to have you
take a little closer look at this issue, and bring in to focus the areas of our tax parcels that I’m talking
about, and bear this in mind. If I were to accept the 320.2 at the extremities of our parcels, I will be
gaining land, my neighbor’s land. Okay. I will be gaining land. They won’t be taking it from me.
They’ll be taking it from my neighbors. So it is an important issue, but I’ll tell you what, I’ll agree to
tabling, and please, Mr. McNally, I would appreciate it if you would take a little closer look at that
1963 legislation. There was a purpose to it. There was confusion at that time, and that was an effort
to sort it out. The lake level had been raised some four feet, due to the construction of the dams at
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
Ticonderoga. Nobody knew where who’s land was, what was the definition of the Shore, Capital
“S”, not shoreline, small “S”.
MR. MC NALLY-I promise you I will look at that.
MR. SALVADOR-The word Shore, Capital “S”, has a legal meaning, has a legal meaning, in our law.
Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-I guess, is there a motion from someone?
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2000 JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN
SALVADOR, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
McNulty:
In view of the fact that we do not have a consensus on our Board sufficient to make a determination
as to what the northern zoning district boundary is, for that zone and those two parcels (4-1-11 & 4-
1-9) one way or the other.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Okay. The motion is tabled. I guess, do I make a recommendation that we put that on
next month’s zoning agenda? Are you available, Mr. Salvador, next month?
MR. SALVADOR-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Very well.
MR. BROWN-Are you going to table it to the meeting of the 15 of March?
th
MR. HAYES-That would be fine.
MR. BROWN-The first meeting in March.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2000 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA FRED & LINDA MC KINNEY
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 23 MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 420 SQ. FT. SUN DECK ON A PRE-EXISTING
DOCK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 13-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO.
13-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
FRED MC KINNEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2000, Fred & Linda McKinney, Meeting Date: February 16,
2000 “Project Location: 23 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 494 sf sundeck above an existing dock and seeks setback relief as well as relief for
the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief
from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, §
179-60. Further, since the existing structure does not comply with the current setback requirements,
the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per § 179-79.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize an additional outdoor
lakeside recreational area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
the dock is pre-existing, however, a smaller deck may be considered. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as
moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): BP 99-033 c/o issued 4/26/99 septic alteration BP 98-692 c/o issued 10/14/99 boat
storage building Site Plan Review 13-2000 – pending – construction of a 494 sf sundeck Staff
comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed sundeck appears to be consistent with neighboring residential development and the
requested relief is modest. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Mr. McKinney.
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes.
MR. HAYES-You’re on.
MR. MC KINNEY-Well, we’re requesting to replace the existing canopy steel frame structure with
the proposed wood deck/sundeck that would essentially provide coverage for our boat, and it would
encompass the open area between the two docks. The docks have been pre-existing for probably 15,
18 years. We purchased the property four years ago, and so we, obviously, inherited the docks in the
location they are now. They have been re-built, and we’re just asking for a four foot relief for the
side setback.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay.
That’s it?
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay, at this time I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here speaking in
favor of the application? Is anyone here to speak opposed to the application? Okay. I’ll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I’m sorry. Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McKinney, how are you this evening?
MR. MC KINNEY-Fine.
MR. ABBATE-Good. You’re requesting the construction of a 494 square foot sundeck?
MR. MC KINNEY-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and from what I’ve been able to determine, that this is not inconsistent with a
number of your neighbors?
MR. MC KINNEY-This is a typical boathouse or sundeck that lines, you know, the shores of Lake
George. This is an open boat deck with a sundeck or open structure with a sundeck on top,
providing shelter for the boat.
MR. ABBATE-And, of course, this dock is pre-existing.
MR. MC KINNEY-Exactly.
MR. ABBATE-And you’re just attempting to make yourself a 494 square foot sundeck.
MR. MC KINNEY-What we’re actually trying to do is to replace the canopy that we have there now
with a permanent structure, being the sun deck.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. ABBATE-I just wanted to clear it up. I don’t have any problems with it. I just wanted to make
sure. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NULTY-The height of the new proposed deck, is that going to be about the same height as
the top of your current canopy?
MR. MC KINNEY-Exactly. Yes, right within the same parameters.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. McKinney, you were telling me this morning that your deck and dock actually
extends into the lake at an angle to your property line?
MR. MC KINNEY-It favors, our dock, the way it extends into the lake, it extends at a bit of an angle
to the south, where our property line would project out a little to the north. So it’s actually the back
shoreline corner that would be encroaching the most.
MR. MC NALLY-So the only relief you’re really requesting is with respect to the corner of the dock
and the boathouse which would be on the shore, looking out onto the lake, on the right hand
corner.
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes, actually the right hand side. I don’t know exactly to the foot how far the
outer part would be on the encroachment, but this survey map was the survey which is included,.
Was the survey map that we had completed prior to purchasing, and you can see the sideline
projecting at one angle and then of course the dock projecting at a bit of an angle to the left.
MR. HAYES-This is going to be like natural materials, like treated lumber, not steel?
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes, all natural, yes, and favorably done to certainly enhance the aesthetics of the
lake and the neighborhood.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HAYES-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Charles?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McKinney, because of the fact that what you are requesting is not
inconsistent with other individuals who own shore property, I have no problems with it. I think your
request is reasonable, and I think if your request is approved, I think the added construction will add
a little more décor to the property. Would you agree?
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes, it would.
MR. ABBATE-And looking at the map here, you’re only talking about, you’re going to have a 30
inch high rail surrounding this thing for it.
MR. MC KINNEY-Yes, absolutely, and that’s Code, of course.
MR. ABBATE-Right, exactly. Okay. So, other than that, I have no other questions or comments.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. McKinney, your proposed structure is consistent with a number of docks in the
area. So I have also no problems with it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have a problem either. As it’s been noted, it seems to be consistent, what’s
proposed with what is existing on other docks, and it strikes me that it’s not going to have any more
interference with view or anything than the existing canopy does now. So I have no problem with it.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members. The relief requested is minimal. The only
relief they’re asking for is a side setback. The size and height dimensions and the fact that you can
build it is a given, consistent with other properties up and down the lake on either side of you, I
don’t have a problem with this at all.
MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members. As I visited the property, it’s a very nice piece
of property, but replacing the canopy seemed to be a natural conclusion to the property to me, as
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
well. I think the relief is minimal, and I think the impact on the neighborhood is basically
inconsequential because it’s consistent with what’s around. So, there’s no neighborhood opposition
here today, which of course we would consider, and like you said, I don’t believe this difficulty is
entirely self-created because you bought the property as is, with the canopy.
MR. MC KINNEY-Exactly.
MR. HAYES-So I would have no problem being in favor of this application, and therefore, I’d like
to ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2000 FRED & LINDA MC KINNEY,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
23 Mason Road. Mr. McKinney is proposing the construction of a sundeck of 490 sq. ft., and this is
going to be above an existing dock, and seeks setback relief as well as relief from the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. The relief required, Mr. McKinney requests four feet of relief from the 20
foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, Paragraph 179-
60, and further, since the existing structure does not comply with setback requirements, Mr.
McKinney is requesting relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure for Paragraph 179-
79. Benefit to the applicant: Mr. McKinney and his family and friends would be permitted, he
would be permitted to construct and utilize additional outdoor lakeside recreation, which would
probably be enjoyed by a number of people, his family as well as friends. Any feasible alternatives?
Well, it is a pre-existing structure. The problem is if there is an alternative, it would be a much
smaller deck, and I’m not so sure a smaller deck would be appropriate. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Four feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted
as moderate. The effects on the neighborhood, well, we didn’t have any objections this evening, and
it appears that there’s a minimal to moderate effect on the neighborhood that may be anticipated as a
result of this action, and is this difficulty self-created? Well, the difficulty may be interpreted as self-
created, but nonetheless, I recommend that we approve his request.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is passed.
MR. MC KINNEY-Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2000 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON
OWNER: MICHAEL CHRYS 115 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD (KNOX ROAD)
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THE MAXIMUM GARAGE SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.14 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION 179-16. 179-7
MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2000, Michael & Gail Dawson, Meeting Date: February 16,
2000 “Project Location: 115 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 440 sf single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback, height and
maximum garage size requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the
28 foot maximum height requirement as well as 33 feet of relief from the 120 foot average shoreline
setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Fifty feet is the minimum setback required or the
average setback of the houses on the two adjoining lots, whichever is greater. Further, a 1080 square
foot garage is proposed requiring 180 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable 900 square
feet for a private garage, per § 179-7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include a scaled down proposal, which may address setbacks, height and garage size.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The height relief and garage square
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
footage requests may appear to be modest to significant, however, the 33 feet of shoreline setback
relief may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The height and garage size difficulties may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed 34 foot tall structure may present a
significant visual impact on surrounding properties, however, the proposed 50+/- setback from the
driving surface of Assembly Point Road and the 87 foot shoreline setback should help mitigate the
adverse effects. Consideration may be given to additional vegetation between the proposed home
and Assembly Point Road. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could, just a clarification in the notes. The 4400 square feet is the
footprint of the house. The actual square footage is closer to 7800, first floor, second floor, and
garage.
MR. ABBATE-Closer to 7800?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Is that correct?
MR. DAWSON-You’re probably right, Craig.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Dawson, you’re on. Is there anything you’d like to add to your
application?
MR. DAWSON-Please. I don’t know what else I would add.
MRS. DAWSON-This is our first meeting in front of you. So we don’t really know what to do.
MR. HAYES-I guess at this point, do we have any questions for the applicants?
MR. ABBATE-I may have missed it, but I don’t see a request for the setback. Did I miss it here
somewhere in these notes?
MR. MC NALLY-There is no setback relief. It’s an average of the two properties on either side,
which is 120 feet. That’s what they’re looking for.
MR. HAYES-The setback relief is the average.
MR. BROWN-Not the minimum.
MR. MC NALLY-See the 50 feet, and the average of the two on either side.
MR. ABBATE-I see it. I understand. Thank you very much. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Bob, did you have a question?
MR. MC NALLY-You indicated that the roof and the height was going to be insignificant. Did you
bring with you any kind of a drawing that we can see that scale which would indicate which portion
of the roof is above the requisite amount?
MR. BROWN-Is there an elevation in the application?
MR. HAYES-There is an elevation, but there’s no depiction as to how.
