2003-06-25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
PAUL HAYES
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL SCHUERLEIN
AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL SCHUERLEIN
ZONING: UR-10 LOCATION: 188 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT IS APPEALING A
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION REGARDING THE ADDITION OF A
COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. CROSS
REFERENCE: UV 77-1997; UV 48-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 TAX MAP
NO. 302.09-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2003, Paul Schuerlein, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 188 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant is appealing a
Zoning Administrator determination regarding the addition of a commercial use to an Urban
Residential property. Staff comments: It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that a
Use Variance is necessary in order for Kellwood or any additional use to operate on the
property. The previously approved Use Variance, (77-1997), resolved November 24, 1997 was
specific to “…approve the application to the extent it requests and will allow Mr. Schuerlien to
operate a plumbing and heating business…” The approval was not for generic acceptance of
commercial uses on the property.
In apparent agreement with a prior Zoning Administrator determination, a Use Variance ( UV
48-2001 ) was submitted for review by the Board. This application was subsequently tabled, for
additional financial data, and ultimately withdrawn by the appellant.
The appellant’s September 10, 2002 request to find that “…the use of a portion of the structure
by a kitchen countertop installer comes within the relief that was provided to Mr. Schuerlien
in the November 1997 resolution…” is a request for the Zoning Board of Appeals to
revisit/rehear the November 1997 resolution.
Note:
Any discussions regarding the intent, applicability or content of a previous determination or
ruling by the Board can be revisited only after a motion to do so has been unanimously
passed by the Board. If the Board decision of May 28, 2003 was intended to allow the
Appellant an opportunity to offer an argument for rehearing, it appears to be in order, however,
comes within
if that decision were to be viewed as a request to revisit a previous determination, (
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
the relief that was provided
), it does not appear as thought it was consistent with the requirements
of Town Law 267-a,12, Rehearing.”
MR. STONE-What I’m going to do right now is give the appellant and his Counsel the
opportunity to talk and tell us what you think you’d like us to do and we will determine
whether we like what you’re asking us to do and make the proper determination.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly. For the record, Jon Lapper on behalf of Paul Schuerlein who I’m sitting
with. In 1997, as we just heard, Paul applied to this Board and received a Use Variance to allow
the building on Dixon Road to be used for a plumbing and heating business. I’m just going to
submit two photos just to show what it looks like now, after considerable renovations and
upgrade to the building. Because Paul’s business ultimately did not require all the space in the
building, he determined that he wanted to lease a portion of the building to what he considered
a very similar and compatible use, which is a gentleman who does fabricating and installation
of kitchen countertops and cabinets. What Paul does is fabricating and installation of plumbing
and heating and air ducts, heating ventilation, air conditioning, and plumbing. My appeal to
the Zoning Administrator, my request to the Zoning Administrator was for him to determine
that the two uses were substantially the same, under the Town Code they’re substantially the
same, so that the use of part of the building for Paul’s business, for plumbing and heating, and
part of the business for this other building trade use for kitchen countertops and cabinets, which
also get installed off site and both of which comply with the two conditions of the 1997 Zoning
Board approval, which was no showroom, so you’d have customers come in to the shop and no
outdoor storage, that both of these uses are so substantially similar under the Town Code, that
it would be okay to, instead of using the whole square footage for a larger plumbing operation,
to use part of the square footage for plumbing and part of the square footage to, for this kitchen
countertop and cabinet business. So I didn’t mean to make this overly technically or
procedurally complicated. It’s really just a way for him to fill up his building. Obviously, if the
other half of the building was used by another plumbing and heating contractor, it would be the
same use. So if he had half the building plumbing and heating, Paul Schuerlein, and half the
building Bill Schuerlein, it would all be within the same plumbing and heating permitted use,
and what we’re asking for is really just some leniency, flexibility and consideration that there’s
no practical difference, and I’m not saying that this should be applied to another case, but just in
the case here where these two uses are so similar that, even though what he asked the Board for
was specifically the plumbing and heating, that this other use is so close to it.
MR. BRYANT-Excuse me, just one second, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding about this dissertation here about the actual application. I
thought, you know, I thought we were just supposed to talk about why we’re, you know, why
we’re going to rehear. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. STONE-All right. Well, I just want to get it clear, because I don’t want to make anybody
unhappy in this particular case. My next question to the applicant was what did he think this
Board did last week, and that’s what I want to get up to speed so we’re all at the same point at
the same time.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I just don’t want to create a situation where we start talking about the
actual application, as opposed to, you know, the merits of the actual application, as opposed to
what we’re supposed to be talking about.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m really trying to determine.
MR. LAPPER-I’ll go to the procedural issues now. I think that we are suppose to be talking
about the procedural, excuse me, about the merits, because what happened at the last meeting
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
was that you had to vote as to whether you would hear the appeal. There was a question of
whether or not it was timely, and you voted that it was timely and that you would hear the
appeal. So the appeal specifically is that Stephanie, who just joined me, DiLallo Bitter, my
associate and I, submitted to Craig a letter on September 10, which is part of the record, which
th
pretty much laid out a little more succinctly than I just did, what our case is, that these are
substantially similar uses, and we asked Craig to give us the determination that it was okay to
use the building, half for one and half for the other, under that prior variance, because it’s the
same building trade use, and he sent us a letter, in March, saying that he disagreed with, that he
wouldn’t grant what we requested, that determination.
MR. STONE-And you’re appealing, that’s what I’m trying to get clear.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-You’re appealing his determination that he did not agree that prior Use Variance
covered addition (lost words). Is that what the Board, because I lacked, I wasn’t here last week,
and I want to be sure, was it last month, but I want to be sure that all of us know.
MR. LAPPER-I think you were here last month.
MR. STONE-I guess I was here. I was here, you’re right. I was thinking last week. I don’t
know, but let me just poll the Board for a second. What do you guys thing, based upon
everything, I don’t want to ride roughshod. I want to know that we’re all on the same page.
Norm, what do you think we’re here to do tonight on this one?
MR. HIMES-Well, my understanding is that we’re to focus on the aspect of whether or not the
expanded or additional, depending on how you want to define it, and I’ll get to that maybe
later, not on this commentary, however, is such that it is the same, would come under the same
definition of use as what was approved back in 1997, and therefore.
MR. STONE-But, let me stop you because we have a determination by the Zoning
Administrator that it does not.
MR. HIMES-Right.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re here, to judge on the merits of the appeal.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Is that what you think?
MR. HIMES-Yes, that we’re appealing that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I would agree that the Zoning Administrator made it quite clear, and I think
the record makes it quite clear that the previous approval was for operating a plumbing and
heating business in an existing structure, and it seems to me that there certainly is a practical
difference in terms of use.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan, what do you think we’re here to do?
MR. BRYANT-I haven’t got a clue.
MR. STONE-I just want it on the record that we’re all somewhat confused.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BRYANT-I think that it would really help, Counselor, not to disrupt your process here, but
to just go through the chronology of this thing, because apparently back in ’97, it gave you a
variance to use it as a plumbing and heating business.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. BRYANT-And then apparently somewhere along the line, and I wasn’t at that meeting,
where you asked for this additional use, and then that was tabled, right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Well, but keep in mind, though, I’ll stop you because I want to get the point in, a
Use application was filed for that second use in 2001.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Let me explain that.
MR. STONE-Well, but it was. I just want to get that on the record.
MR. LAPPER-It was. It was done without the assistance of counsel. So when he then came to
me and said, would you do a Use Variance application for me, because that’s what he was told
by the Town that he would need, I looked at it and I said, you know, these things are so similar
in uses that maybe you don’t need it. Maybe we could ask the Zoning Administrator to make a
determination that you don’t need a Use Variance.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. You withdrew that application. Right?
MR. LAPPER-He withdrew that application.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then somewhere along the line it was determined that, yes, the uses
are different and therefore you would need.
MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator made that determination, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then there was a hearing in May where you appealed that.
MR. LAPPER-We appealed that, but the only issue that the Board reviewed at the May meeting
was the procedural issue of whether or not our appeal was timely. It was a statute of
limitations question, because we ask the question two different ways to the Zoning
Administrator, and he answered it twice.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now it’s the purpose of this hearing, is the purpose of this, are you
appealing the original Zoning Administrator? Because it’s beyond the time limit. You want to
just re-open this whole thing, is that what you’re saying?
MR. STONE-No, no. We’re not there yet.
MR. LAPPER-No. I’m appealing.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to understand where we are.
MR. STONE-We are, I mean, my understanding, Mr. Lapper, is that we are at the point, do we
concur, or do we disagree with the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BRYANT-But now wait a minute, now. That appeal was already made, and it wasn’t made
in a timely fashion, and therefore.
MR. LAPPER-No. We determined it was made in a timely fashion.
MR. STONE-The last time they were before us, we determined it was. They could appeal the
decision. That’s as far as it’s gone. They could appeal the decision. Then.
MR. HAYES-Right. He could not get to the merits without that decision, essentially.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So then what’s the purpose of tonight?
MR. STONE-To say that we agree with Mr. Brown or we don’t agree with Mr. Brown.
MR. HAYES-It’s essentially the merits of the appeal.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Is that what you interpret this whole process?
MR. BROWN-Well, for starters, I think certainly the applicant should present an argument to
the merits of what they want the Board to consider. I think the technical part of it is there was
an approval issued for this property, and their September 10 letter specifically asked to find
th
that the current proposal fits within the relief that was granted in ’97. That’s a request to go
back and look at that old approval and see that, yes, that approval does cover this new use, and
my interpretation is that that’s a re-hearing of an old approval, and that’s the technical part of it.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re saying whether you’re right or wrong.
MR. BRYANT-No, I don’t think that that’s what he’s saying.
MR. HAYES-Those are two different things.
MR. URRICO-Don’t we have to first decide whether there is (lost words)?
MR. HAYES-I thought we did that last week, though, or last month by operation. Do you
know what I mean?
MR. BRYANT-I think what you’re saying, basically, is that tonight we decide whether or not we
can hear the appeal. Is that correct? Or is this the appeal?
MR. LAPPER-This is the appeal.
MR. BRYANT-Because according to the documentation I have, that’s what we’re supposed to
be talking about tonight.
MR. HAYES-I think Craig has two arguments why the appeal fails, essentially. I mean, one’s a
procedural and one’s a merit.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but we’re not going to talk about the appeal. We’re going to talk about
whether or not we’re even going to hear the appeal.
MR. HAYES-No, we voted last month to hear the appeal.
MR. BRYANT-But where is that vote in the paperwork?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. LAPPER-May.
MR. HAYES-May 28.
th
MR. STONE-May 28.
th
MR. BRYANT-May 28 you denied the motion.
th
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. STONE-What page are you on?
MR. BRYANT-I’m on one of the first pages. Motion denied based on the vote status. The
motion that we do not entertain the Notice of Appeal.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s a double negative. It’s a double negative motion. The motion was to not
hear it, and it was voted down. Therefore it turned into an affirmative.
MR. BROWN-That’s right.
MR. STONE-Wow. Sorry. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So we already determined that.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So now we’re hearing whether or not.
MR. STONE-We agree with.
MR. BRYANT-We agree with Mr. Brown’s determination are we agree with Counsel.
MR. STONE-And then if we disagree with Mr. Brown, then we will schedule another meeting
to hear the merits.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned.
MR. ABBATE-You mean to hear the revisit?