MR. DAWSON-There’s an elevation drawing that we supplied.
MR. MC NALLY-Could you tell me generally where it’s going to be, or how much is it going to be
over the height requirement?
MR. HAYES-It’s not in my packet.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you know what part is going to be above the?
MR. DAWSON-The point right over the front.
MRS. DAWSON-The whole roof line is actually a couple of feet over, too.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a main roof line in the back, and then in the front you’ve got a peak.
Is it the peak that’s just within that?
MR. DAWSON-It’s the peak that’s just, it’s 32 feet, and the area behind it is approximately 30 feet,
10 inches.
MR. MC NALLY-So about 31 feet.
MR. DAWSON-Behind it. It’s 32’ 8 in front of it.
MR. MC NALLY-So the chimneys, of course, are above that all?
MR. DAWSON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Now there’s a third floor as well?
MRS. DAWSON-No.
MR. HAYES-Just a second floor?
MR. DAWSON-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Why was it necessary to have a roof behind? Was there anything about the design
that made it that way?
MR. DAWSON-Yes. The ground is so that we believe we don’t want to go into the ground a great
depth. We have done some digging on the property to find out what water tables might exist, high
water table, and we’d like to stay clear of the high water table, considerably. So we’re looking to
build somewhere, you know, not digging very deep, and it’s going to bring us to a crawl space,
minimal crawl space, and we’re trying to minimize that so we can have a good structure, and that
brings us to the heights with a good sloped roof. In the Northeast, I think we want to have that.
MR. MC NALLY-I see a lot of glass in the front. What kind of materials are you going to have other
than glass? Wood siding?
MR. DAWSON-What we’d like to do is on the second floor we’d like to put on wood shakes, natural
stain, and the lower floor horizontal cedar siding stained, again, to match.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Stained a natural kind of?
MR. DAWSON-Stained natural, yes.
MR. ABBATE-This proposed structure will be a total, I just want to make sure I heard it right, 7,800
square foot?
MR. DAWSON-I believe if you take all the attic space above the garage, the garage itself, and the
square footage of the house, I believe that’s what it would come up to.
MR. BROWN-Those were the numbers taken from the floor area ratio sheet, first floor, second
floor, and garage square footage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there living space above the garage?
MR. DAWSON-No. We’re going to use it as storage because we’re falling short, having a basement
area to have storage.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right. So there will be no basement area because of the water table.
MR. DAWSON-A utility spot only, possibly.
MR. HAYES-Kind of alluding to the benefit to the applicant, I think, obviously, the second floor is
creating the need for the variance. Do you have a family?
MR. DAWSON-Yes, we have two children.
MR. HAYES-Two children, okay.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NALLY-Where is the existing setback? What is the setback?
MR. HAYES-Fifty feet.
MR. MC NALLY-You show on your application you’re proposing a 60 foot setback from shore? It’s
probably more than that.
MRS. DAWSON-It’s 30 feet from the road and then we’re probably another 50 beyond that, plus
the other side of the road.
MR. BROWN-One of the maps shows an 87 foot dimension from the shore to the house.
MR. MC NALLY-I see that that’s on the proposal.
MR. DAWSON-From the shoreline, yes.
MR. ABBATE-From the shoreline.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see it on the drawings, though. What you’re saying is.
MR. DAWSON-This is on.
MR. DAWSON-This is on Craig’s drawing. I believe it’s penciled in.
MR. MC NALLY-From the corner of the house to the road is what? You’re saying like 50 feet, 60
feet?
MRS. DAWSON-Probably 60 feet.
MR. DAWSON-I would say from the road, 60 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. That’s the closest point.
MR. HAYES-The property juts out. I just want to find the length from the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-How did you get the 120 feet? McCall’s is pretty far back, and what’s the next
door neighbor on the other side?
MR. BROWN-I believe 110 feet. Their surveyor provided information. The house to the north is
110. McCall’s is 130. So the average is 120.
MR. HAYES-The bend of the road, too, I think is what causes the. I guess at this point, if there’s no
further questions which we can reserve the right to ask further ones, we will open the public hearing.
I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in favor of the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MC CALL
MR. MC CALL-My name is John McCall. I’m the immediate neighbor, the property to the south,
and I have looked at the plans, the plan of the land, I don’t see any type of problem whatsoever, as
far as the impact, and I feel it should be approved by the Board.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the
application?
FRED HART
MR. HART-Fred Hart. I’m, I guess you might say, in the back of the property, away from the lake.
We’ve looked at the drawings, looked at the plan of the house, and at least the architectural sketch
looks like it’s going to be a beautiful house. So we have no reservations about building or
construction or having new neighbors.
MR. HAYES-Are you the cedar shake house?
MR. HART-I’m the cedar shake house.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So there would be some impact on your, you certainly would be considered
with the view.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. HART-Yes. We’ll definitely see the house. Our entrance to our house, we’ll go by the property.
MR. HAYES-The crushed stone that’s depicted on the, that’s a common driveway?
MR. HART-Yes. I think it’s more cobble than crushed. So that’s our entrance for the back house
there. We encourage approval.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, sir. Would anybody else like to speak in favor?
BRUCE LOGAN
MR. LOGAN-My name is Bruce Logan, and I’m the owner of the house that would be somewhat
directly behind them, to the north of Fred Hart, and I’ve also reviewed it with the Dawsons, and I
think it’s a beautiful house, and an improvement in our neighborhood, and I recommend that we
approve it if possible.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?
MR. WYMAN
MR. WYMAN-I’m Mr. Wyman, 7 houses to the south, and I have some questions.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. WYMAN-A couple of questions. Do you plan on raising the grade of the soil around the
house?
MR. DAWSON-We’re going to try to go into the ground approximately two feet. We’re going to try
to bring the foundation down as low as we can, out as high as we can, to get below frost, which we’ll
take those into requirement, and we’re just going to feather it away very gradually, to get below frost,
not more than probably 20 feet out, 18 to 24 inches high, and just enough to get the foundation itself
and footings below the frost level.
MR. WYMAN-Okay. Do you plan on putting in a septic system or holding tanks?
MR. DAWSON-We have an Elgin system designed by Tom Nace.
MR. WYMAN-What’s that?
MR. DAWSON-It’s a septic system with, you know, a typical septic system but the lines are reduced
because it goes to a mat system by the corporation called Elgin, and we’ve had Tom Nace work with
Craig and the Town to, I guess it’s something that’s been done in the past.
MR. WYMAN-Are you aware that there’s a stream that runs through that property?
MR. DAWSON-Well, what I’m aware of is Chris Crandall met us there one day. We did some
previous work there, and we met Jean Hoffman and talked about all the water travels and where it
goes and how it effects the property, and the way I understand it is Chris Crandall had put a culvert
in Jean’s property where the stream did come through, and he made a natural way for the water to
travel in front of the property, and closer to the road.
MR. WYMAN-That probably needs to be reviewed. The other thing, there’s a section of your
property that has a rectangular insert with the adjoining property. Is that the septic system from the
adjoining property, the McCall property?
MR. DAWSON-Yes, it is.
MR. WYMAN-And is that sitting behind your house? Will that have any adverse effect on his septic
system or your property?
MR. DAWSON-We’ve put our house within the property lines on all points of the property. So we
don’t see any impact to his setbacks or his septic in our area at all. We don’t come near his building.
MR. WYMAN-The house will not interfere with the natural flow in that area (lost words) that septic
system?
MR. DAWSON-Not at all, because this was diverted through this manmade irrigation, whatever you
call it, a French Drain, I believe, that was down Jean Hoffman’s property, and then brought over to
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
here to a culvert that you can see how the water does travel through, and I met with Chris, and he’s
very specific where he had put it.
MR. WYMAN-Okay. I have no further questions.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed to the application, or opposition,
or if you have additional comments, I guess, Mr. McCall?
MR. MC CALL-Yes. I had an engineer (lost words) and with Mr. Dawson’s, and he assured me
there was no problem at all with my field, (lost words). Also, the drain that Mr. Wyman was talking
about, I was present when that drain was put in. It runs along the property, the north side by
Hoffman’s, and runs along Assembly Point Road, so the drain in has no effect at all on actual water,
where the septic field will be.
MR. HAYES-Are we safe in assuming that that if there was a stream there that would be a DEC
issue, or who would have enforcement of that or control of that?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s safe to assume that. I think it’s safe to assume that if there is any
water traveling across the property to have to maintain that. They wouldn’t be able to divert it off
the property or send it any place else. You’d have to relocate it, if need be, to around the house area,
the construction area, but you’d still have to maintain the flow of the water through the property.
You couldn’t dam it up and block it off.
MR. HAYES-So that enforcement issue is kind of a Code Enforcement issue?
MR. BROWN-Kind of, yes, but it sounds like it’s not currently running through the proposed area
for construction. It’s closer to the road, parallel, and you may want to state that that’s depicted on
the plans, when he submits for building permit, so it can be maintained and monitored, however you
want to do it, if they have that information.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay.
At this time I’ll close the public hearing.
MR. BROWN-I believe there’s correspondence for this one.
MR. HAYES-Excuse me.
MR. MC NULTY-It looks like we’ve got one letter from the Lake George Association, signed by
Heather K. Shoudy, Land Use Management Coordinator, “Dear Members of the Board: I’m writing
on behalf of the Lake George Association to express our collective comments on the Dawson and
Maschewski applications before you tonight in the Lake George watershed. I regret I am not able to
make these comments in person as I have another meeting to attend. We ask that you be overly
cautious of granting Area Variances that would violate the setbacks from the lake, floor-area ratio
requirements, and height requirements set forth in your zoning code. While we understand the trend
is toward larger houses, allowing applicants to go over the limits set may cause overcrowding and less
desirable neighborhoods. Furthermore, keeping in strict accordance with your requirements is in the
best interest of protecting the quality of the lake and views from the water. We ask that you take a
very hard look at the area variance criteria when examining these applications, and future applications
involving properties in the Lake George watershed. It seems that the applications before you could
be scaled back to meet the requirements for height, shoreline setbacks, and floor-area ratio. If
variances must be granted we ask that additional vegetative screening (i.e. shrubs, ground cover, and
trees to provide a canopy) between the lake and the properties, and between adjacent properties, be
implemented. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Respectfully Submitted, Heather K.