MR. HAYES-No. Part of the confusion is that, and Craig’s arguments that he’s introduced,
against the appellant, this is my opinion, one of them is a procedural, he feels the thing fails for
two reasons. Procedurally and factually.
MR. BROWN-Well, kind of. I don’t want to make a judgment whether I think it fails or passes.
That’s why they’re here because they disagree with what I said.
MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, by implication you could, you think, right.
MR. STONE-You want to re-state what you, the decision, the decision or lack thereof that you
made?
MR. BROWN-Right. I think it’s a procedural thing first. If you decide that you want to go
ahead with this appeal, hear the merits, decide whether it’s worthy of needing a variance or not
needing a variance, a Use Variance, first you have to decide whether you want to go back and
re-open that 1997 approval.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-And in that case there we have to have a motion for it.
MR. BROWN-You’d have to have a motion.
MR. ABBATE-That’s absolutely correct.
MR. STONE-And it has to be unanimous.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t agree with that.
MR. HAYES-That’s if we determine that this is the same variance.
MR. STONE-See, that’s why we’re all confused, Jaime. Because, if we had a, I wish it were
simple, that Mr. Brown, and that’s why I’m asking him to re-state his decision because I think
that’s why we’re here. What did Mr. Brown say? If we agree with him, it’s all over. If the
decision, or lack thereof, because he originally maintained he did not make a new decision, but I
guess we agreed that he did, last month.
MR. BROWN-Let me speed things up here a little bit and get right to the point, is if we have Mr.
Lapper tell us what he wants us to do, then we can respond directly to that request, and clear
up what’s been said already, and deal with what he wants now.
MR. MC NULTY-I think Jaime had the crux of it, though. I think the two arguments that Craig
made, one was Craig was maintaining he did not make a new determination, and last month we
said we would say that yes he did make a new determination.
MR. HAYES-Right, and the crux of that argument was that counsel said that his argument for
the variance was different than the original argument.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HAYES-That’s the one thing that we agreed with. We did not say we agreed with what he
was putting forth, but the fact is that he had made a separate argument from the previous Use
Variance.
MR. STONE-That he had made a new determination.
MR. HAYES-That counsel had made a new argument, and he had made a determination against
that argument.
MR. STONE-Correct, and that’s the argument that we have to decide on.
MR. ABBATE-Here’s the danger, okay. This is the danger, okay. It’s quite clear, the law makes
it quite clear, that any discussions whatsoever, regarding the intent, the applicability, or the
content of a previous determination by the Board can only be revisited after a motion. Period.
MR. HAYES-If it has to do with the same variance, and counsel made the argument in May that
it was a different.
MR. ABBATE-It has to do with the variance of November 1997.
MR. HAYES-Not entirely.
MR. ABBATE-What do you mean not entirely? Then you agree with me, I don’t care if it’s
minutely, that in itself is a revisit.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck, as Mr. Brown said, what do you think that you’d like us to do? I
mean, we’re obviously all a little bit confused.
MR. LAPPER-What I’d like you to do is that I’d like at least four of you to vote and say that the
uses are so substantially similar, the impacts are so substantially similar, that it’s okay, under
the prior Use Variance, that the use is okay in this site.
MR. BRYANT-That’s great, but I don’t think that’s why we’re here tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Can I address that? Counselor, you’re wrong, and let me tell you why you’re
wrong, and let me tell you why you’re wrong. The approval of 1997 says that no retail sales or
retail use of the property. This implies a trenchant, stinging limitations on approval, and what
stinging limitations on approval means is that you do nothing but plumbing and whatever
you’re going to do, and the fact that you agreed earlier, you’ve said that there’s no practical
difference in use between plumbing and cabinet making?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I disagree. There is.
MR. BRYANT-I would like to address that issue. I don’t think that we should be addressing the
issue. I think we could resolve this thing very easily, Mr. Chairman, by just saying, let’s make a
motion that we will re-visit this whole issue, and this will allow us to talk about it.
MR. ABBATE-Good.
MR. BRYANT-You know, before we get to that point, but I want to address what Mr. Abbate
just said because for once I do disagree with you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Having worked with trades for 30 years, okay, in a lot of cases, specifically in
major construction situations, it’s a plumber who puts in those cabinets, okay. So in reality it’s
the same trade. So, I don’t think that there’s a lot of difference between what you’re, but I don’t
think we should be talking about that now. Do you understand?
MR. STONE-Well, let me go back to the minutes, because I think we’re all remembering
somewhat differently. The minutes say, on the last page, Mr. Abbate’s, and I won’t say you’re
boggling my mind, so he, I have to raise the issue, Mr. Stone, and absolutely we’ll take it up
when we talk about it, it obviously weighs to the argument. So we’ll leave the public hearing
open until some time on the 25, and we take it up on that point, no decision, according to these
th
minutes, was made on the 25.
th
MR. LAPPER-On the substance, no decision was made. On the procedure, that the Statute of
Limitations hadn’t run, you already read that. That decision was made in a motion, that you
would hear it.
MR. URRICO-I see a motion that we do not entertain Notice of Appeal.
MR. STONE-Where is this, what page?
MR. URRICO-Page 37.
MR. LAPPER-You guys think I’m trying to confuse you. It just seems that way, but that’s not
what, it’s not my intention.
MR. ABBATE-Confuse the jury. That way you get an acquittal.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Motion that we do not entertain Notice of Appeal.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the Chuck McNulty double negative.
MR. STONE-That’s the double negative one.
MR. MC NULTY-Two voted in favor and five against.
MR. STONE-I said strictly procedural, to say that under certain circumstances we will entertain
this appeal, but I will put conditions on it when we get done. So we called the voted, and we
voted two yes for the do not entertain, and five noes to do do not entertain, so, but that motion
was, again,
MR. BRYANT-Relative to the Statute of Limitations, to the limits.
MR. STONE-Do they have standing to proceed.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-And we’re saying you have standing to proceed, but at the same time, there’s a
determination that it does not cover, under the previous Use Variance.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the determination that we’re appealing.
MR. STONE-That’s, thank you. So we’re here to say whether we agree with Mr. Brown that you
need a new Use Variance application or you do not.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right, but before you think that we’ve got it all set, there’s one other
procedural thing that I’ve got to throw in. What Mr. Brown has said tonight in the Staff notes,
he’s talking about another issue of a re-hearing, okay, and Stephanie just pulled out Town Law
267A, and there are two different parts of this. One is the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
determination, which is 267A(5), Filing of Administrative Decision and time to appeal. Which
is we’re appealing that determination that he made in writing. However, Under Subsection 12,
there is re-hearing, which is the that requires unanimous approval of the Board for re-hearing. I
believe that that would be another tool that we would have, if this Board decided unanimously
that they wanted to open up the 1997, in ’97, Mr. Schuerlein only requested plumbing and
heating. I’m making the request that these are substantially similar. So I asked Craig for some
relief, and he denied it, and I’m asking now you to reconsider his determination. I think I have
another procedural choice, which is if the Board decided that they wanted to re-hear it, instead
of, you could re-hear the ’97, and we could ask.
MR. HAYES-Change the motion.
MR. ABBATE-You mean re-visit it.
MR. LAPPER-Re-visit it, but I could only do that if the Board unanimously wanted to re-hear it.
MR. ABBATE-Exactly.
MR. LAPPER-And in that case, the hardship was established, which is that this building is not a
single family building or any of the other few uses that are permitted in the zone because it’s
been in a commercial use for many, many years. So that was the first part of the hardship test.
The second part was whether the use that was requested is compatible with the neighborhood
and won’t be detrimental. So, if he had the foresight of seven years, six years. I wasn’t there
then. I’m not saying that I would have had the foresight, either, but he could have then
requested the relief that he could have, that if he needs a Use Variance, because it’s not going to
be single family, but he’d like it to be, for these two trades, side by side.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HAYES-But the question now, is, Jon, are you here for a re-hearing, or are you here to
appeal his decision?
MR. LAPPER-And I’ve appealed. I mean, if you look at the paperwork, I’ve appealed.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’ve appealed his decision.
MR. HAYES-You’re not asking for a re-hearing.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. STONE-Okay, but if, in fact, we overturn his decision, you will come back with a request
for a re-hearing.
MR. LAPPER-No, I wouldn’t need to.
MR. HAYES-(Lost words) he wouldn’t need to come back for a re-hearing. If we support Craig,
he would possibly.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t think that that argument is correct. The argument when you’re
talking about re-visiting the ’97 variance.
MR. LAPPER-You don’t think we have the right to ask for that?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I think you do, but when you talk about the hardship, we’re not talking
about the hardship that existed in 1997, because you already have a track record of using it for
the trade that you’re using it now. So I think that you have to re-visit that hardship to say, if I
don’t add the cabinet thing to it, therefore, you know what I mean? Maybe I’m wrong.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, go ahead. If you’re done, Al. I didn’t mean to cut you off.
MR. BRYANT-I’m done.
MR. LAPPER-Let me just respond to that. The trick about the re-hearing, the benefit to the
applicant for re-hearing is that you don’t have to go back and establish the hardship again,
because that’s already been established. You’re just trying to change some of the conditions, or
in this case.
MR. STONE-I would argue against that, because a Use Variance, and you know it as well as I
do, cannot realize a reasonable return, and this is now 2003. Mr. Schuerlein is still in business.
There must be some kind of return being made on this business.
MR. LAPPER-We’re talking about now, and part of this discussion is theoretical, and I
apologize, but the difference between, if we ask for a new Use Variance, we would have to
establish the hardship as of today.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to make an arbitrary decision right now.
MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question, first?
MR. STONE-Go ahead, but what I want to do is I want to ask for a motion, when you get done,
that we support the decision made by Mr. Brown and then it’s back in your court, but not
tonight.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I can’t let this go by. You claim there’s no, and I could be wrong. So I want
you to clear this up for me. No practical differences in use.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Does the plumbing and heating business use Formica?
PAUL SCHUERLEIN
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-It does, and so does cabinetmaking, correct? And are you aware of the fact that
Formica gives off formaldehyde? And that there are federal and state laws about that?
MR. LAPPER-We’re not manufacturing.
MR. ABBATE-You’re cutting formaldehyde, the cabinet business. Is that correct?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And are you aware of the fact that there are federal and state laws about that?
MR. SCHUERLEIN-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to ask for a motion, very short and sweet, that we support the
decision by the Zoning Administrator that the previous Use Variance does not cover the current
situation. Is that clear enough? Craig, do you agree with that?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-Well, no.
MR. BROWN-No, I understand what you’re saying, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do I hear a second?
MR. ABBATE-Second.
MR. STONE-I made it. Would our secretary, I would like to call the question.
MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT THE DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THAT THE PREVIOUS USE VARIANCE DOES NOT COVER THE CURRENT
SITUATION, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-We support his decision. You have to take it up with him, in terms of.
MR. HAYES-No, the appeal is denied.
MR. STONE-The appeal is denied.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I believe that that means that we can either ask for a re-hearing or we can
apply for a new Use Variance. Those are our two choices.