Shoudy Land Use Management Coordinator”
MR. HAYES-Is there any other correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I do not believe so.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this point I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And it’s time for us to talk about it.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. and Mrs. Dawson, I really didn’t have a problem with the setback on the lake,
but I had difficulty visualizing that size of a building in that position. I’m just wondering what the
elevation would be in relationship to the lake. You said you’re going to build it up.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. DAWSON-Off the height of the water of the lake are you asking?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. If I were standing on the lake or I were in a boat on the lake, how would that
building look? It’s hard to say, because all I have is a front elevation.
MR. DAWSON-I would believe if I was on a boat and I was on the lake, and I wanted to look up, I
think I’ll enhance that property. It’s trees are dead. It hasn’t been kept up. The dock system needs
some cleaning up, and we’d like to propose that also.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t want to compare it with the existing, but compare it with your
neighbor’s property.
MR. DAWSON-I think we, from what I’ve seen on the Assembly Point Road, I think that the style,
we’re trying to bring an Adirondack flavor of the house to the house, with log aesthetics and log
beams. I think we’re going to add to the value of that property. I think it’ll look quite pleasing.
MR. BRYANT-There seems to be a lot of glass for an Adirondack style.
MR. DAWSON-I want to see the lake.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t blame you.
MRS. DAWSON-But it is going to be rustic looking.
MR. BRYANT-I’m on the fence, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Very well. I guess that puts us over to Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-I can see that it would be a nice house, it would kind of fit with what’s there, but I
am quite bothered by the multiple relief that would be required. I guess it just bothers me that, I
don’t see a real hardship in this case, and my feeling is that the rules, the zoning and the requirements
are there for a reason, and I don’t really feel it’s right for this Board to provide relief just because
somebody wants to build something that is bigger than what’s allowed. The height bothers me. You
can rationalize the setback and say, well, it’s certainly greater than the minimum 50 foot that’s set, but
the other part of that setback says the average of the adjacent places, and we are requiring 33 feet of
relief from the average setback from what’s there, and that provision was put in the zoning law for
some reason. Likewise, I think this Board has been fairly strict on other applicants in other areas,
regarding size of garage. So I guess, given the amount of relief required, I’m inclined to oppose.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I have no doubt that if this house is built, it will be a lovely home, and I don’t
doubt that the Dawsons would make good neighbors to the McCalls and the neighbors about them.
We’re always faced, though, with people who wish to build on the lake, and want to get closer to the
lake than the Ordinance provides. What kind of effort, if I may ask, did you make to try to conform
with the existing Zoning Ordinance? As I see the plot, and with modifications of your plans, you can
pretty much build within the requirements of the Code.
MR. DAWSON-I think we tried to conform to the lot in several areas. This was probably a
rectangle piece of property at one point. John McCall’s septic is to the left side, and to get those
building restrictions of, I believe, 30 feet on all places, I think we, and this is my feeling, we took the
effort to try to fit the house into that notch that exists, and I still need to put my driveway in. If I
went back any further, I’d be looking to get a lease from John McCall to get to my garage area.
We’ve talked to Jean Hoffman about her property, and she’s the one that presented to us that keep it
as close as you can because she’d like to make her house even closer to the lake with whatever her
future plans are, and I’m not speaking for Jean. These are conversations I’ve had.
MR. MC NALLY-See, what happens is if you’re closer, she could come to us and say well she should
be closer, because now the average distance of the setbacks gets closer and closer and closer to the
lake.
MR. DAWSON-The problem I have is the way John’s house is, he’s at the very narrowest point of
Assembly Point. His back or rear or dock area, he’s 75 feet from the lake, and then he just happens
to have a front yard, what I would call his front entrance, it comes to the other side of the lake. I
guess we could ask, does John’s setback really come from the Dunham’s Bay side or the Harris Bay
side. We felt we were working very hard to get it to fit to a lot that had some complexities to it, and
make it better.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NALLY-It does, and I think you’re going to need some relief. What you’ve done is placed
your house in order to avoid encroaching on the setbacks to the rear. You’ve maintained the rear
setbacks, but at the expense of the shoreline setback, which is the one that usually is more critical. Is
there any possibility you could reconfigure that? I’d be very inclined to let you go within the 20 foot
setback from the side or rear yard, no problem at all, move that back a bit in order to maybe get a
little further from the lake.
MR. DAWSON-Can I ask you, what do you mean the 20 foot setbacks on the septic area for John
McCall?
MR. MC NALLY-Well, maybe it’s a 30 foot, 25 foot. If you look at the adjoining septic area. I’m
just suggesting.
MR. DAWSON-We could move the house back another, something accommodating.
MR. MC NALLY-If you look at the adjoining septic area, all right, you’ve got a setback there of
probably 25 feet on either side of the line, ballpark, all right.
MR. DAWSON-I believe so, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-No one’s ever going to build on that septic system. So it’s not as if we’re requiring
to maintain a setback to keep their next door neighbors happy. If you move your property back a
little bit and get closer to that line, you’re not going to impact his septic system, yet you might
maintain that distance from the lake that would make me happy, and the reason I say this is, your one
neighbor’s 110, your other neighbor’s 120. You’re at 90. So you’re sticking out in front of these two
houses on the lake. It’s a small point, but I didn’t know if it was something that maybe we could
have some.
MRS. DAWSON-But would our driveway have to go over his septic to get the garages?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think we’d let you do that.
MRS. DAWSON-No.
MR. MC NALLY-What I’m saying is, is there some way that you could just move it back enough to
satisfy that front shoreline? That would have less of an impact, then, if you’re only two feet above
the height restriction. If you moved it further back, I don’t think it would be as complying.
MR. DAWSON-I am concerned that if I move it back, I can move it back somewhat, I think, if we
get.
MR. HAYES-A rear setback variance.
MR. DAWSON-Yes, and is it possible to go back another, I don’t have a scale ruler with me, to tell
you the number, but I’m assuming I can go back a number of feet.
MR. MC NALLY-I’ll give you a rear setback before I’ll give you a shoreline setback faster, is what
I’m saying. If you could do it, physically, maybe we could work something out.
MR. DAWSON-Maybe we could twist the garage somewhat, too, rather than a right angle, we could
somewhat kick it.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t want to destroy your home or your plan, but if it’s a simple matter of just
moving it a bit, I think you’d make me happy.
MR. DAWSON-Well, let me ask the Board while I’m here, and I think we’re being quire frank, that
there seems to be an issue of the height and the setback, and I’m a roofing contractor. I think about
northeast roof and I think about 12 on 12 slopes. I think about roofs leaking. That’s why I have a
roof that’s probably sloped significantly. We could reduce the slope and get it closer, split the
difference. I mean, I think we’re at 32 or, I don’t know, 32’ 8” or something.
MR. HAYES-Thirty-three, thirty-four.
MR. DAWSON-I’m sure, with my designer, I could drop the slope of the roof. I’ll impose what I
think construction problems to what I call the building, but if I could get it closer to that 28, does
that get us closer to where we need to be?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MRS. DAWSON-See, you know what happens, inside the house, what we’re doing is conventional
floors, and then we’re putting logs below them, for look. So that takes up more footage in the ceiling
areas. So that’s what makes it a little taller, too.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got cathedral ceilings in the upstairs?
MRS. DAWSON-It’s just in the center.
MR. DAWSON-I think we could lower that.
MRS. DAWSON-But we decided not to use the logs as a structure, just as decorative. So then you’re
taking up more ceiling height.
MR. MC NALLY-From my perspective, I don’t think I would mind the height if it were setback
more.
MR. DAWSON-I can demonstrate to the Town, can I have the setback requirements? I don’t know
what they are. I mean, we’re at 25 now. Are we going to go to 20, 15? Are we going to change the
setback requirements to?
MRS. DAWSON-Well, actually, on the septic setback, it’s not, what’s drawn here, it’s not 25. It’s
only 10, I think.
MR. HAYES-It’s 25 from his property line, though.
MR. MC NALLY-But that’s insignificant, whether they’re ever going to build there.
MR. DAWSON-Can I twist that garage and move it back, I think I’m being asked 30 feet? I don’t
know if I can.
MR. MC NALLY-Whatever you think is appropriate. You show us what you want, and I’m sure we
can work something out.
MRS. DAWSON-What is the minimum you’re asking us to move it back, what is the number?
MR. MC NALLY-If you can get it to the 120, then there’s no shoreline variance required
whatsoever, and you’re at 87 now at that one corner. The corner closest to the lake. Now, I don’t
know if you can do that, because I’m no engineer, but that would certain take away any concern I
have. I’m not really concerned about a three car garage of 180 square feet more than otherwise, and
the height wouldn’t bother me if you were further back from the shoreline. That’s a good setback.
MR. DAWSON-I can see now that if I move it back 33 feet, I don’t have access to my garage.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know. I know you’ve got that one corner there. How would you do that?
That’s something for an engineer or someone to draw it. What we’ve done, physically, is we’ve
actually cut out pieces of these things and placed them on, moved them back and forth to see if it
fits, but you’ve got some relief. You do have some room to move there. What I’m saying is that rear
setback, I’d be willing to give you a variance for no problem. Can you give us anything?
MR. DAWSON-We can look into it, I’m sure.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. That’s my thinking.
MR. HAYES-That’s a question mark, then, essentially. We’ve still got Charles to speak.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. This is going to be a beautiful home, no doubt in my mind.
MR. DAWSON-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I had basically the same concerns as my colleagues have, and without further ado, I
suspect that if you were to come to some sort of a compromise, and move it back, I suspect, no
guarantee, but I suspect with that new setback you would probably be favorably received, not
guaranteed, but favorably received. I certainly would go along with it.
MR. DAWSON-Am I lead to believe, then, that the Board would feel that way? I know the other
fellow spoke differently in a total negative area, and am I wasting my time in doing that, or should I
apply in a different way?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. HAYES-Well, I think you can see the process at work. It’s a balancing test. So obviously all the
factors are being considered simultaneously, gains in areas effect the amount of weight that’s placed
and the overall effect on the neighborhood. I would say my personal opinion is that I think that Bob
covered it very well. I’m not sure that I would require you to go back the full length. I think that I’m
prepared to compromise somewhat. I’m not sure how he feels. He’s got to speak for himself.
Obviously, that’s the optimal, but there’s some compromise in order, being that I think that in this
particular case that part of the hardship, as Bob pointed out, is being caused by the jut out of Mr.
McCall’s property. I mean, clearly that’s causing some alignment issues here that have to do with
practicality, and we do have to keep those in mind. You’ve still got to use it after you’ve built it, but I
would think that if you could soften the roof line a little bit with your expertise, and perhaps move it
back a little bit, I think that you’re certainly adding things in your favor, as far as a balancing test in
my opinion, and I think at that point I would be satisfied that you had explored feasible alternatives
to the maximum, which is part of our test, and I think you have the feeling that maybe we don’t feel
that that’s entirely been done to this day, to this point, but I think once you have exhausted feasible
alternatives, the balancing test. So I guess it’s your option. We can proceed with a vote or you can
table it in lieu of changing your plans. As I run through my preliminary thing here, you don’t have
the votes to get an approval tonight, but it is your option. It’s your property, of course.
MR. DAWSON-What’s our process?
MR. HAYES-We could table it to a meeting next month, which is, we’ve done before, and you could
modify your plans, through your people, and then we would re-evaluate them at that time entirely
and make a motion to approve, deny or table again.
MR. MC NULTY-You might have the advantage of having two more members present, too.
MR. HAYES-That’s correct. There’s usually seven of us.
MR. DAWSON-You need what for a?
MR. HAYES-Four for an approval, and you don’t have that.
MR. MC NALLY-If you show a good faith effort to try to work with us, it usually works out pretty
well.
MR. DAWSON-Okay. Let me work on it.
MR. HAYES-So you want to, you would like to table it then?
MR. DAWSON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Could I have a tabling motion, please?
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2000 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Until the first March meeting, to allow the applicant to re-submit modifications in accordance with
our comments.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-I believe it will have to be re-advertised as well, since there’s relief, .potentially, that’s
going to be requested that wasn’t requested in this application, setback relief.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Do we have time for that?
MR. BROWN-Yes, for the March meeting, sure.
MR. HAYES-For the second March meeting you’re saying?
MR. BROWN-No, the first March meeting is fine.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Very well.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. HAYES-It’s tabled. See you next month.
MR. DAWSON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA KEVIN & MARYBETH
MASCHEWSKI OWNER: JAMES AND ROSEMARY DAVIDSON 73 ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
EXISTING SEASONAL HOUSE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FROM
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12-2000 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16
KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2000, Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski, Meeting Date:
February 16, 2000 “Project Location: 73 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1013 sf addition and seeks setback, height and floor area ratio
relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height
requirement, 13.8 feet and 9.0 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and
11.5 feet of relief from the 66.5 foot average shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §
179-16. Fifty feet is the minimum setback required or the average setback of the houses on the two
adjoining lot, whichever is greater. Also, the applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio
requirements as a 24% ratio is proposed rather than the allowable 22% maximum. Further, relief
from § 179-79, expansion of a non-conforming structure, A.,(1) & (2) and B. is requested. Criteria
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition as designed. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the addition and deck to meet
the requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative
requests for relief may be interpreted as considerable. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5.
Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created however, a portion
of the difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing conditions on the site. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-142 cc issued 7/12/99 septic alteration BP 99-
264 issued 5/27/99 boathouse repair Site Plan Review 12-2000 pending seasonal to year round
conversion and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Staff comments: Moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposal does not meet the required
average shoreline setback requirement, a 55 foot setback is proposed. Although the proposed floor
plan exceeds the 22% floor area requirement, the existence of a new, compliant septic disposal
system should address any occupancy concerns. Discussion regarding the lakeside elevation and the
amount of glass on the side of structure requiring the most height relief. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Maschewski, would you like to add anything to your application?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I would. One thing is, Mr. and Mrs. Davidson who own the property
would not allow us to get contingent upon an approval here to buy it, to buy the property. So we are
in contract, and probably within two weeks going to own the property. So we’re kind of going
forward, paving our own road here, and trying to get the variance. We tried to get a contract
contingent upon the variance, but we did not. What I want to add here is, at the time we submitted
the contract to buy the property, I had followed through the application deadlines, and I had used,
for the actual acreage, an area that was given to me from the realtor, which was incorrect. So what
goes away on this application is the floor area ratio issue, and I do want to submit this. Actually, all it
is is a tax map. I could not locate a survey, but being with new construction, we’re going to have to
get a survey done anyway to submit. As submitted, I had put down .24 acres. In actual tax map it’s
.27. So there’s a little bit of discrepancy, and that’s really just a few hundredths.
MR. HAYES-You did the calculations?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The calculations actually come out to .263, tax roll was .27 acres.
MR. HAYES-You did the calculations as far as the floor area ratio?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Because you understand that if that doesn’t comply, you’ll be back?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, actually, I sat in front of you folks about a year and a half ago for another
variance for a friend of mine. I actually did the drawings, and I, simultaneously getting the contract
and doing the application, I did the drawings. So I’ve got a lot of experience with what I had to think
about and put on paper in about a three day time frame. The height issue, if you had taken a walk on
the property, it’s hard to really see it with all the snow, is that house sits in about a natural three,
three and a half foot hole. There’s a stone wall.
MR. HAYES-That retaining wall.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That retaining wall. So the visual impact from the road, and I guess that’s
where the height restriction originally came from is the visual impact. The house is three feet, three
and a half feet shorter from the road than it really is, by visual. It kind of just sits in a natural hole,
and tried to mitigate the height, I also have six foot high walls upstairs. So I do not have full eight
foot high walls upstairs. If I was to try to achieve the 28 foot height, I’d have to have three foot high
walls upstairs. So there was a mitigation there to try to achieve a lesser height, which is about two
feet.
MR. HAYES-That makes sense, but it’s my understanding that the visual impact was from the lake.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-From the lake, and I’d go back to the prior question that was asked, sitting in a
boat, it would be hard to visualize. You wouldn’t see half the house, because if you’re sitting right in
front of the property, there’s about a 12 to 15 foot drop that goes down to the water. So, depending
on where your horizon is, where you sit on a boat, I’m going to say there’d be no impact. The
neighbor right next door, Ernst, just built a beautiful house.
MR. HAYES-Do we have the height on that, for a comparison?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I do not.
MR. HAYES-That didn’t require a variance, right?
MR. BROWN-No. That’s a single story. I wouldn’t guess it’s more than 16 feet.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The house?
MR. BROWN-Well, I haven’t been on the lakeside of the house. I know the road side is single story.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Without really seeing a set of drawings, I couldn’t put a height on it.
MR. BROWN-If it has a walkout basement, obviously.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It does.
MR. BROWN-It does. So it’s probably going to be closer to like 20, I would guess.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It does, and part of playing with that height issue was, I don’t know if you had
walked in the back yard, there’s a big depression, and there’s a walkout basement, which I really plan
on eliminating. The grade on either side of the property is, let’s say relative is here, in the center of
the house it’s about nine feet shallower. So my proposal is just to take that grade and run a straight
right across. I really don’t need a walkout basement. The proposed addition, there’s a first floor
master bedroom, and three small bedrooms upstairs. So for a total of four. I think the septic was
designed for three. We only are planning to have three bedrooms. We don’t have kids, and I’m
getting a little too old for having too many kids, but the intent is to have the three bedrooms upstairs,
and just have the downstairs for living space. So I’m not adding two bedrooms to the bedroom
count, which, you know, the septic as installed and designed last July, was for a three bedroom.
MR. HAYES-That’s a new system?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s a brand new, yes. It’s on record. I think a CO was issued, I’ve got it
here, but I believe it was the end of July. Yes, and that is really one of the reasons that attracted me
to the property, or attracted us to the property. I did not want to get involved with any septic issues.
I sat in front of you folks here about a year and a half ago, and there were septic issues on the
variance we were applying for. The side yard setbacks, being that it’s a very narrow lot, about 65 feet
wide, there’s some born in setback issues that are born with the property. Our proposed addition
does not go to the right or to the left, for the side yard setbacks.
MR. HAYES-So the sight lines are going straight out.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. We actually just miss, at 65 feet wide, we just miss that sliding side yard
setback issue, which at 50 feet, I think it’s like 12 feet, 60 feet it’s 15 feet. We’re at 65 feet wide,
which it brings it up to 20 feet. So we just miss it, but looking at the property, I know it’s very close
to both left and right, but we’re not proposing anything left or right.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, you’ve got a deck that’s actually imposing on the side setback.
Right? And then the new addition, your proposed addition, does that impinge on the side setback?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-For the 20 foot required, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-It does, where?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I guess I’m not clear on the question.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, you needed the side setback relief because you have a deck. On the north
side, I look at this as basically.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s an addition.
MR. MC NALLY-There is actually an addition on top of the deck?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So you’ve got five feet of new house on the back of your property?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Twelve feet of new house. Craig, did they receive a floor plan?
MR. BROWN-Yes. There should have been in the drawing. I think there’s five feet of new house
on the north side, and eleven feet on the south side.
MR. MC NALLY-I was looking on the north side as if that was all deck. That’s house, too.
MR. BROWN-That’s five feet of house and fifteen feet of deck on the north side.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I see it.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually, this was actually submitted at a later plan. It was a floor plan, first
and second floor. That really depicts the proposed layout, and it’s pretty functionable. It’s 2400
square foot. It’s not extremely huge. What we’re doing is basically 1400 square foot, and we’re just
adding 1,013, to be exact, square feet. All the bedrooms go upstairs. I mean, it’s a functionable
layout. I would not, I wouldn’t know where to take room from it, being that it’s only 2400 square
feet.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Maschewski, the Staff Notes make a point that concerns me as well, as to the level
or amount of glass in the area that’s obviously going to have the greatest visual impact. I mean, is it
possible, because it looks very substantial to me, and I clearly understand why, okay. I mean, it
makes all the sense in the world.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I actually toned it down.
MR. MC NALLY-You toned it down, did you, really?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. We had a previous house over in Echo Bay, and it was an A-Frame. It’s
over off of Pilot Knob, and as the A-Frame went up, so did the glass, all the way to the peak, and it
was 36 feet high, and it was a lot of glass, and it’s not in the budget, so I toned it down and there’s a
lot of, what you see as cedar shakes is the exterior, similar to the previous applicant. It’s going to be
an Adirondack look to it, green roof, green trim, cedar shakes, natural cedar shakes. I’m sorry, what
was your question?