MR. STONE-You certainly can always apply for a new Use Variance. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And also you can apply for a re-hearing.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Which requires a unanimous vote.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Let’s move on. For those of you who expected, if anybody was here for Kenneth &
Diana Kambar, that is no longer on the agenda.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HOLLYWOOD VIDEO
AGENT: RAY SIGN, INC. OWNER: BERKSHIRE DEVELOPMENT LLC ZONING: HC-
INT LOCATION: 216 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO ADDITIONAL
WALL SIGNS (EACH 29.56 SQ. FT.) AT THE HOLLYWOOD VIDEO STORE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 99-689; BP 99-718 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 TAX MAP
NO.: 302.08-1-47 LOT SIZE: 2.37 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 (B3d4)
RUSS HAGEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 50-2003, Hollywood Video, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 216 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes two
additional wall signs ( each 29.56sf ) at the Hollywood Video store on Quaker Road. Relief
Required: Applicant requests relief for the placement of two additional wall signs. The
proposed signs would be 29.56 sq. ft. each. Per §140-6, B,(3),(d),[4], only one wall sign per
tenant is allowable within a business complex. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.):
BP 97-3135 10/30/97 113 sq. ft. wall sign
BP 97-3136 10/30/97 113 sq. ft. wall sign
Sign Variance 27-97 resolved 5/21/97 Additional wall sign
Staff comments:
The requests for 3 and 4 wall signs for a single tenant in a business complex may be
rdth
interpreted as substantial. What is the need for the additional signage? Is the business located
in such a way as to put it at a disadvantage compared to surrounding businesses?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Ray Sign, Inc. for Hollywood Video Owner: Berkshire Development, LLC
ID Number: QBY-03-SV-50 County Project#: June03-32 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes two additional wall signs (each 29.56 sq.
ft.) at the Hollywood Video store. Relief requested from the number of allowable signs. Site
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
Location: 302.08-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to locate two 29.56
sq. ft. signs within the existing signage for Hollywood Video Stores at the corner of Quaker and
Bay Road. The information submitted indicates the signage is to advertise the “Game Crazy –
Buy, Sell, Trade”. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/03.
MR. MC NULTY-And it’s going to be an Unlisted Action.
MR. STONE-Okay. Sir?
MR. HAGEN-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Russ Hagen, and I’m with Ray Sign
Company. We’re not actually the producer of the signs. We’re acting on behalf of Hollywood
Video and their manufacturer. What has happened in their particular industry, with the DVD’s
and the advent of these games that the kids are playing, they are taking a portion of their stores
now and dedicating those areas to these new products and services, and rather than change the
name of the store, they thought that if they could put this new signage up, it would enhance
their business, and let the general public know that they now offer these products and services.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAGEN-That’s basically it. They would like that identification.
MR. STONE-They are aware, of course, of the Sign Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. HAGEN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-And they are aware that we granted them variance, this Board granted them a
variance for two signs, two large oversized signs back when they opened the store? And do
they know how protective we are of the Sign Ordinance?
MR. HAGEN-Well, I believe they do, and I’m here to make the request. That’s basically it, to
see if they could put some signage out there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAGEN-Really very basic. It’s really a change of what’s happening in their industry, and
they’re finding that, on locations where they have put their signage up, that they are having
some success by having their name on the front of the building.
MR. STONE-I have some comments I’d like to make, but I’d like to ask anybody. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. This is the Hollywood Video on 216, that’s next to the pizza place, right?
MR. HAGEN-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-And as I recall, and again, if I’m wrong, my memory’s slow at times, help me out,
I think there’s the video, and I think there’s a dental establishment there, and I think there’s a
CVS and a pizza place, correct?
MR. HAGEN-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-So that’s a total of four businesses.
MR. HAGEN-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-If we approved your request, for a total of three, that means that for a total of
four businesses, we would have an additional 12 new signs. Three times four is twelve.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HAGEN-Yes, if you did that, yes.
MR. ABBATE-And do you feel that’s realistic?
MR. HAGEN-I don’t.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t? Thank you, I don’t, either.
MR. HAGEN-I mean, I don’t think it’s realistic, but I’m here to make the request.
MR. STONE-You’re an agent, and that’s fine.
MR. HAGEN-Exactly. I mean, there’s not a lot of argument here. What they’re trying to do,
again, is their industry is changing, this industry, videos and DVD’s and games and Y TV, and
it’s a whole different ballgame. Their name is Hollywood Video. They thought, in their
marketing that if they could put this new name up there that rather than change their signage,
because they’ve investigated so much into the name Hollywood Video, the word “Video” is
really becoming something of the past, you know, so this was one way to let the general public
know that there’s some new product lines in here, they are dedicating areas to these product
and services, and their first request was to see if, in fact, they could get the signage up there. If
they can’t, would one sign be allowable, and if that’s not allowed, could they do something in
the window.
MR. ABBATE-But you understand my logic behind it?
MR. HAGEN-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Because, you know, if you do for one, you have to do for another.
MR. HAGEN-Not a lot of argument here, from me.
MR. STONE-This Board, unlike some organizations in the area, we do not shoot the messenger.
MR. ABBATE-Not at all.
MR. STONE-We do listen to the message. We may not agree, but we do listen to the message.
MR. HAGEN-Thank you. I do appreciate that.
MR. URRICO-I have a question, and again, I realize you’re the agent, but some of the points
that you made about the additional diversity that they’re endeavoring in, seem to be covered
already in window signs that are in the front and the sides of the store. I counted 11 window
signs. Many of them had nothing to do with movies that were in there. Some of them referred
to the game crazy, some of them referred to DVD’s.
MR. HAGEN-Right.
MR. STONE-I did want to point out, under our Sign Ordinance, Section 140-5, General
Standards and Regulations Section K, no sign erected or maintained in the window of a
building, and visible from any public or private street or highway shall occupy more than 25%
of the area of said window. I, personally, took offense, when I drove up this morning, and
looked at the windows, because anything could have been going on inside that store, and you
couldn’t see it, there were so many signs there, as Mr. Urrico says. Again, that’s not you. That’s
what they’re doing.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HAGEN-No, I understand that. It’s kind of a common thing. Once businesses get
established, they take advantage of the window space. That’s how they value their signage. It
is important to them.
MR. ABBATE-But, see, the Chairman makes a good point. We could go on from there and say
that might be considered a safety factor for the public.
MR. HAGEN-Well, it could be, you know. That’s a good point. I’m not here to argue with you.
I’m just here to.
MR. STONE-We appreciate that. Does anybody have any other comments? I’ll open the public
hearing.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a question for Staff.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. MC NULTY-Craig, what constitutes the sign at that building? Is it just the words
“Hollywood Video”, or is it the full length?
MR. BROWN-The way that the variance was granted in 1997, and the subsequent sign permits
were issued, it was just for the words. I would have made the determination it’s the whole sign,
the neon, the Hollywood mountains effect, and I think that’s the goal.
MR. STONE-I thought we did.
MR. BROWN-That was for a different store.
MR. STONE-Don’t you remember that?
MR. HAYES-I think that was for the one on Glen Street.
MR. STONE-The one on Glen Street? Okay.
MR. BROWN-I would call the entire panel, the colored lit panel, the sign and the words
obviously part of that.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-But that wasn’t the case here?
MR. BROWN-That wasn’t the case back when this was done, but.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, because my only thought was if it was the whole thing, then all they’re
doing is adding more lettering to an existing sign, but that’s not the case.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-All right. Any other comment? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody in the
public wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed?
Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. One piece of correspondence from Robert Eddy, and he says, “Please
deny this variance. This store should never have been allowed there in the first place. It shows
blatant disrespect for the founders and first settlers who are buried between the building and
Bay Road. In giving the Occupancy Permit, the least that could have been done was to require
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
screening to hide the store from view of the adjoining Burial Grounds. My ancestors, on both
sides, were among the first settlers of Queensbury. A study shows that at least six of my direct
ancestors are buried there. When you consider the large families of those days, with the
siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins, my relatives are a large percentage of the 83 or 84 bodies
buried there. To permit the additional signing adds insult to injury, so, PLEASE DENY THIS
SIGN VARIANCE. Sincerely, Robert L. Eddy”
MR. STONE-That’s it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comment you want to make about that?
MR. HAGEN-No, just, again, if there’s any consideration here, I’m sure they would appreciate
it. If one wall sign would be allowed, that would be appreciated. If there is something that I
could go back and say, listen, if you want to put something in the window, you’d have to get
rid of X amount of signage and then put up something that would be in accordance with the
25%. They may want to consider that, but it would be an illuminated unit that they would hang
in the window. So, I’m just, I’d just like to know what your feelings are.
MR. STONE-Right now the decision before us, are you empowered to give up anything?
MR. HAGEN-I’m here at whatever you decide and I’ll go back and that’s it.
MR. STONE-But I mean, if somebody on this Board says, would you settle for one sign, can you
do that?
MR. HAGEN-Yes, I am.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to be sure, because sometimes we get agents whose hands are
tied.
MR. HAGEN-I can appreciate that. Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let’s talk about it. Chuck, how do you feel about this situation?
MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m going to be opposed. As I said, if they’d had a variance that
covered the entire wall sign including the mountain neons, the full thing, then it would strike
me they were just adding words to an existing approval and I would have no argument on it,
but given that the approval was for the Hollywood Video wording, and they’ve already got
100% more than what normally would be allowed, because they had a variance for a second
wall sign to begin with, that added to the window signs that exist there now, and obviously
those window signs are going to change from time to time, but I think they’re a fact of life.
They’re always going to be there, one way or another, it strikes me as just being too much
signage. I can’t see the justification for allowing it. So I’ll be opposed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with what Chuck has just stated. He reflects my
sentiments exactly. I think it’s a little too much, and I would be opposed to the application.
Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck, Abbate?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m going to be opposed to the application. If I were to even suggest
that we provide one additional sign, there would be very severe restrictions. The Chairman,
earlier, made an interesting point, and I agreed with him. I decided I wasn’t going to say
anything, and then I decided, well maybe I owe the public a responsibility to say something. I
am extremely concerned, and I’m going to ask the Town to take a look at the number of signs in
the windows, and try to determine, if appropriate, whether or not they could possibly present
any kind of security problem with customers inside. Thank you.
MR. STONE-All right. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, this is really a no-brainer. You’ve got 100% relief already
on your signs, and now you want 300%. There are other businesses in the Town, one that
comes to mind, Staples, for example. I mean, they were denied a wall sign on one side. They
have one wall sign.
MR. HAGEN-I attended that variance.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. HAGEN-I was the last one up that night. It was midnight. I sat through the whole thing
and you just said no.
MR. BRYANT-That was the second one, and it was a reasonable request, but.
MR. HAGEN-No, but I’m, just like I say, I’m here to present what they would like to see, and if
there’s any relief, fine, and I do appreciate what you’re saying.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I can understand the business
objective here, but I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the Town to support this application.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with the rest of the Board members. There has been very few
decisions that I’ve been a part of in the past on this Board that, after they were done, I regretted.
Unfortunately, the Hollywood Video sign would be one that I would point to that I think that
the signage that’s there now is over the top in my opinion, and I think that if any additional
signage is out of the question in my opinion. I wouldn’t be in favor of even any concessions. I
think as Allan Bryant pointed out, there’s already been a lot of relief granted in this particular
situation, and it’s enough. If Hollywood Video needs to change their image or the direction of
their business, which I certainly understand, and understand why they have to do it, and they
should do it through their signage that they have, and that’s their choice, and I guess they’re
essentially asking us to do it for them, and I’m not in favor of that. So I would be opposed to
the variance, or any additional, small additional signage either.
MR. HAGEN-I just have one question. If they complied with the 25% window area, could they
put something inside, because these questions come up. If they took down the existing signage
in the window, and put 25%?