MR. HAYES-I guess even toned down it looks.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The glass?
MR. HAYES-Yes, the glass portion of it. I guess, either you’re asking for a height variance, and the
obvious implication is of a height variance is the visual impact, and I think, you know, glass has a
greater visual impact than natural material. That’s my personal feeling.
MR. MC NALLY-It reflects a lot of light.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. HAYES-Right. That’s just a question I’m asking. Obviously, we’ll let everybody speak, I think,
before you.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. HAYES-All right. Are there anymore questions before I open the public hearing?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question about the existing building. What is the roof height of that peak?
It’s hard to determine on these drawings. Is that 31 feet?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Of the existing? No, it is not. I do not know. I do not know that. I didn’t
get up.
MR. BRYANT-How would this great room fit in to what is existing?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-You have that floor plan in front of you?
MR. BRYANT-I have that floor plan, but I have this elevation here. I’m trying to visualize it.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Where I have a dining room table and a sitting area denoted on the floor plan,
okay, that dashed line, that is the end of the existing.
MR. BRYANT-How does that, on the outside of the building, what is the elevation of the peak?
Those peaks are going to be perpendicular, is that correct?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you have one existing. What is the height of that peak?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The one existing is a gambrel roof, which is basically like a barn. It’s got
multiple pitches. The height of it I do not know.
MR. BRYANT-Because on the elevations it looks like it’s identical, although it’s not scaled out.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-On the elevations, I don’t show the existing roof.
MR. BRYANT-This is not the existing?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, that’s all proposed. That’s all proposed.
MR. MC NALLY-And the 29 and a half feet to the peak, is taken looking at the gabled end facing
the lake?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-From the ground to that peak?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. That’s right, and as I indicated earlier, I did, as you see the roof, I’ve
got a lot of dormers in there that allow for the eight foot high walls. I did back down to six foot
high. I had it, originally, at four, but it becomes, like four feet where your roof meets your wall now,
it’s nonliveable, at the four foot high, which is just, I mean, I’m short, but at four feet, it’s just too
short of walls.
MR. MC NALLY-How high are the ceilings in the first floor?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Normal, eight feet.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Well, actually, the question is for the applicant as well as Craig. I want to reconcile
something, if I may. In the application, you answered to the question, is the amount of relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance, you indicated no, which is fine. Craig, I’d like to address to
you, in your Staff Notes, is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and you indicate that it is
considerable.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to reconcile that.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. BROWN-What I was trying to point out is there’s height relief, side setback relief, shoreline
setback relief, floor area ratio relief.
MR. ABBATE-In totality.
MR. BROWN-In totality. It’s not one simple side line request. It’s multiple requests.
MR. ABBATE-So in totality, you interpret this application as considerable in terms of relief.
MR. BROWN-Only because of the number, not that any one is significant. They’re all moderate to
minimal.
MR. ABBATE-So maybe I’m being over concerned. I shouldn’t be.
MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s an inordinate number, but none of them are really significant.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Could I ask a question? Could we go back to the shoreline? We did indicate,
Craig and I actually spent a lot of time on this, on the paperwork. Are you referencing the two
adjacent properties?
MR. BROWN-Right, the average. What I did, just so you know, and I don’t know if I discussed this
with you, but we took the, or I took the setback for the Ernst property, which we have the survey
map from. I assumed the property to the south of you has the same setback as your house.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. BROWN-It may be a little further back, it may be a little closer, but I assumed an average, that
it was the same, used those two dimensions which you had the dimensions scaled, you actually
physically measured it to the shore. So I used your number, the Ernst number, and came up with the
average of 66 and half, or something like that, for the two setbacks.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m going to have to stand up to exemplify this one. The end of the Davidson
house is right here. What we’re proposing is an 11 foot addition out and 12 feet deck for a total of
23 feet. You walk out 22 feet, and nothing against Ernst, I mean, Ernst has a beautiful house there.
If you’re standing here at that 23 feet, Ernst house is approximately 10 feet that way, further toward
the lake. It’s an optical illusion. Their setback is 59 feet, but as the crow flies, it’s 10 feet that way,
toward the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-Is their shore further from the lake than the house than you are? That’s got to be
it. The shore extends further than the house.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s how the properties adjacent all along, there’s an old Town road that’s
down by the water. There’s an old Town road down by the water that actually created an open area.
You could stand probably 20 feet from the shoreline and look left and look right, and you see your
line of houses going all the way down, and actually the line of houses undulate back and forth, and as
you can see on that, 6-1-10, 1-10 is our parcel, although that adjacent house, yes, is close or beyond
ours, out of the adjacent probably total of 10 properties, the two of them, the one we’re buying into
is the farthest back. I think you’d be cheating the issue if you only look at the two adjacent
properties.
MR. BROWN-I agree, the fact that the Ordinance says that you take the two adjoining houses, but
Kevin’s point, Mr. Maschewski’s point, is the neighborhood, his is the furthest back, not that that
would change anything, but.
MR. MC NALLY-The neighbor to the south would be further back than you are now.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and that would be Mr. Wyman behind me, and Mr. Wyman can also
attest, like I’ve indicated, that road that’s down there opens all the back yards somewhat to your
adjoining neighbor. I mean, there’s no buffer line. My intent is to put some trees and some buffer
down the properties, because we are close, and we do plan on living there full time, but as you’re
down by the water, you can just see straight down probably for five or six houses either way.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? If
not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the
application? No? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. WYMAN
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. WYMAN-Mr. Wyman, and I’m the neighbor next door, to the south of this property. I just
have some questions. This plan that you’ve just given me doesn’t have a south side schematic of
where the windows are.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. WYMAN-Are you planning on changing or adding more windows to that side?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-To answer your question, no.
MR. WYMAN-Is there any way you can provide me with a plan of that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I absolutely can. That’s directly closer, yes.
MR. WYMAN-Okay. Now you’ve said that you’re going to increase toward the lake 11 feet of
building and an addition 12 feet of deck. Is that correct?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. WYMAN-Currently, I just wanted to make a point that our two houses are almost directly in
line (lost words) and by increasing 11 feet of housing, and another 12 feet of decking, it’s going to
interfere with my view down the lake, because if you look at the plan, that house is closer to our
property line than it is to the adjacent property line on the other side, the Ernst property. So it
would mean that the angle of interference would be more on my side. The fact that the Ernst house
is more forward than theirs, it won’t effect their viewpoint. The other thing is, although he didn’t
mean how high the house is presently, when I’m on my, we have an upstairs deck, an upstairs
addition was put on many years ago, and it’s a Lake Tahoe style, camp style, and it’s glass in front,
and we sit on our deck, we can look over the top of that house, the adjoining house, the Davidson’s
house. By increasing the size to 28.6, we’d no longer be able to look off the lake. So that would be
another change for us. Another question, are you going to alter the basement at all?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. It’s pretty much a utility basement and it will stay a utility basement.
MR. WYMAN-So there will be no basement underneath the extension of the (lost words)?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It would be. It would not be living space.
MR. WYMAN-It would just be a crawl space?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, just crawl space, and the extension of the utility work.
MR. WYMAN-Okay. What do you plan on putting in by way of a furnace?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That would be hot water baseboard.
MR. WYMAN-Would it be oil or propane?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-At this point, at the price of oil, probably propane.
MR. WYMAN-I have a problem with the propane. You’re supposed to have a three foot clearance
away from your property line, and I don’t know if they have proper space for a propane tank. Our
property is very close to them. So is the Ernst. It might be a problem. (lost words) the Ernst put
one above ground, and we’ve requested them to bury it. So I’d like to see that on the plans, what
they plan to do with the propane tank. (lost words) I propose that if they do put a propane tank in,
that they bury it, and the other thing is I’m worried about the glass on the side of the house facing us.
Because we have an open, it’s just all open in the front, and it’s our living space. It’s not a living
room. It’s where we sleep and eat, and I’m concerned that, right now we have total privacy, the
houses are lined up, and if this moves too far in front, and there’s glass in there, then we’re going to
lose our privacy, and we’ll have to have our drapes drawn all the time. Our bed is actually right in the
front of the windows. You can see out. That would be a problem. So these are just a set of
questions that I have concerns. I think it’s a very beautiful house, and I think it will certainly be a
welcome addition to the area, and they seem to be very nice people, but I have these questions, these
concerns about the plans, construction. I would propose, one, either table it until these things are,
my concerns are met, or somehow or other assure that these type of concerns will be taken care of.
That’s about all I’ve got to say. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Is there
any correspondence?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NULTY-There is. There are two letters. The first one is the same one that we read in the
previous application, from Heather Shoudy, addressed to members of the Board, writing on behalf of
the Lake George Association to express their collective comments on the Dawson and the
Maschewski applications before you tonight in the Lake George watershed. “I regret I am not able
to make these comments in person as I have another meeting to attend. We ask that you be overly
cautious of granting Area Variances that would violate the setbacks from the lake, floor-area ratio
requirements, and height requirements set forth in your zoning code. While we understand the trend
is toward larger houses, allowing applicants to go over the limits set may cause overcrowding and less
desirable neighborhoods. Furthermore, keeping in strict accordance with your requirements is in the
best interest of protecting the quality of the lake and views from the water. We ask that you take a
very hard look at the area variance criteria when examining these applications, and future applications
involving properties in the Lake George watershed. It seems that the applications before you could
be scaled back to meet the requirements for height, shoreline setbacks, and floor-area ratio. If
variances must be granted we ask that additional vegetative screening (i.e. shrubs, ground cover, and
trees to provide a canopy) between the lake and the properties, and between adjacent properties, be
implemented. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Respectfully Submitted, Heather K.
Shoudy Land Use Management Coordinator” And we have a letter from Lydia Ernst, addressed to
the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department, Planning, Zoning & Building and
Codes, regarding concerns regarding variances of 73 Assembly Point Road project, “While we agree
that the proposed above project by K & M Maschewski would generally have no adverse effect on
the community of Assembly Point and would benefit the aesthetics of the neighborhood, we have
only one concern: A. Viewed from the Log Cabin at 76 Assembly Point Rd. how much of the
present view of the water and mountains will be eliminated by increasing the height of the current
lower right portion of the 73 Assembly Point building? B. If the view is eliminated, will this have
any adverse impact on the potential rental value of the Log Cabin at 76 Assembly Point Rd. In order
to determine the answers to the above we have taken the following actions: 1. Taken pictures of the
present house at 73 Assembly Point Rd., from the position of the Log Cabin. These films will help
us in determining what adverse effect, if any, such proposed construction would have on the overall
view. 2. We are trying to contact a real estate agent in the area to give us an opinion of such
development. It may very well turn out to be good trade off of an elimination of a marginal view vs.
a nice improvement of the surrounding property but until we have the pictures back and until an
agent has the opportunity to make a visual inspection, we can not make an intelligent decision.
Forced into making a quick decision because of tomorrow’s deadline for the meeting on the variance,
we must object to the issuance of this variance request. We would suggest, however, that perhaps a
decision should be delayed for approximately 10 days in order to give us a chance to review the
above. Sincerely, Lydia S. Ernst”
MR. HAYES-Is that it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing. I guess it’s time to talk about it.
Chuck, you’re first on the dock.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m the first one this time? Well, I guess I’ve got to be negative again. The overall
impact, I guess, strikes me as being considerable, as the Staff indicated. Again, I think the zoning
requirements were put in place for a reason. I have to assume that the people that wrote the zoning
requirements gave some considerable thought to the limits that they put on height, and the setback
requirements, including the average setback, rather than just a standard 50 foot setback, or whatever,
from the shoreline. I also have a general concern over the cumulative impact on especially Assembly
Point, of the trend toward not only going from seasonal houses to year round houses, but also
making them a lot larger, as things progress. I think I could probably consider approving any single
one of these reliefs, but the cumulative impact leaves me in the negative mode.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-You know you’re not the first person to ask to take a summer camp, which is a
seasonal residence, and try to make it into a year round home, and invariably they’re always on
undersized lots, and we’re always struggling. Not a meeting goes by that we don’t struggle with, can
we let you do it or can’t we let you do it. The side setbacks don’t bother me too much. Because the
existing structure is where it is, and you’re simply extending the lines. If either of your neighbors
have any cause to complain, they purchased a house when the house was already so far from the side
setback, and I don’t think they could complain to the minimal amount of relief that you’re now
asking for. Five feet on one side and eleven feet on the other is nothing, as far as I’m concerned.
Then we get into the height requirements, and we get into the amount of relief he requested on the
shoreline setback. Jaime’s comment about the glass in the front is well taken, too. That’s something
I look at. There’s no set requirement under the Ordinance, don’t get me wrong, but it certainly is
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
going to have a visual impact on anyone going by the lake, when the sun shines on that glass. How
high is the existing property? What’s it to the peak of the roof now?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t know. For many reasons I didn’t climb the roof. I don’t own the
property yet, and from professional view, I’d say in the low 20’s.
MR. MC NALLY-We’ve had some comments from neighbors, people across the street, this that and
the other thing, saying that their views are going to be blocked, and if that’s a substantive complaint,
fine. If it’s just a difference of a couple of feet, it really isn’t going to make that much of a difference.
So I’d be (lost word). You are at least 55 feet from the lake, but you’re going to be a lot closer to the
lake than you are now, and your neighbors are concerned about that also. I want to see what the
other Board members have to say. I’m not ducking the issue, but, I’ll listen to their wisdom.
MR. HAYES-Charles?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t know whether I can offer any wisdom or not, but I must say that I am
concerned with the cumulative effect. Basically, you’re asking for five requests for relief.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Can you recite the five?
MR. ABBATE-Sure. You request three feet of relief from the twenty-eight foot maximum height,
and you request 13.8 feet of relief from the 20 minimum side, and you request 11.5 feet from the
66.5 foot, and you also request relief from the floor area ratio requirements of 24% ratio as opposed
to so and so.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-And those floor area, I thought, went away.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-No problem. You also request further relief from Paragraph 179-79, expansion. So
that’s basically a total of five minus one, four.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So I’m concerned with the cumulative, which is substantial and considerable.
I’m sure it’s beautiful. It’s gorgeous. I have a problem with it. I truly do. One of these things or
two, perhaps, I would have no problem with, but with four, I’m going to have a problem with it, but
I’m going to yield to my peers here.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Wyman is your neighbor to the immediate south?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Mr. Wyman, yes.
MR. BRYANT-To the immediate south?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, south.
MR. BRYANT-Because he points out that he can see over your house now, and of course the new
addition might be too high and he won’t be able to see over your house. Let me ask a question. Is it
possible that that new addition could be the same height of the existing building? Is that a
possibility?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No.
MR. BRYANT-Why is that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Because most of what’s up there now, technically, is not living space. It’s
short walls. There’s closets that have three foot high walls in there, and really, there’s four
bedrooms. I’ve got a sketch of what’s up there. Could it be? Yes.
MR. BRYANT-How does the great room engage with the existing building? It’s going to stand over
that building. How is that going to engage?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t understand how it’s going to engage?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. BRYANT-See, I don’t see how it’s actually going to engage with the existing building. We’re
assuming it’s three or four feet higher.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t think that would be a right assumption. It’s probably more than three
or four feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And your proposed roof line is much higher than the existing structure.
MR. BRYANT-Considerably higher?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m going to say that the house now is probably 23 to 25. There is a second
floor on there, but it’s not a true second floor. So it’s, really, without getting up there, it’s hard to
really answer that. Because it would really only be an approximate.
MR. BRYANT-I think my biggest problem is the height relief.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-If it’s going to impede the view of the neighbors with the lake and so forth. As far as
the setback, I really don’t have a problem. Most of the properties are set back about the same. It’s
the height that I think is going to be a problem.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I think my colleagues have kind of alluded to the fact that the cumulative relief
is kind of weighing heavily on everyone’s mind, and it’s totality. As I go through it individually, the
floor ratio is gone. It’s off the table. The side setback relief, this is in my opinion, the side setback
relief, I agree with Bob. I don’t have a problem with it because I think it’s a linear extension of the
house as it is now. It’s essentially symmetrical going forward. The front setback relief, as we’re
talking about it, it’s my understanding that the Ordinance, by considering the greater of the linear
relief versus the other houses, takes in mind the greater portion of the neighborhood, and as I look
for that GIS map, I actually accept your argument that in fact the real linear line is further out. I
think, Craig, based on the GIS map that we have there, I think that I do believe that using this map, I
do in fact believe that using the two closest parcels actually works against you, almost unfairly. So I
don’t have as, and you are still 55 feet from the lake, which is more than the actual Ordinance itself.
So I don’t have a problem with that, but the height relief, I have to admit, as I’ve already pointed out,
between the glass and the overall height relief, it is troubling to me. I guess I’m not as opposed to
the cumulative relief as possibly that one segment, and if there was some softening there somehow, I
think I could be in favor of the application, as it appears.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, that’s the beauty of being able to do my own drawings.
MR. HAYES-I guess in the cumulative sense here, beating that word to death, you don’t have
approval at this time. So I guess, what would you like to do?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I probably know the answer, but is there any approvals conditional upon,
obviously, my drawings have to go in for a permit. If I show what I’m really intended on doing is
providing drawings to the Building Department for a building permit, within the next few weeks. Is
there any conditional on addressing those issues? I can tone down to that 28 feet.
MR. HAYES-I’d say we’d like to cooperate, but recently we’ve been smoked on contingent.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Well, I just figured I’d bring it out.
MR. HAYES-So we’re going to stay away from that. I think that would be my feeling. I don’t know
how you guys feel. We had a major problem.
MR. ABBATE-Agreed
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The only reason I’m asking is because the next meeting is what, March 15?
th
MR. HAYES-March 15, yes.
th
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I will be out of Town.
MR. HAYES-There’s two meetings in March, I would presume, right? Are you going to be out of
town for both meetings?
MR. BROWN-Possibly two meetings. It depends on how many items we have on the agenda.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. HAYES-Spring months, that’s a close one.
MR. ABBATE-There’s a meeting next week.
MR. BROWN-There’s a meeting next week as well.
MR. MC NALLY-How fast can you draw?
MR. ABBATE-One week from today, same meeting, same time.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It would take me very easily to tone it down a little, on the height, and the
windows.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re actually at 31 feet you’re at, right?
MR. HAYES-It’s three feet over the 28.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Three feet, right.
MR. MC NALLY-So if you can take care of some of that, that would be nice, and the glass in the
front, that’s a lot of glass you’ve got there.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s a beautiful view.
MR. HAYES-That’s more than understandable.
MR. MC NALLY-We don’t necessarily want to see into your home, either.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I can work with that, and I can also address Mr. Wyman’s, I can do that side
elevation for you.
MR. HAYES-Are these going to be stamped, as far as the drawings and the survey?
MR. BROWN-That’s kind of a point that I want to just bring up. I don’t want to caution you or
anything like that, but if you’re comfortable approving a floor area ratio, as it’s submitted, it might
save the applicant coming back at the meeting, once he gets a survey, or you may not want to do that
and say, we don’t want to give you any floor area ratio relief because it’s not from a survey.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t he saying he’s withdrawing that?
MR. BROWN-Yes, he’s withdrawing.
MR. MC NALLY-And that he takes the chance, if he builds it and the building plans come in, he
could come back to see us.
MR. BROWN-That’s fine, if that’s what he’s comfortable with doing. I’m just looking to avoid that
in the future.
MR. MC NALLY-So if you go over, you’ve got to come back and see us. You’re just referring the
application as to that variance.
MR. HAYES-There has to be an as-built survey submitted to the.
MR. BROWN-With new construction there’s an as-built survey required. With additions there isn’t.
You can condition it that he does that, to.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t have a problem with the condition, because I’m going to get a survey
anyway. It’s an older property.
MR. BROWN-It’ll confirm the area of the property.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It wouldn’t be to our best interest that we do not get one.
MR. HAYES-For the investment he’s making, I’m sure he’s got to be sure. Okay. So you’d like to
table then, I guess?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-You said in a week?
MR. BROWN-Next Wednesday.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Table it, please.
MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have to advertise it again. No new relief is requested.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-Do I have a motion?