MR. HAYES-I think that’s their right.
MR. STONE-I believe that can be done, can’t it? As long as it’s less than 25%. It can be a
permanent sign inside the window.
MR. HAGEN-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s less than, as long as it’s less than 25% of the window area.
MR. HAGEN-The specific, is it the window?
MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think you want to have 100% on all the windows and one window
with 25%. If the question is, if we have 25% throughout the store, can we put these signs in the
windows, is that?
MR. HAGEN-No. Do you count, let’s say if there’s a series of windows, is that just adjoined by
a mullion, is that?
MR. STONE-No. It’s the total windows, but what Mr. Brown is saying is that you can’t reserve
a window way over here for 25%.
MR. HAGEN-Right. I agree with you. Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, commonsense is what it really boils down to. You take a pane this big,
you can cover 25% of it, and you can do it to another one and another one. It’s just got to be
logical.
MR. HAGEN-Gotcha. Okay.
MR. STONE-I will certainly concur and agree with my fellow Board members. As I said at the
beginning of this thing, this Board has been very zealous guardians of our Sign Ordinance. Not
to say we do a perfect job, but I think we’ve done a good job of protecting Queensbury from
some of the ills that you see in other communities, and I’m not saying signs are bad. I don’t
want to go there, but we are particularly careful. We don’t always succeed, but we are. I do
have a question of Staff, having said that. Do I still have to do the Sign Variance SEQRA, if
we’re going to obviously vote it down? That’s a question you started to talk about earlier.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You’re going to take an action on the variance, so you need to do the
SEQRA.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we have before us a Sign Variance, and because of some of the things
that we’ve said, particularly C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, or other cultural resources,
neighborhood character, I think I would like to read this particular, the Short Form, if you
would, lead us through the Short Form, because I’d like to say no on that particular thing, or yes
on that particular one, just so, for the record.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Part II Environmental Assessment. “Does Action exceed any Type I
Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-I think no. “Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR Part 617.6?”
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?”
MR. STONE-No.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. MC NULTY-No. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or
cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. STONE-Yes. Do you agree, gentlemen? The aesthetics of extra signs?
MR. HAYES-Yes. We could say yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-We can still vote no in the overall sense for a negative dec.
MR. STONE-Yes. We can say yes to that.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. You can say yes to one or two and still determine that it’s a negative dec,
as long as it’s not significant. “C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-No. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a
change in use or intensity of use or land or other natural resources?”
MR. STONE-No. I guess. Speak up if anybody disagrees.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action?”
MR. STONE-Well, you’d have more traffic, if Hollywood Video is correct, but, no, I think the
answer for this is no.
MR. MC NULTY-I agree, no. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not
identified in C1. – C5.?”
MR. STONE-No, not from an environmental standpoint.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
type of energy)?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a CEA?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-No. “Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. STONE-I hate that line. Obviously, the fact that we’re here says there’s controversy, but
say no.
MR. MC NULTY-Say no. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION THAT THIS SIGN VARIANCE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AESTHETICS,
WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AS PER THE ITEMS
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
IN THE SIGN VARIANCE SEQRA, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Now I need a motion to deny the Sign Variance.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll be happy to take it.
MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-2003 HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
216 Quaker Road. I’m making this motion in view of a number of factors. Number One, we’ve
had, into the record, a very strong letter of opposition. Number Two, I do believe that, in the
interest of fairness, the standard of fairness, to other individuals, businesses in that particular
area, it would be unfair, and, Number Three, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I
believe that denying this application would be in the best interest of the health, safety and
welfare of not only the neighborhood but of the community.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-And could I throw in there, if it’s appropriate, that I’m still convinced that the
Town should take a close look at the number of signs in the windows, in the interest of
protecting residents of Queensbury?
MR. STONE-You can throw it in.
MR. ABBATE-May I?
MR. BROWN-I think it’s a separate issue.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I won’t.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think it needs to be tied in.
MR. ABBATE-I won’t throw that in. Just delete that, please, that portion.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. HAGEN-I’ll see you in a couple of years.
MR. STONE-I do have a question. Not on this subject. I believe this Board, last week, had a
unanimous motion to have a, this has nothing to do with, a separate secretary over there, so that
Staff, maybe Mr. Brown, could be free to be part of this whole thing. I do not see, per that
request by this Board.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You probably did make that motion, and we have staffing issues in our
Department, and you’re stuck with me.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the secretary, is that the Eddy who wrote the
Queensbury Heritage, same one?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, Bob Eddy. Yes.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just one procedural thing with the appeal that was up last, the
public hearing was left open from last time, and we didn’t receive any public comment. You
may just want to close it, so it doesn’t conflict.
MR. STONE-Okay. This is on the Schuerlein?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Now that you mention it, though, there was one letter that came in on that.
MR. STONE-On the appeal or the merits?
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t necessarily have to be read into the record.
MR. MC NULTY-I think it went probably more to the merits, and ancillary problems with the
property.
MR. STONE-To the merits, yes, okay. For completion, in connection with the public hearing on
Notice of Appeal No. 2-2003 Paul Schuerlein, I hereby close the public hearing, and that closes
action on that appeal.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT O’BRIEN AGENT: JARRY
BARTON OWNER: ROBERT O’BRIEN ZONING: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 8-14
NUTLEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 288 SQ. FT. SCREENED-IN
PORCH WITH A NEW 288 SQ. FT. SCREENED-IN PORCH WITH A 288 SQ. FT. OPEN
DECK ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-414; BP 96-
160 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP
NO. 239.17-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
ROBERT O’BRIEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2003, Robert O’Brien, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 8-14 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
reconstruction of a 288 sf screened in porch and the addition of a 288 sf open deck above. Relief
Required: Applicant requests both 3 feet and 8 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum sideline
setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030, as well as relief from the 22% Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) requirement to allow a 28.8% total. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-414 192 sf Interior Alterations BP 96-160 Dock
repair/replacement Staff comments: Would removal or reduction of existing Floor Area on the
site be a feasible alternative? There are two additional “cabins” and one “enclosed porch” on
the site currently. What impact to the neighborhood might be anticipated due to the addition of
the elevated deck area?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: O’Brien, Robert Owner: Robert O’Brien ID Number: QBY-03-AV-51
County Project#: Jun03-30 Current Zoning: WR-3A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to replace a 288 sq. ft. screened-in porch with a 288 sq. ft. open
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
deck above. Relief requested from the side setback requirements and the floor area ratio
requirements. Site Location: 8-14 Nutley Lane Tax Map Number(s): 239.17-1-16 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing 288 sq. ft. screened-in porch and
construct a 288 sq. ft. open porch above the screened porch. The porches will be no closer to the
property lines than the original porch which was nonconforming. The existing side setback on
the North is 4’ where 12’ is required then on the South side the existing setback is 9’ where 12’ is
required. The floor area ratio is existing at 28% where 22% is the maximum allowed. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 06/15/03.
MR. STONE-But for purposes of accuracy, Staff notes should have said WR-3A, I believe, Mr.
Brown.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, gentlemen.
MR. O’BRIEN-My name is Robert O’Brien. I’m the owner of the property requesting
permission to replace an existing deck, or an existing screened porch. The current screened
porch, the roof leaks substantially, and the water comes in and runs on to the electrical fixtures.
So we’re seeking permission to replace the screened porch from the point of view of increasing
the safety and the looks of the property in general. In addition, we would like to put an open
deck on top. We have a very steep property, and we’re looking to add the deck at ground level,
and my wife has some back problems, and it’s difficult to get all the way down to the lake, but
from here, most people at ground level can just walk out onto the deck and enjoy the lake, and
currently we’re not seeking to increase any square footage on either the deck or on the screened
porch. So we’re looking to replace the current deteriorated screened porch and to include a
deck. That’s it in a nutshell.
MR. STONE-Can you explain, there was a map with the application. These are two lots, the one
driveway that says Nutley, down to this house is one lot, a narrow?
MR. O’BRIEN-It was originally one property, and one of the previous subdivided it into two
lots. We share the driveway, and the walkways between the two properties.
MR. STONE-You’re particular lot is, what does it say, a quarter of an acre? No.
MR. O’BRIEN-.43 acre.
MR. STONE-.43 acres.
MR. O’BRIEN-Right.
MR. STONE-And yet on the map I see parcel to be conveyed 10,364? That’s why I was just
confused, looking at the, and then, you can’t make the first right turn. Can you?
MR. O’BRIEN-It’s extremely dangerous. You have to be very careful.
MR. STONE-This was a commercial operation at one time, it was cottages?
MR. O’BRIEN-I think 30 years ago, maybe, or even before that, but my father-in-law owned the
property, and even before he owned it I think there was commercial use, but it was long, prior
to 1970, I think, when he purchased the subdivision stated on that map.
MR. HAYES-The enclosed deck that’s listed on the map down by the water, that’s yours?
MR. O’BRIEN-No, the deck would be on top of the screened porch.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HAYES-No, I mean, the one that’s listed on the map is down by Lake George, on your
parcel?
MR. O’BRIEN-We do have a gazebo down by the lake. Right.
MR. STONE-And you also have two framed cabins?
MR. O’BRIEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Plus the house that you have.
MR. O’BRIEN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question about your application, the statements you just made, you
talk about replacing your porch and you say that in your application, but in reality, the variance
really has to do only with the deck, because all you’re doing is repairing your porch.
MR. O’BRIEN-Right. We’re just replacing.
MR. BRYANT-You’re just repairing your porch and really the variance has to do with the deck,
the additional floor area ratio, that’s all related to the deck. Right? I mean, to repair the porch
and the type of repair that they’re doing, I mean, they don’t even need a building permit, I don’t
think.
MR. O’BRIEN-Right. We’re not increasing the area whatsoever.
MR. BRYANT-No. So the application is nothing really to do with the porch.
MR. O’BRIEN-Right. It’s just the deck.
MR. BRYANT-The deck.
MR. STONE-Yes, but they are taking it off.
MR. BRYANT-No, the porch is not being taken off.
MR. O’BRIEN-The current screened porch, we do have to take it down to rebuild it.
MR. BRYANT-You’re taking it down completely? That’s not what it looks like. It looks like you
were just repairing it. You’re going to rip the whole thing down, basically?
MR. O’BRIEN-The roof leaks, and it has to be re-done from scratch.
MR. BRYANT-But the changes relative to that are really related to the deck. Is that correct?
When you talk about Floor Area Ratio and?
MR. O’BRIEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-We’re adding floor area. That deck will be considered floor area because it’s now
usable space.
MR. BROWN-No. The deck doesn’t count as floor area ratio. Where the increase in floor area
ratio comes is once they take the screened porch down.
MR. STONE-So when they take it down. Okay.
MR. BROWN-And then when they put it back it’s technically increased.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BRYANT-Now I understand.
MR. HIMES-Now I don’t. Would you repeat that? They’re taking the porch down.
MR. BROWN-Yes. Once they take the screened porch area down it’s like anything, when you
take the building down, you lose the rights to put it back there without an approval, if it
requires an approval.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So the square footage is like being added in new?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. HIMES-And the deck it says above. Is that going to be on top of the porch?
MR. O’BRIEN-It’s exactly above.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying, now, Craig, that floor area ratio for this particular piece of
property is approximately 29%?
MR. BROWN-Today.