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2000 KEVIN & MARYBETH
MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
McNulty:
Until next week, in order to allow them to come forward with the modifications in accordance with
our comments.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-We’ll see you in a week.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2000 TYPE II HC-1A STEVEN SUTTON OWNER:
WILLIAM P., JR. & PATRICIA LEONARD c/o WILLIAM P. LEONARD III 1036 STATE
ROUTE 9, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, NORTH OF MONTRAY ROAD, PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS THE LEONARD INS. AGENCY BLDG. APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING INTO A RESTAURANT AND
SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DINING DECK. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2000
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.99
ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-79
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, STEVEN SUTTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before we start, I’ll perform the Secretarial functions on this, but
I’m going to abstain from any discussion or expressing opinion on this matter.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2000, Steven Sutton, Meeting Date: February 16, 2000
“Project Location: 1036 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an open dining deck and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the Travel
Corridor Overlay zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17.32 feet of relief from the 75 foot
minimum front setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28. Further, since
the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure is requested per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct and utilize a substantial outdoor dining area. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include a reconfiguration or a downsized proposal. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 17.32 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created as there appears to be adequate area to
construct a compliant deck. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan
Review 14-2000 pending conversion of office to restaurant. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed deck does not encroach on the
TCO setback any further than the existing structure. Consideration may be given to landscaping, if
visual impacts are anticipated. SEQR Status: Type II”
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. MC NULTY-And we have a Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form,
Project Name: Steve Sutton Owner: William P. & Patricia Leonard County ID: QBY-AV-10-2000
County Project Number: Feb 00-44 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a conversion of an existing office building into a restaurant and
seeks relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for the construction of a dining deck. Site
Location: 1036 State Route 9 east side of Route 9, north of Montray Tax Map No. 68-1-10 Staff
Notes: Applicant seeks relief from setback requirements to modify an existing nonconforming
structure. The setback deficiencies would not be worsened by applicant’s proposal. Staff identifies
no impacts significant at the County level. This project has also been referred by the Town for Site
Plan Review. County Planning Board Recommendation: The Warren County Planning Board was
unable to obtain a quorum at its February 9, 2000 meeting, due to the fact that one member is
hospitalized, one member was called to work the evening of the meeting, and pending appointments
for two new Planning Board members await the action of the Warren County Board of Supervisors.
As a result of not having a quorum present, this project is returned to the local municipality as having
no action taken. In accordance with the general municipal law, failure to take action within 30 days
results in the default approval of the project. Signed Terry Ross
MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper from the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart & Rhodes. With me tonight is Steve Sutton, the project applicant, and owner of many
adjacent properties, and Tom Nace, the Project Engineer from Nace Engineering. I’d like to make
some preliminary comments and then turn it over to Tom to walk you through the site plan, and
then we can discuss it. I guess, to begin with, what we see, in terms of this variance, is that we
consider this a very minor variance, for the reason that we’re not asking for an expansion any closer
to the road than what’s already there, in terms of that entrance doorway, and the reason, the main
reason for constructing what we are asking to construct, the entrance treatment and the deck area, is
the entrance treatment is a major visual improvement to what’s really an old building that hasn’t been
improved in a long time, and is somewhat of an eyesore, and the accessibility issue with the deck is
that the grade of the property versus the grade of the building is the difference of about three feet.
So the point is to just get handicapped access into the finished floor of the building, and that has to
be a ramp, and we want to do that at the front door rather than to have a side entrance, just to be
able to do just nicer treatment. The building was designed by Jim Miller from Bolton, a well-known
local architect. I just want to get the drawing and show you just, because it’s not that big, so you can
see it. I think that this is just a major visual improvement in this corridor. I’m sure you’re all familiar
with the architecture of Steve’s other buildings, and just taking what starts out right now as this, and
turning it into this is going to really do a lot in that corridor. You can see, and I’ll come down and
show you guys. You can see from the picture that the only addition, right here, this entranceway
over the doorway is in the location of that right there. So the only addition is right here. It’s the
overhang, and then it follows through with the deck with the fencing, and that is all that we’re asking
for, in terms of an Area Variance. It just allows a major visual improvement to this building. The
contrast is pretty significant. As a neighbor, you’ll probably want to see this anyway, even though
you’re not going to vote.
MR. MC NULTY-Thanks.
MR. LAPPER-And Staff hasn’t seen this yet.
MR. BROWN-That’s great, thanks.
MR. LAPPER-In the past, when Sutton’s Furniture was proposing an expansion, it was controversial
because of the proximity to neighbors in the adjacent Twicwood subdivision. By contrast, the
nearest residence here is about 350 feet. This is within the Highway Commercial corridor, an existing
commercial building in the existing commercial corridor. So we don’t see that there are impact issues
like there were in the last application. We just see this as really another classy building that will be
done in the style that Sutton’s does, an improvement to the building, an improvement to the area,
and we think that the variance is really relatively minor, but important, nonetheless, to the project.
Tom?
MR. NACE-Okay. Let me just quickly run you through the site plan. I guess the best thing, for
purposes of this, is to show you the landscaping plan. One of the main things we’ve tried to
accomplish is to try to work with the curb cuts that are existing. DOT, when they built this highway,
this past summer, and they left two curb cuts, one here and one here. Presently, those connect to an
asphalt parking area that comes right up to the front of the building. One of the things we wanted to
do, in order to facilitate traffic circulation, and to soften the visual impact of the building, is to get
some landscaping in here, not have parking up in front of the building. So we moved parking around
the side and around the back, and created a fairly substantial buffer here for landscaping, plus the
existing island that is there now, but not landscaped, and the net effect of that is that we’ve got this
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
area here that we’re going to have a little bit of lawn in front, and then a good landscaping buffer up
against the building, we’ll have a sign out in this area, lawn area out in front, with some landscaping
around the front of it, and substantial landscaping around the deck and around the rear entry to the
deck. As Jon described, the real issue with the setback and the requirement for the setback, is the
fact that we have to get from an area of the parking area down here with the handicapped spaces, up
to the floor level of the building, and the most logical way to do that was to come up with a ramp
that comes up to the floor level here, but now we have, we want to be able to allow people to get
both to the deck and to the front door, and again, the most logical way to do that is to bring this
entry ramp across to the front door level, and we’ll be at the floor elevation here, so from there, just
allow them to come back to the deck. So, visually, we felt that it would make the least impact by
extending the deck up even with the front of the existing building there, and extending this walkway
across the front, even with the existing front entryway.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the specific variance from the Travel Corridor Overlay, this is the case
where the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay Zone was put into place for future expansion of Route 9,
and as we know, DOT just made it a three lane road, with the full turn median. So when they design
improvements, they design for 20 years. That doesn’t mean that they’re not going to make a change
within 20 years, but the fact that that was just done is indicative that they’re at least anticipating that
they’re not going to have to make a change at any time in the future. In terms of the self-imposed
issue, which isn’t such a strong factor in Area Variances as it is in Use Variances, we feel that it’s not
self-imposed, only because it’s the existing location of the building, that distance, and we’re not
trying, proposing to increase it at all from that distance right now, just to work within that. It is an
expansion in the front, but it’s only to the extent that it’s already there, and that area is the area that
had the covered stairs. So we have to make up for those covered stairs by getting people into the
front door at the same level, and that’s simply what we’re proposing. Steve, do you want to say
anything at this point, before the public hearing?
MR. SUTTON-I don’t think so.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-Is the deck open to the sky, or is it closed?
MR. LAPPER-Open.
MR. MC NALLY-So there’s no awning or anything over that front portion where the deck ramp
comes up?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. SUTTON-We’re thinking in terms of umbrellas at this point.
MR. MC NALLY-But no, like the place at Exit 18, that bagel place. They’ve got a big awning over
the entire portion. You’re not thinking of that?
MR. SUTTON-No.
MR. LAPPER-Just what you see there.
MR. SUTTON-Pretty much the same as our deck at the Market, large size umbrellas, enough to, if
it’s a misty day, enough to keep you out, under cover.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this a seasonal business?
MR. SUTTON-Yes. It’s planned to be May until Columbus Day.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions?
MR. ABBATE-No so much a question as comments. I am a proponent of new businesses in the
Town of Queensbury, and I think we should really do everything to support new businesses. I
consider this a separate entity from everything else.
MR. SUTTON-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-I’m impressed with two things. I’m impressed with the fact, the before and after
effect. I think the after effect is really appealing, and providing you haven’t told us any fish tales
tonight. The second thing that impressed me is your concern with access for the disabled. I think
that’s admirable. I realize laws require this, but nonetheless, you have an improvement in there you
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
have taken into consideration, to service all of the folks, and not just some of the folks. As far as I’m
concerned, I kind of like that idea. So I would tend to support it.
MR. HAYES-Any further questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? I guess at
this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in favor of the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH CRIST
MR. CRIST-I’d like to give Steve some support. My facility is A-2000, which is practically directly
right across the street from this facility that Steve wants to re-do, and my concern is I don’t want
another Fresno Grill on the other side of me. It’s been vacant, Fresno Grill’s been two and a half,
three years now, and customers come in all the time, you know, are they going to open up, and when
that was open, we’d see a lot of lunch business. People would stop to our shop, leave their car off
for an hour and we’d do the oil or whatever we had to do to it, and they’d have lunch, and then
they’d come back. So it worked out really nicely that way, and when Steve showed me these plans, I
was excited again. I was like, well, this would be great. Maybe we could get some of that lunch
business back again that we lost when Fresno went out, and I also now have a lot of customers that I
give rides up to Suttons or they’ll, in the nicer weather, walk up for lunch or a friend will pick them
up or whatever. So, I mean, we have a lot of their business now because of their facility being a, it’s
becoming more and more of a destination than just a store. A lot of people travel to come to
Suttons, which is nice. So, again, I’m excited to see new life brought through 9, and the look of what
Suttons has done in past performance, we can expect a quality end product and an asset to the
community. So that’s my viewpoint on that. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, Keith. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?