MR. STONE-Today.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. I think that’s where a lot of us probably were confused. So in other words,
it’s 28 and 29. They want to make it 28 and 29, but that’s, since it’s coming down, that now says
it’s got to be 22, and.
MR. BROWN-They take it down, it goes to 25.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-For two days, and then it goes back to 28. Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-But the deck does, or doesn’t add in, since it’s part of the building?
MR. BROWN-The deck that’s above the screened porch does not count as floor area ratio. It’s
not a covered deck.
MR. HIMES-That’s what I thought you said, thank you.
MR. BROWN-The screened porch does count, the deck above does not count.
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-But if a roof were put on the deck above, and enclosed.
MR. BROWN-Then it counts.
MR. STONE-Then it would count, and go.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments/questions on the part of the Board? All right. Let me
open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions? If we don’t hear any, we’ll start with Norm. What do you
think?
MR. HIMES-Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My thoughts are that this area is very
densely populated with buildings and yours, and what’s on either side of you, and the fact that
at least two of the properties have other facilities there. Does your have two like small camp
buildings and between yourself and the lake? So it just seems to me that this really is an area
that’s got four pounds in a two pound bag, so to speak, or thickly settled, as they might say in
Massachusetts. So, the fact that the deck, and the use or the need that you express for it, I
might say, well, all right, then that doesn’t impact us, statistically. That should suffice, in my
opinion. I think that, in this particular case, it’s such a crowded situation there, that this would
be, I think an area where we’d be expected to say, all right, let’s see if we can bring something
back here, to nature, and so I don’t think that I would be in favor of the application as
presented. Thank you.
MR. STONE-You’re saying you’re not in favor of it?
MR. HIMES-That’s right.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m torn on this. I agree with what Norm has to say. There’s a
building. There’s two framed cabins. There is, of course, the enclosed deck as it is right now. I
think, I try to place myself in the applicant’s position. I think if you were to come before us and
said, look, I want to take down a 288 square foot screened in porch we have right now because
the darn thing is leaking, you know, I would say, that makes sense, tear the damn thing down
and put another one up, but when you know add a deck which is also 288 square feet, and you
take a look at the property, take a look at the fact that, in addition to a main building, there are
two framed cabins, and you are, after all, lake frontage, I’m going to, I don’t know, Mr.
Chairman, I think I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say. I can be swayed
either way.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what Mr. Himes and Mr. Abbate have said. You’ve got
the porch, and if you were just talking about replacing the porch, I could see the need to replace
the porch. You’ve already got the other enclosed deck, that little thing by the lake that’s yours,
and the beautiful screened porch, and now we’re going to add another deck up above the
porch. I think we’re starting to stretch the use. So, I mean, I would be in favor of the
application if they would just replace the porch, you know, as it is, and leave it at that.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the way it, the current request, no.
MR. BRYANT-The way it is now, I’m not in favor of it. I’d like to see them take the deck off.
MR. STONE-Well, how about one of the cabins or something like that, just throw it out?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BRYANT-I don’t even know what the cabins are used for. I mean, nothing has been said
about the use of the cabins.
MR. O’BRIEN-They’re used for storage, primarily, gardening instruments and, you know,
things like that, and they’re very well kept, you know, new roofs on them, and they were re-
painted last summer. So they’re in very good condition. From the lake, they make a nice, you
know, if you’re out on the lake in a boat, it’s a nice scene, all of these white buildings and my
neighbor’s white home. It’s a pleasing sight. I think, aesthetically, it looks, you know, it’s very
much in harmony with the countryside and the neighbors.
MR. STONE-Well, let’s go on. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of the application as it’s submitted. I think the benefit to the
applicant would be repair of a porch in need of repair. I think, as far as the character of the
neighborhood, I don’t think there’d be a change one way or the other. I think it would pretty
much remain as it is. Yes, it’s dense, but I don’t think a foot here or there is going to make a
difference in this application, of impact on that neighborhood. Are there feasible alternatives?
Yes, there probably are feasible alternatives, take down the porch, not replace it. That is a
feasible alternative, but is it practical? No, I don’t think that’s practical. As far as relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance, I think the three feet from the twelve feet side relief is not
a lot, but the eight from the twelve is a lot, but again, we’re talking about replacing an existing
structure that was already in that same location, and as far as having a physical or
environmental impact to the neighborhood, I don’t see that either. It’s not necessarily self-
created. It exists. He’s trying to repair it. I think it’s a good plan and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think I agree with Mr. Himes and Mr. Bryant in this particular case. I certainly
am entirely in favor of the applicant being able to replace their deck in this circumstance, even
though the floor area ratio would be exceeded. We don’t expect a tenant, or an applicant to go
backwards in this particular circumstance, but it’s hard not to imagine that something
additional is being gained here, being gained on a site where a lot of things have already been
gained and are being allowed properly because they pre-dated the Code, but I don’t think that, I
think that has to be considered in the overall sense, on the effect of the neighborhood, when, as
Mr. Himes pointed out, we’ve already kind of got a lot on this parcel, we’ve already got a lot
going on, and to add to it summarily, in my opinion, without some strong compelling reason, I
would not be in favor of. So I would be opposed.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to agree with Roy. Ideally, in this area, I’d like to see the two
parcels combined back into one, and all but about one of those buildings torn down, but that’s
not practical. What’s being requested is to replace a deteriorated screened porch. I have
absolutely no problem with that, given this situation. He’s just trying to maintain what he’s got
there now. If it were a new application, I’d say, no, I wouldn’t go for the side setbacks. I
wouldn’t go for the increased floor area ratio, but it’s an existing situation. As far as the deck is
concerned, I don’t think it’s going to be objectionable at all. It’s not an extra deck area that’s out
in front of the porch. It’s simply, and instead of putting a regular roof on, he wants to put a roof
on that’s got a walking surface on it, and the cabin sits back enough from the water, I don’t
think it’s really going to show up that much from the water. It’s certainly not going to show up
from the road. So, the additional deck, to me, doesn’t make a big deal. I’d be in favor of the
application as proposed.
MR. STONE-Before I make my comments, I do have a couple of questions that I probably
should have asked earlier. The screened in porch, as I look in this picture, it’s going to be a flat
roof, in other words, when you put a deck on it?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. O’BRIEN-It’s going to be flat, yes.
MR. STONE-And is this home used year round?
MR. O’BRIEN-It is a year round home. We’re there approximately five to six months, on and
off. It is a year round home.
MR. STONE-So it’s going to be a flat surface with snow accumulation and all those sort of
things, and going to be built strong enough, I assume, to maintain it, and all you’re proposing to
do on the top of this, I mean, is just put a deck up here, replace this in kind, put a deck up here?
MR. O’BRIEN-Right.
MR. STONE-With obviously appropriate railings but no cover. Are you willing to stipulate that
there will be no cover on this deck, roof?
MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay. Obviously, I’m very concerned, as the record will show, very concerned
about the lake and the effect. In this particular case, a couple of factors come into play. One the
neighbors that are affected by the side setback have not made an appearance. They have not
commented yes or no. Sometimes we like to hear people say they have no problem with it.
That make our job a little easier, but in this case, though, they didn’t say they’re for it or against
it. All right. This particular thing is far enough back from the lake that, as Mr. Urrico and Mr.
McNulty have said, it is not really going to have any effect on the lake. You’re probably not
going to be able to see any difference except there will be some railing posts, obviously, on the
top of the thing and there may be a person up there, occasionally, or a chair. I don’t really have
any problem because it’s way back. I’m inclined to go along with the variance request, again,
because you are replacing an existing deck. It is a nonconforming building, but it’s still going to
be as nonconforming, and there’s going to be a little space on the top. That doesn’t really bother
me. What does bother me right now is that I have three, three and one, and I don’t know what
motion to ask for.
MR. ABBATE-Before we vote, may I ask a question, please?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. ABBATE-Obviously, it’s a three/three, would you consider, and I’m not suggesting that
you must do this, instead of saying I want it all or nothing, would you consider replacing the
288 square foot open screened-in porch and not put a deck on the top? In other words, if we
approved the 288 square foot replacement.
MR. O’BRIEN-So you’re saying just the screened porch?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. O’BRIEN-And not the deck. The problem is, my wife can’t get up and down that steep hill
that easily, and this would just make it easier for her. It’s a ground level. It goes through the
house, and she can sit on the deck, and for her it’s easier than.
MR. ABBATE-Does she have a physical disability?
MR. O’BRIEN-She has a back disability.
MR. STONE-So she could get the sun on the, the way we look at it here, it’s the second floor,
really.
MR. O’BRIEN-It’s really ground level.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s ground level from the back side.
MR. O’BRIEN-From the back side.
MR. STONE-I understand what you’re saying.
MR. O’BRIEN-So she can, instead, if she wants to put her bathing suit on and go out in the sun,
she can just go out, rather than trucking down the steep hill, which is a bit of a grind for her. I
mean, my grandchildren can go down to the lake in a hop, but if you want the sun and you
don’t want to have to fight that steep hill, there’s not much place to enjoy the sun,
unfortunately.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to ask for a motion to approve, and we’ll see how the vote goes.
Obviously, as we have stated many times, if we don’t get four votes, in this particular case, to
approve, it becomes automatically a denial.
MR. ABBATE-This is really a very difficult decision. I’m trying to determine what’s in the best
interest of everyone. What’s fair. If I were in your position, I would be doing the same thing. I
just wanted to be able to justify my vote, Mr. Chairman.
MR. O’BRIEN-An additional point is I have Mr. Barton, who’s really trying change the look into
a real Adirondack style. You can see from the pictures that it’s kind of a plain structure, and
he’s really going out of his way to make it Adirondack looking.
MR. ABBATE-This gentleman right here?
MR. O’BRIEN-Right, Mr. Barton, and, you know, he’s really a master in woodcraft, and I think,
you know, just the change in the, just the railing structure, just in general.
MR. ABBATE-So there’ll be an architectural change to blend in with the Adirondack theme. Is
this correct?
MR. O’BRIEN-That’s correct. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And if we made that a part of the motion, a stipulation, there’d be no problem
with that?
MR. O’BRIEN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. I would like a motion to approve, and since Mr. O’Brien has said he is
willing to put in some architectural features which would make it look more Adirondack like,
I’d like that included in the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2003 ROBERT O’BRIEN, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
8-14 Nutley Lane. The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a 288 square foot screened in
porch and the addition of a 288 square foot open deck above. In doing so, the applicant is
requesting both three feet and eight feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side line setback
requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-4-030, as well as relief from the 22% floor area ratio
requirement to allow a 28.8% total. In this motion, the criteria that we judge the application, the
benefit by the applicant, in this opinion could be conceivably reached feasibly, but not
practically. The change to the neighborhood would not be undesirable. The request, although
on one side might be considered substantial, it’s noted that the relief is exactly as it has been up
until the reconstruction, projected reconstruction. The request will not have an adverse effect
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
on the physical or environmental effects of the area, and the change can be considered self-
created, because of the replacement. I’d also like to stipulate that the addition or the
reconstruction take with it an Adirondack theme, which the applicant has agreed to make sure
that takes place.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
MR. O’BRIEN-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2003 SEQRA TYPE II BELINDA SPINNER AGENT: N/A
OWNER: BELINDA SPINNER ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 536 WEST MT. ROAD
APPLICANT HAS ERECTED A 27 FT. DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND POOL ON A
CORNER LOT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT POOLS BE
LOCATED ONLY IN A REAR YARD. ADDITIONALLY,THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
EXPAND THE EXISTING DECK BY 120 SQ. FT. TO SURROUND HALF THE POOL, AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE STOCKADE FENCE REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE
FENCE ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000-624; BP 94-413 BP 98-372; BP 2003-215
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 TAX MAP NO. 301.17-1-27 LOT SIZE: 0.54
ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020(C5); 179-5-020(B); 179-5-60
DEREK TAYLOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2003, Belinda Spinner, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 536 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
erected a 27 ft diameter above ground pool in the front yard on a corner lot. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 39 feet of relief from the 49-foot minimum front setback requirement. Per
179-5-20,C.(2), all pools shall be located in the rear yard only. Given that the house is located 49
feet from the front property line, the minimum setback for the pool would be identical, in order
to locate the pool in the rear yard, not front yard. Additionally, it appears as though the
applicant proposes construction of a pool deck at what appears to be a zero setback to the front
property line. Thirty feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement would
be necessary. Further, the removal and relocation of a section of the stockade fence requires
relief from §179-5-60,C,(4). No stockade-type fences shall be allowed in the front yard. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-215 27 foot above ground pool - not
issued / variance needed Staff comments: Based on a site visit and photos supplied, there
appears to be a significant area available for compliant construction of these accessory
structures. The existing trees along the northerly property line are within the required 20 foot
setback already and should not need to be removed to install the pool in a compliant location.
No permit was issued prior to installation of the pool.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Spinner, Belinda Owner: Belinda Spinner ID Number: QBY-03-AV-52
County Project#: June03-33 Current Zoning: SR-20 Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant has erected a 27 ft. diameter above-ground pool on a corner lot and
seeks relief from the requirement pools be located only in a rear yard. Additionally, the
applicant proposes to expand the existing deck by 120 sq. ft. to surround half the pool, and
seeks relief from the front setback requirements. Site Location: 536 West Mountain Road Tax
Map Number(s): 301.17-1-27 Staff notes: Area Variance: The applicant is requesting relief
from an already constructed pool to be located in the side yard where the rear yard location is
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
required. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a 120 sq. ft. deck where it will be
located 10 ft. from Morgan St. The parcel is a corner lot and is bordered by West Mountain Rd.
and Morgan St. The information submitted with the application indicates locating the pool
elsewhere would require removal of existing trees, additional expense, and not provide a safe
view of the pool from the house. The existing site is surrounded by a six foot fence. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren
County Planning Board 06/15/03.
MR. STONE-Okay. For purposes of information, for those of you in attendance, this is a corner
lot, and according to the Queensbury Town Code, a corner lot has two front yards, the yard on
both roads. So that’s why this is the complicating issue here in this particular case. Sir, go
ahead.
MR. TAYLOR-Hello. My name’s Derek Taylor, speaking on behalf of Belinda Spinner tonight.
What happened is we really decided to put the pool in. There was already an existing deck
there, and we weren’t aware of the Ordinance with the corner lot. We weren’t aware that it was
considered to have two front yards. So we bought the pool and we hired Orban Harrington to
come and put it in. We had an appointment set for that Tuesday. He gave us a call Sunday
night and made us aware that it was going to rain, supposed to rain on Tuesday and asked if
we wouldn’t mind moving it up a day. So he came in that morning, dug the ground, put the
pool in. We didn’t have our building permit at that time, but we were told that it was pretty
much a formality, to go ahead and put the pool in and didn’t see any problems. Tuesday
morning we got a call saying that, to put the pool where we wanted to put it wouldn’t be in
compliance, but at that point the pool was already in, but we ceased construction any further.
We didn’t start constructing the deck. We didn’t put any stone around the pool, and the pool’s
where it sits.
MR. STONE-Were you aware of the Fence Ordinance that says the fence sits on, what’s it,
Hogan, no what’s the name?
MR. TAYLOR-Morgan?
MR. STONE-Morgan.
MR. TAYLOR-No. We were not.
MR. STONE-That that fence was in front of the house.
MR. TAYLOR-No. The fence was there when we purchased the home in September.
MR. STONE-It was?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-And you applied for the building permit, okay, you applied for it before you
bought the pool? Is that it?
MR. TAYLOR-No. We bought the pool first. We put a deposit on the pool.
MR. BRYANT-You bought the pool. You applied for the building permit.
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And you didn’t wait for the building permit before you put the pool in?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. TAYLOR-We thought it was okay to go ahead and dig the ground, have it set where to put
the pool?
MR. BRYANT-What gave you that, just out of curiosity, I want to understand the sequence.
What gave you that impression? Did the Town tell you go ahead and put the pool in?
MR. TAYLOR-No. I’d say it’s just lack of information.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. You just put the pool in?
MR. TAYLOR-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, without the permit, and then it was after the fact that you put the pool in,
or, had you already filled the pool up?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes. We had a load of water come in that afternoon, on the Monday, the pool
was put in by Mr. Harrington and his crew, and then the following morning we got the call
saying you can’t put it there.
MR. BRYANT-And is that normal that a contractor that puts pools in Queensbury, and does all
this stuff, would just go ahead and put it there without a building permit, without, knowing full
well that it’s in violation? It doesn’t make any sense.
MR. BROWN-I don’t disagree with you.
MR. ABBATE-Is that contractor here this evening?
MR. TAYLOR-No, he’s not.
MR. ABBATE-Why? Did you ask him to be here this evening?
MR. TAYLOR-No, we did not. I’m sure if we would have asked him, he would have been here.
MR. ABBATE-There are exceptions to killing the messenger. There’s something in here that
boggles my mind as well. You say, for safety reasons.
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You’re not suggesting that those residents in Queensbury who comply with the
Ordinance by placing their pool in the back of their house may have a serious safety problem?
MR. TAYLOR-No. Not at all. What we’re saying is where it’s proposed to be, the only place of
visibility out of the whole home is from a small little bedroom window in the back of the house,
and my step children, we have three teenagers, and we have a two year old baby. So where we
figured we’d put the pool is right off the existing deck. We spend most of the time during the
day, when we’re home, you know, the kitchen area out on the deck, we can see the pool clearly
from there. Where it’s proposed to go, or where it’s supposed to be, it’s very hard to see from
there. You’d have to actually come out, go out in the back yard.
MR. ABBATE-See, I see you were very concerned with the fact that you went out to your
neighbors, indicating to them you’re coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which I think
it admirable. Did you do this prior to installing the pool?
MR. TAYLOR-No, we did not.
MR. ABBATE-So this is after the fact again?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-You’re referring to a letter in the file?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I am, as a matter of fact.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that everybody knows.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m referring to a letter in the file. I guess what I would like to say to you is
this. There are always consequences to our actions. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-I just need to ask you a question. I just need to clarify a point. The letter that you
addressed to the variance board. You say upon application for the building permit, we were
told that there didn’t appear to be any problems, and were instructed to go ahead and dig while
the permit was pending, but you seem to indicate here that there was no permit pending, that
you didn’t know that you needed one.
MR. TAYLOR-The permit was in. The application for the building permit was in.
MR. URRICO-Prior to it being dug?
MR. TAYLOR-Prior to it being dug.
MR. URRICO-And you didn’t wait for it?
MR. TAYLOR-No. We were told it would come back Monday morning at the latest.
MR. URRICO-When you said we were told?
MR. TAYLOR-My fiancé and myself.
MR. STONE-By Staff?
MR. TAYLOR-See, I don’t want to go ahead and say that, because I was at work that day. I
really don’t know if it was by Staff. We were told the permit would be there Monday morning.
It wasn’t, but we weren’t planning on putting it in Monday anyway. It was going to be
Tuesday. He called and said he wanted to put it in Monday because of the weather. Now I
don’t want to say that she called up and asked if we could go ahead and put it in and was told
by a secretary or something. I really don’t know that.
MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, do you know any?
MR. BROWN-I know that I didn’t speak to Mr. Taylor or Ms. Spinner. So I can’t speak for the
secretarial staff in the office. I don’t know.
MR. ABBATE-Can you answer one little question for me again, because, you know, I get
confused, okay. Why didn’t you wait? Would you rationalize that for me, until the permit
actually was in your possession?
MR. TAYLOR-There really is no reason why we didn’t wait. We just sort of, like I said, the
contractor called up and asked if we wouldn’t mind moving it up a day. It was pretty much a
formality. The permit would come the next day, and like I said, we weren’t aware of the corner
lot.
MR. ABBATE-You know what, you may be surprised by this. I understand where you’re
coming from, but there are consequences.
MR. TAYLOR-Correct.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-One of the things that concerns me, and I think the safety aspects was addressed
by somebody.
MR. ABBATE-Me.
MR. STONE-And I think other people thought about it, but what I’m hearing is, I heard the
teenagers, but I heard a two year old. So if this pool is allowed to stay where it is, it kind of
suggests that the adult in the house is not going to be outside when people are in the pool, and
I’m disturbed by that.
MR. TAYLOR-No, that’s not the case at all.
MR. STONE-Well, that was the argument that was made, you’ve got to be able to see from the
window, and from the window means you’re inside the house, and then that’s just disturbing to
me. I think Mr. Abbate talked about the implications of safety in other ways, but that particular
point bothers me. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Just one more question about the permit. You applied for the permit. I
mean, did you determine that the pool was not in the right place because somebody from the
Town visited the site? Was it a result of looking at the permit application, you had a sketch on
the permit application?
MR. TAYLOR-You mean after we decided where we were going to put it, what made us realize
that we weren’t allowed to put it there?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. TAYLOR-The phone call that Monday morning.
MR. BRYANT-Well, why did you get that phone call, though? Did somebody?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes, it was me.
MR. BRYANT-Was it from the application?
MR. BROWN-Yes. As with all building permits, sign permits, any permits that are issued by
the Town, they come across my desk and I review them for compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. Upon review of this plot plan, it was evident that it didn’t meet the requirements,
and what you do is you call the applicant and say, it doesn’t meet the requirements. Do you
want to move the pool or do you want to go for a variance.
MR. ABBATE-I have to get this off my chest.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-I won’t be able to sleep tonight. The builder, the contractor, dug the hole without
a permit. Is this correct?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Obviously.
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And you did not ask the contractor to be here to represent you this evening to
help rationalize your position. Could you tell me why? Have you named the contractor to the
Zoning Administrator?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. HIMES-Just one other, if I could.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a comment here, in looking at the drawing that
you propose, and it shows that you’ve got sewer, I guess, a septic tank out in the back yard
there, and so if I hadn’t heard anything here today, I would be thinking that anyone might look
at this and say, well, you’ve got to put the pool over here, and that that might have been the
determining factor.
MR. TAYLOR-That was one issue, but like I said, the main issue for us was the safety and, not
that we were going to be viewing our kids swimming in the pool from a window, but it just
made more sense to, there was already an existing deck. It would be a lot easier to attach an
addition to that, to go around the pool. Second was the sewer system and the three leach fields
that go out three different ways.
MR. HIMES-No. I understand. You see, if I hadn’t heard all this, I’d be saying, well, the person
just said we’ll put it over here because we’ve got the sewer here.
MR. TAYLOR-Right.
MR. HIMES-And I’ll agree somewhat with what Mr. Abbate has been saying, that I think most
builders and the rest would probably request the location of where you were going to do that,
or anything else that might be done there, being so close to the line and the rest. So it’s too bad
that someone didn’t act in your behalf. That’s all I had. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. HAYES-Yes. I have a question for the applicant. You’ve never read the Queensbury
Zoning Code. I don’t blame you. It’s not that great reading actually. So you had no idea the
fact that this was a corner lot, and that’s kind of a specialty area of the Code?