CAROL EPPICH
MRS. EPPICH-My name is Carol Eppich, and I live at 480 Corinth Road, which is another overlay
corridor which has a lot of importance in the future of Queensbury. I’ve lived there for a long time,
and I would be very excited to see projects such as this appear on our road, and judging by the effort
that the State has put into the Route 9 corridor, in its improvements, twice in the last 15 years,
another upgrade this year, I think that the best thing that can happen to go along with that, is for
other buildings and businesses on that road to improve themselves. If you stand up near the upper
part of 9, about where the entrance to the drive in theater is, you have an absolutely beautiful view
of the hills down there. Unfortunately, when they made the improvements to Route 9, they didn’t
put utilities underground, which is a dream of mine, in commercial corridors. It’s so eye appealing,
but if you can’t do that, what you can do is landscape. The State did put in some new trees, they did
put in sod, which was very impressive, and then it’s pride of neighborhood which comes next, and
this is one thing that the Suttons have done, is they’ve had pride of neighborhood on Route 9, and so
I urge you very strongly to approve a nice project like this, that is very beneficial to the commercial
aspect of that road, and to the eye appeal of all of us that see that. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Anyone opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any last questions by the applicant? Okay. Lets talk about it. I guess we’re
back to you, Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with the application. The amount of relief is minimal, at
17.32 feet from the 75 foot corridor. In large part, the corridor is meant to allow for the expansion
of the highway in the future at minimal cost, as a result of any taking, and the proposed structure
which is being added is essentially a deck of minimal expense. So I don’t think that that would
complicate things too much, and the improvements to the building could be made in any event,
within the Travel Corridor Overlay. So to the extent it’s an expansion of a nonconforming structure,
an improvement, I don’t have a problem with it at all.
MR. HAYES-Charles?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I really said everything I had to say. That lady who was here just a few minutes
ago said it best. It certainly is an improvement over what there is right now, and it does service all of
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
the folks. It is a new business, a separate entity, and I think it adds to the Town of Queensbury, and
I would be in favor of supporting this.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-When I looked at the existing building, the existing building is an eyesore. I was
impressed with the amount of work that had gone into the landscaping in your proposal, and I, too,
am totally in favor of the project. I think it will enhance the aesthetics of the corridor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think in this particular
circumstance, the parking plan is an improvement by moving the parking to the side and rear. The
aesthetics of that should be a big improvement. The landscaping, as the plans depict, is substantial
and tasteful. I think it’s going to mitigate anything that’s there that’s caused by the deck, in this
particular case, I think Bob is right as far as the Travel Corridor Overlay protection. The way the
current improvements are being placed, and the way that Route 9 has just been updated, those two
things in my mind leave me with no real concerns there whatsoever. I think that a lot of money was
spent on Route 9. I think it was a great project, as it was brought out, but I don’t think there’s a real
danger at this particular point of an aggressive plan beyond that. I think it’s a logical recycling of this
building. I know this building’s been for sale for a while. Mr. Leonard has not been operating his
business there for a certain amount of time. What would we like to see happen with this building? I
think the plans and the result as Keith pointed out are liable to be something that’ll be very
satisfactory to our community, and a real asset, and I think the Suttons have a history of running a
good show. So I would be in favor of the application. I guess I need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2000 STEVEN SUTTON, Introduced
by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant:
1036 State Route 9. The applicant proposes the construction of an open dining deck and seeks relief
from the setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. Specifically, the applicant
requests 17.32 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum front setback requirement of the Travel
Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28 of the Queensbury Town Zoning Ordinance. Further,
because the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure is also requested, in accordance with Section 179-79. The benefit to the
applicant is that they would be permitted to construct and to utilize a ramp with a handicap within
the Travel Corridor Overlay, and a portion of a deck to connect to that ramp with the other dining
deck portion, which is otherwise properly and lawfully built without need for a variance. The feasible
alternatives could include reconfiguration or a downsized proposal. So the relief is not substantial
relative to the Ordinance, and therefore, for a practical matter, reconfiguring or downsizing is simply
out of the question and not feasible. I find no effects on the neighborhood or community with
respect to the proposed incursion into the Travel Corridor Overlay. The difficulty is not self-created.
While there may be alternatives, this is perhaps the best alternative that’s available, and makes the
most sense. For all these reasons, I move the approval of the variance.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
MR. SUTTON-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A BAY ROAD
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OWNER: SAME NE CORNER BAY AND DREAM LAKE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 20,000 SQ. FT.
CHURCH, CLASSROOM AND MEETING ROOM AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQIUREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 15-2000, AV 89-1993
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 51-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 17.28 ACRES
SECTION: 179-15
FRANK FAZEO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2000, Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Meeting Date:
February 16, 2000 “Project Location: NE corner of Bay and Dream Lake Roads Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 20,000 sf church, classroom and meeting
room facility and seeks relief from the maximum height requirements. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 13 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum height requirement afforded to buildings
outside of the Adirondack Park in the Rural Residential 3 acre zone, § 179-15. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired facility in the preferred
configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a shorter structure. 3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13 feet of relief from the 40 foot
requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5.
Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-371 c/o issued 7/12/96 pole barn Site Plan
Review pending 20,000 sf church, meeting room facility Staff comment: Minimal impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The proposal appears to be consistent with construction
typically associated with churches with steeples. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. HAYES-Would you please identify yourselves, somebody who’s representing the Church?
MR. FAZEO-I’m Frank Fazeo with C.T. Male Associates. We’re the engineer/architects for the site.
With me is Melissa Lupe, one of our Design Engineers. Ed Goddert of Bay Road Presbyterian
Church, and Skip LaRose. Basically I’ll just state we’re asking for relief for the height. Just to give
you a little bit of information, the proposed Church is located opposite the existing Church location.
The existing Church is located just a little bit north on Bay Road, maybe by about four or five
hundred feet, and on the west side of Bay Road. There’s a large open field where the Church would
be located. The Church would be set back from the road right of way approximately 223 feet.
Which is a lot farther back from what the building is presently. The site where the Church will be is
right straight across the road. It will be approximately 12 to 15 feet lower than the road. So it’s not l
like where the existing Church is now is up on a hill. This church would be a little bit lower. We do
have an entrance which is to the south, which would probably be almost at grade with the parking lot
of the church, as you come into the site. As we stated, we feel it’s a small relief request. The steeple,
and maybe part of the peak of the main church, is what’s asked for for the relief. The steeple is
approximately 16 feet by 16 feet. It’s a relatively small part of the structure, and it does promote
recognition of a house of worship and churches, and the fact that the church does sit below the road,
and at some locations, also gives it recognition of the steeple being up. So you can recognize the
structure of their.
MR. HAYES-That’s the only portion the height relief is for, the steeple?
MR. FAZEO-The steeple and the front peak of the church where the entrance is, by about maybe
three or four feet.
MR. HAYES-At the apex?
MR. FAZEO-Right, and we’ve got a couple of renditions of perspectives of what the church would
look like, the front elevation, and then we’ve got a couple of colored ones from the sides.
MR. HAYES-It’s going to be white like that?
MR. FAZEO-At this time, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got a stone base with the clapboard siding?
MR. FAZEO-Yes, and the front of the building will be at grade, and the rear, you can see that the
slope will grade downward. So there’ll be full exposure of the lower level. There are two levels. The
upper level is for the worship facilities and some offices, and then down below there are classrooms
and auditorium areas, and a kitchen in back.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the height of the roofline?
MR. FAZEO-The roofline I think was at 38 feet.
MR. BRYANT-The steeple is about 15 feet in height. What is the purpose of the steeple, besides
identification?
MR. FAZEO-It’s basically an aesthetics thing for churches. Typically they do have them.
ED GODDERT
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
MR. GODDERT-One of the reasons was to provide natural lighting inside the sanctuary, and the
second reason is it appears to be a lighthouse, which is sort of a theme of our outreach program.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s kind of tough to have a church without a steeple, too.
MR. GODDERT-It was also something that, we did a needs assessment survey of our congregation,
and that was one of the things that they felt would be proper in a new facility was a steeple.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t know about questions, but I have a couple of comments. I might have a
vested interest here, and I certainly don’t want to be questioned in terms of impropriety. I’m 69, and
I don’t know how much longer I have to go, and when I leave this earth and go to the next world, I
don’t want the agent in charge questioning why I voted a certain way. I want to go there with good
standing. So if that’s not a conflict of interest. All right. Fair enough. That’s all I have to say.
MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no more questions, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone
here in favor of the application? Would you please come forward and state your name for the
record?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN STARK
MR. STARK-I’m John Stark, and I border the church property on the east side, which would be the
back, and I don’t have any problems with the church building there or the height of the steeple
whatsoever. That’s all I’ve got to say.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, sir.
MR. STARK-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else here in favor? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And let’s talk about it. Charles, I guess you pretty much already said your peace. You
don’t want to go against the Big Guy.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. HAYES-All right. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t necessarily agree. I think there’ve been churches built in Queensbury without
steeples, but as I look at the renderings, it appears to be a nice appearance. I have really no
objections. Besides, I don’t want to make the Big Guy mad.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Given the site, I have no problem with the height. Certainly, the steeple goes with
the church building, and I think it helps mitigate any complaint anybody might have about the height,
the fact that the site is lower than the road, and this is going to be the main visual impact of
somebody going up the road. So I have no problem at all with it.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-A steeple, in my opinion, is an architectural detail, which adds to the overall
aesthetics of this building, which would otherwise look like one huge barn, perhaps. It identifies it as
a church. As Chuck said, the parcel is large enough and the neighbors far away enough so that it is
not going to have any significant impact on the community, and overall it would probably be an
improvement on that parcel. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I agree with Bob entirely. I think in this particular case, as in other cases,
with a church, that the steeple, although the area creating the variance, it clearly improves the overall
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/16/00)
project. It completes it, any way you want to look at that. So I think it’s a very nice, well designed
structure, and I also think, as Bob pointed out, considering the placement and the land area involved,
I don’t foresee any problems with the neighborhood. It should be a positive addition, in a number
of ways. So I’m in favor of the application. I guess I need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
McNally:
Northeast corner of Bay and Dream Lake Roads. Applicant proposes construction of a 20,000
square foot church, classroom and meeting room facility, and seeks relief from the maximum height
requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum height
requirement afforded to buildings outside the Adirondack Park, in the Rural Residential Three Acre
zone, according to Paragraph 179-15. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant would be
permitted to construct the desired facility in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives may
include a shorter structure. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Thirteen feet of relief
from the forty foot requirement could be interpreted as being moderate to substantial, but given the
fact that it’s only for the steeple area, it probably could be considered minimal to moderate. The
effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood can be anticipated
as a result of this action, and is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as self-
created, but I think there’s justification for approving this variance, and therefore I move approval.
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion’s passed.
MR. FAZEO-Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-We can do minutes. We can do the January 19 minutes anyway.
th
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
January 19, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 19, 2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-I believe that if there’s no further business before the Board, I will move for a motion
to adjourn.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll make a motion that we adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC NALLY-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Vice Chairman
38