MR. TAYLOR-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Good point. Good point, Jaime. Okay.
MR. URRICO-If you were coming to us brand new, without any previous action, would you
put the pool in the same location? Would there be an alternative location for it, or is this the
best location?
MR. TAYLOR-I still feel this is the best location, regardless of the setback requirements.
MR. URRICO-Why?
MR. TAYLOR-For the simple like I said, safety, like I said, that’s the number one priority, and
the second is the sewer, where the sewer system is located, and I understand the trees are all at
the required setback, but that’s another issue why we wanted it where it is, because it’s going to
be harder than Hades to keep it clean over in that other part of our lawn with the pine pitch and
so that was another reason.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-One more question. I may go on all night with this, and if you don’t want to
answer this, you don’t have to, but what is your profession?
MR. TAYLOR-I work for Della. I work the e-commerce department there. So I’m the Internet
Manager for the five stores.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-One comment, before we go on, with all this discussion, it’s kind of been
alluded to, but I think it’s important to recognize that, sitting on this Board, we’re used to the
procedures. We would more readily understand don’t do anything until you have a building
permit in writing signed in your hands, but the general public doesn’t always know that, and
while we don’t know just who said exactly what to whom about going ahead, I don’t think the
applicant probably made this up to justify his actions. Somebody said something to him at
some point on the phone, to the effect of go ahead and get started, it should be okay, or
something like that. I don’t know who, where, but I think somebody needs to find out who’s
trying to be cooperative that way in the Town and tell them don’t do that, because you get
people into trouble, and likewise with the two front yards. That that’s not a common thing, and
that this particular piece of property especially you could look at it quickly and say, well, the
front yard’s on West Mountain Road, and side yard’s on Morgan. So I think there’s, you know,
a good explanation for why this action was taken, and we’ve been kind of hammering the
applicant because of it, but I think we’ve got to make allowances that way. It doesn’t mean that
we’re going to approve the thing where it is, but there is reasons, I think, for the mistakes that
were made.
MR. STONE-Well, certainly we know that corner lots have given a lot of people fits. I mean,
Mr. Brown, for one, because certainly the Fence Ordinance, in terms of front yards, it’s difficult
for a lot of people to understand. What I’ll do right now is I’ll open the public hearing. Is there
anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’d like you, the Board, to consider the fact that
the real problem here is the fact that this lot, this corner lot is considered to have two front
yards. Now this idea of two front yards is a rather recent thing in Queensbury Town zoning.
It’s like having two front yards if you have a lake front yard and a lake front side, and a road
side. You’re deemed to have two front yards. It’s ridiculous. It used to be thought that, if you
had a corner lot, you had some extra value. It was advantageous to have a corner lot, but what
we’ve done with our Zoning Ordinance we’ve taken property. This is a regulatory taking. It’s
an encumbrance on this corner lot, unlike all others, and I really would like you to consider the
fact that there’s an extenuating circumstance here. This does not have two front yards. There’s
only one front yard. The one other one’s a side yard. That it happens to be on a street, so be it,
but the problem is with the Ordinance. The other thing, just looking at this sketch, it’s
miserably out of scale.
MR. STONE-The engineer speaks again.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the 61 feet front yard here, and then 49 feet on the side yard.
Something’s wrong with it.
MR. HAYES-Sometimes that can be handy.
MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Jaime. I’ll remember that.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. SALVADOR-But, seriously, consider the extenuating circumstance here.
MR. STONE-Thank you, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment relative to what Mr. Salvador just said?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-It’s important, because I know what you’re saying about the two front lots, but
consider also the situation where the individual, the applicant is looking for 30 feet of relief
from a 30 foot setback. If this was a side, if Morgan was considered a side, he would still be
asking for 100% relief. So it is a substantial amount of relief, whether you look at it from a front
yard perspective or a side yard perspective. So I just wanted to make that point.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Favor? Anybody
opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-In addition to the letters that we have in our packet, there’s one other letter.
This was from Gordon and Beverly Kilts, at 535 West Mountain Road, and they say, “Since we
will be unable to attend the hearing in regard to variances requested for property at 536 West
Mountain Road, Queensbury, we would like to comment on the requests. We live on the
opposite side of the road from said property, at 535 West Mountain Road. As far as we are
concerned, there is no objection to any of the variance requests. We cannot see the pool from
our house and to move it to be over their leach field does make sense to us. Since the present
owner has moved in, there has been a concerted effort to improve the property. Since none of
the variances will distract from their property or the neighborhood, we recommend the
variances be granted. Gordon & Beverly Kilts 535 West Mountain Road Queensbury, New
York”
MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you read the note on the bottom, because of the ones that we
got, there’s only one that has a comment. Am I correct, the Aldrich one?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s the only one with a return to comment.
MR. TAYLOR-Correct.
MR. STONE-Just read, you don’t have to read the letter that they sent, but.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The Aldrichs, at the bottom, have said, “We do not have a problem
with the placement of the pool.”
MR. STONE-And they live at 4 Morgan Drive.
MR. MC NULTY-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-No. That’s all.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Anything you want to say, further?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to supplement what Mr. Bryant had
said, and recognizing comments from the public, which I don’t disagree with, but I feel that
Allan’s got something to say there, and I wanted to bring in the point about the stockade fence,
which is also needs to be given some relief, if I’m right. How much of that along Morgan Road,
Craig, if I can ask, is in violation? The whole thing, because it’s the front yard?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the short answer is yes, the whole thing. The setback that’s required
by the Code for that stockade fence is the same as what’s required for the pool, which is the line
of the house. So anything closer to the street than that line of the house is in violation.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So I think that it might be said by some that possibly the reasons for
thinking the pools should be in the back yard is to keep them a little bit more out of sight, let’s
say, and once that stockade fence comes down, then things are going to be a little different, in
terms of, maybe, how the property looks from the road, and whether that’s in agreement or
defiance of the Code, I’m not sure, but I just wanted to add that comment, because I kind of
agree with what Mr. Bryant said. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-May I ask a question, Mr. Taylor. How long has that fence been up?
MR. TAYLOR-I believe it’s been up for three years.
MR. ABBATE-Three years.
MR. TAYLOR-Like I said, it was erected before we moved in.
MR. ABBATE-And I’m willing to suggest that during the three years, those individuals that
have the responsibility to enforce the zoning regulations just missed it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, as I understand it, the stockade fence on Morgan can go as far as the
corner of the house, the back corner of the house? I say back because?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-In other words, on his drawing, where the sewer is shown, go to about that far.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You’ll see the label on the deck where it says existing deck, and there’s a
dotted line that goes through the “e” of deck, that’s the line that’s the compliant location for
both the pool setback and the fence location.
MR. STONE-Okay. Okay. So the fence has to be, you can’t even have it where it is, is what
you’re saying, even a portion of it?
MR. BROWN-Unless they get their variance. That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Taylor, I said earlier, you know, I understand why you did what
you did. You were anxious, you know, from the human point of view, you wanted the pool to
get in. Everybody wants a pool, and, what the heck, it looks like it was going to sail through,
and you said, well, you know what, and I’ve made these errors in the past, during my life, I’ve
jumped the gun, and I’ve paid consequences for it. However, I think part of our responsibility
as ZBA members is to not only take into consideration facts surrounding a particular case, but I
think there are times when we have to take into consideration extenuating circumstances. I
would be probably the first one to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this is not a
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
criminal court. It is my opinion, sir, that you did not act in bad faith. I may have a different
opinion with that installer, and I wish he were here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Let me just throw something in, the thought I thought about before. Those of you
who read the paper today, one of the reasons, one of the benefits that might come of televising
these things is that more people will hear some of these issues about corner lots, if they listen.
MR. ABBATE-They’re going to televise these meetings?
MR. STONE-Well, the Town Board is looking in to the possibility.
MR. ABBATE-You’re asking for where I stand?
MR. STONE-You’re saying yes? For both aspects of it, the fence and the, per the status quo that
is there now?
MR. ABBATE-I would say this. On one side there are extenuating circumstances, but unless
that fence came down, I would not support the application. If the fence comes down, I will.
MR. BRYANT-But how can the pool stay there is the fence comes down?
MR. STONE-It could be a linked fence
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it could be a linked fence. You could put up a linked fence.
MR. BROWN-Well, one of the requirements of the Accessory Structures Ordinance, it says you
have a pool on a corner lot, you’ve got to make sure it’s adequately screened from view from
the right of way, and I think the fence effectively does that, and I’m not arguing either side here,
but we’re going to then require of Mr. Taylor and Ms. Spinner that if the fence comes down,
they have to screen it somehow. So, just to throw that out there for discussion. You also want
to.
MR. STONE-But certainly a fence around the pool is required for protection, safety.
MR. BROWN-Not necessarily for an above ground pool. You just need to maintain a 48 inch
clearance around the pool. This is above ground, right?
MR. TAYLOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because you can’t fall over easily. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Correct. Right, and you also want to consider the proposed deck at the zero
setback. There hasn’t been too much discussion about that, but there’s also that wraparound
deck that’s going to connect, I believe from the existing deck around the west side of the pool.
Right out to the existing fence line. Is that correct?
MR. STONE-Okay. Have you determined that that fence is on the property line? Is that right of
way outside the fence?
MR. BROWN-I have not determined that.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Al?
MR. BRYANT-We get a lot of applications where an applicant has already erected something or
put up a building or whatever, an addition, and not had a building permit, and then, lo and
behold they realize they need a variance, and, most times, we look at the application as if it
were not built, and whether or not we would approve it had nothing been done, had you never
broken ground. Basically, your proposal here, you’ve got a pool in what we designate as a front
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
yard. You’ve got a setback issue. Now is that 30 foot setback issue relative to the deck, it’s not
relative to the pool?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So, if he didn’t build a deck, what is the setback issue?
MR. BROWN-Just the pool.
MR. BRYANT-To the pool.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-How much?
MR. BROWN-Thirty-nine feet. The existing setback from the right of way line that’s indicated
on this map to the existing house is 49 feet, and the proposed pool is 10 feet from that right of
way line. So it’s 39 feet closer than it should be.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. You have the setback issue. Then of course we had the pool deck, and
now the stockade fence issue, and, frankly, had you come to the Board with this proposal prior
to digging the first hole, I would not be in favor of this proposal. So, unless we can make some
kind of alternative solution, I’m opposed to this application, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-The easy thing to do would be to deny this application, based on the facts in front
of us, but I don’t think this is that easy, and I think, in this case, your contractor, that person that
dug the pool, did you a disservice by not allowing the process to take place. They’re familiar
with the process. They should have guided you in this, but as Allan said, in many cases in the
past, when existing conditions are, or conditions that we’re reviewing have already taken place,
we try to look at it as if it didn’t happen, and that’s why I asked you earlier about the pool,
where would you locate it if this was starting over, and again, I believe you when you say this is
the best location. So I think I would be in favor where the pool location is, but I think we have
some control over the deck, and I like, I would be in favor of it without the deck, and, to be
honest with you, the fence bothered me more than anything on that property, but I understand
the position of having the fence, the pool screened. So I’m not sure there’s a better alternative.
So I’d be in favor of the pool, against the deck, and if somebody has a better idea for the fence,
I’m willing to listen.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly can agree with what some of my fellow Board members have said.
I know, in favor of the applicant, in my opinion, is I know that outside of having detailed
knowledge of the Code, this corner lot business is confusing. I have a corner lot myself, and I
intend to put up a fence, and I told my wife last night I’m going to check with Craig at the end
just to make sure, you know, you just could make a mistake. You really can, and for me it
would be embarrassing, of course, but for you, well I guess it’s a little bit embarrassing to be
here, but it shouldn’t be, because it’s an honest, to me, it appears to be an honest mistake. Like
the other Board members, I can understand the pool and wanting to place the pool where it is,
and while not ideal, I don’t think it’s a detriment to the neighbors, or the neighborhood, and
your neighbors don’t seem to think it is either, and that is some factor in the test that we’re
asked to apply in these particular tests. So I’m not necessarily troubled by that. I am concerned
about the deck, because that’s a structure, and, you know, while I can be sympathetic with your
lack of knowledge of the Code and possibly, you know, assuming you get a building permit, I
know that we’ve dealt with, like Allan and other people have said, we’ve dealt with these cases
before, but I have to be fair and honest in saying that I, there’s even another layer involved in
the sense that most people would think less stringently about a pool versus building a structure
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
and needing a permit. It’s just not quite the same thing in people’s minds, even though it is by
the Code. So, I can understand your explanation on that matter, but I’m not in favor of the deck
being there where it is.
MR. TAYLOR-Can I make a comment about the deck?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. TAYLOR-Since we’ve put this proposal in, we’ve actually thought about it, and we’d be
happy with just taking the deck up to the pool and giving us a little bit of area just to get into
the pool. We could care less if we took the deck down. The original plans were to take the deck
to the fence, have a step down and put a Jacuzzi in the corner. Things have changed since then.
We’d just be happy having a deck to at least come out the eight feet to the pool, enough area to
let us get in and out, without having to go out into the grass. That would be fine with us.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, as far as my comments, I’m not in favor of the deck going out to the
fence, you know, and you’re basically, you’re not withdrawing the deck idea all together, but
you’re withdrawing that portion of it. So, I would listen to my other Board members, as far as
their feelings considering that, but I guess the pool by itself, I would be inclined to fall in favor
of the applicant, not for anymore relief on this property, and this is your, in my opinion, your
one free mistake, if you will. So, I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Totally?
MR. HAYES-Not.
MR. STONE-You’re not in favor of the application.
MR. HAYES-Well, I’m in favor of the pool, and I’m certainly not in favor of the deck.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Or the fence.
MR. HAYES-Well, no, I am in favor of the fence, in the sense that I think that, as Craig pointed
out, that I would not be in favor of the pool with the chain link fence there because then I think
some of the implications that underline the corner lot code have to do with how a pool is
viewable from the street, from another street, and if the screening was minimal, then I think the
impact would be great enough to change my mind, but I think, with that fence there now, I
don’t see it as being a major visual distraction in the neighborhood.
MR. STONE-But one of the requirements is that we have to protect future neighbors, too. Let
me ask a question about your thought about the deck. You’re talking about from the existing
deck that you have now, extending that out at the same level, so that it comes right up to the
pool at water level?
MR. TAYLOR-No. Well, we have two thoughts. We could either do it that way or we’re
concerned about the two year old.
MR. STONE-You should be.
MR. TAYLOR-I mean, that’s the most concern, but the teenagers, they’re excellent swimmers.
Not that they don’t need supervision, but our concern is the baby and we were actually
thinking about two levels with two lockable gates on it, you know what I mean, for safety
reasons.
MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, the reason I ask, because I can see a deck here, and the pool here,
and it’s just the same as having an in ground pool, as far as the house is concerned. You walk
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
straight out and you’re into the water. So that was my concern, but I’ll get back to, go ahead.
Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, like some of the other members have said, typically we try to
look at this as though, what would we say if it wasn’t there to begin with, and in this case, if it
wasn’t there to begin with, I’d probably do my speech about some lots are not intended to have
a pool and this may be one of them, but in this case I think, for me, it’s a real help to see what is
there, that the stockade fence and what not is there. It doesn’t look unattractive to me.
Certainly, there’s substantial variance being requested. More than we would normally allow,
but I think there’s some unusual circumstances here, with the configuration of the lot. I’ll agree
with the applicant that safety wise, the current location of the pool probably makes more sense
than any place else, and even if you’re planning on being out there and keeping an eye on the
kids, there’s also a safety factor, even when the kids are not supposed to be in the pool, of being
able to look out and see if one of them snuck up there or what’s going on. So I think there’s
some real advantage that way, safety wise. Thinking in terms of appearance for future
neighbors as well as current ones, you know, I think if the stockade fence is maintained, it’s
going to make an attractive yard. The only problems I could see was some of the junk that’s
lined up behind the car that’s parked behind the fence down there, but even that’s kind of out of
sight. I guess where I come down is, even though the stockade fence is in the front yard,
technically speaking, on Morgan, I think it’s more attractive than if it weren’t there. As Staff has
indicated, you’re going to have to have something there that’s essentially opaque. A stockade
fence might as well be there as a chain link fence with slat inserts to make it opaque, and as far
as I’m concerned with the deck, certainly what the applicant’s suggesting now I would agree
with. Once I say I can agree to the stockade fence being there, then if I’m going to allow that to
be there in the front yard, what is behind it that cannot be seen really doesn’t concern me an
awful lot. So I wouldn’t object to even the deck coming out to the fence at that point, if I’m
going to do that, but essentially I’m going to be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to come out against the application, as much
as I would like the family to have their pool and all. It’s just that there’s too much relief being
requested, and whether or not the Code is right or wrong, in one of the instances, the side yard,
there’s three factors here. You’re getting a lot, or asking for a lot on all of them. The thing
about the matter, importantly, too, is that if it wasn’t there, you know, already, there would be
no anguish, on my part, of saying, no, I couldn’t grant this, you know, a pool is, some might
consider it a necessity, but I think many people would consider it a luxury. It isn’t something
where life is going to end because you aren’t going to get it. So the fact that we aren’t giving
you the relief doesn’t mean that we’re, you know, doing terrible damage to your family, and so
by granting it, I feel that we’re making a tremendous accommodation for you, for what expense
you may have already gone to, I’m very sorry about that, but I cannot, in good conscience,
approve this application as submitted. I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Before I speak, it seems to me that what I’ve heard here, and you guys can
correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve heard two noes, out and out noes on the application. I’ve heard
two yeses on the application that’s before us, and I think I’ve heard two conditional yeses
involving the deck. What I would like to suggest, and let me just ask Mr. Brown. If we table
this, and I know we hate to do that, but I, for one, would like to see a finished project with the
deck as, based upon some of the comments we’ve heard tonight, can they use the pool
tomorrow? In 95 degrees? I hate to put you on the spot. No, I take that back.
MR. BROWN-I think the easy answer there is no.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Without issuing the building permit and ensuring that the pool is installed
properly, electrical inspections, meets all the Codes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-You can’t tell somebody to use something that hasn’t been approved yet.
MR. STONE-But they don’t have the building permit to use it tomorrow anyway.
MR. BROWN-The building permit hasn’t even been issued to allow our inspectors to go out and
inspect the installation.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, something has been just brought to my attention that is upsetting,
and I’m looking for some clarification on this. On zoning 179-5-020, Paragraph C Subparagraph
5, and I guess I’m looking for a legal interpretation. In no way, in no case, in no case, that’s how
it’s worded, shall a pool be any nearer to the lot lines abutting any public right of way than the
required front setback for the principal building of the zoning district in which it is located, and
that’s a scary statement. In no way, it says, in no case.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we have variances for.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, the zoning, in all cases, could say that. I mean, I’m not saying yes or no to
that. In other words, the house can be no closer than 20 feet to the side line.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I think, you know, when it just talks about accessory structures
generally speaking, then it’s very clear about the positioning, and it says in no case. Okay. Yes,
you have variances to alter that, but, you know, there’s varying degrees of what the Town rules
or legislatures, whatever they are.
MR. STONE-But, Mr. Brown, if I’m right, you can seek relief from any Section of the Zoning
Ordinance that applies to location?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. There’s no question about that, but I just want to emphasize the intent of
the wording.
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. BRYANT-That’s all.
MR. STONE-Okay, but what I, personally, would like to do, and as I say, right now, we don’t
have consensus, a motion, as I see it, and I think, if any of you guys are keeping score like I do, I
would like to see, I would like to suggest that you table this, that we table this, and get what, on
the basis of what we’ve said here, in terms of the deck, your best guess at what we would
approve, because right now we are not going to approve the application that we have before us.
I mean, we’re divided. We’re more divided than I think I’ve ever seen us, and that’s good,
because this is a balancing test, and we’re trying to balance your benefit with the needs and the
detriment to the community, and I have no problem, I don’t apologize for that, but I do not see,
if anybody wants to jump in, but I don’t see any consensus here, any majority consensus. We
need some thought, in terms of what you would like to see for decking.
MR. BROWN-Perhaps Mr. Taylor could offer something tonight. I mean, it’s summer. It’s a
pool.
MR. STONE-Well, he can offer, but, I don’t know, it might be confusing because I’ve heard a
couple of suggestions. I mean, he’s talked about a deck that comes out, a finger, and then he
talks about lowering the level, for safety reasons, and, I mean, that’s the only reason that I
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
would suggest that. If he can come up with something. If we want to delay for a while. If you
want to go off and make a sketch.
MR. URRICO-Can he remove the deck from the application and come back with that, in a
separate entity? In the meantime we could just vote on the pool.
MR. STONE-And the fence.
MR. URRICO-And the fence.
MR. MC NULTY-And the fence, yes.
MR. BRYANT-You know, basically, maybe we ought to go very quickly and see what each
individual member objects to.
MR. STONE-Good point.
MR. BRYANT-Because I think very clearly, I object to the positioning of the pool. I have no
problem with the fence.
MR. STONE-Okay. You said no. I’ve considered you a no.
MR. BRYANT-But I’m just saying, let’s do something with the pool and leave the fence the way
it is. The fence fine. It looks nice to me. You know, I understand this whole concept about the
two front yards, but the fence, in it’s present location, with a pool in the back yard is fine.
MR. STONE-Is attractive. I won’t argue that at all. All right, but the thing is, well, Norm said
no. You’re categorically no to the application as presented.
MR. BRYANT-As it is now, no.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck, you said yes the way it is now.
MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-I said I would consider this in a roundabout way that provided he made
concessions. Now, if he were to remove the deck, then I would say, okay, fine, then I won’t
object to the fence, and that’s a concession on the part of the applicant, and then I would go
along with that.
MR. STONE-All right. You’re saying that if he removes the deck request right now, you can
vote for the fence and the pool location? Okay. Al, you can’t.
MR. BRYANT-No.
MR. STONE-So that’s two noes and a yes.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would agree to the pool and the fence.
MR. STONE-Pool and the fence. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Roy.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay, and I would, too. All right. So you’re saying you’re withdrawing the deck
consideration at this point?
MR. TAYLOR-I’d like to at least put the eight foot finger from the existing deck, at least to get
on to the pool, but if I have to withdraw the deck completely.
MR. MC NULTY-I think the point’s you’re not necessarily giving up the deck forever.
MR. STONE-You’re not giving it up.
MR. MC NULTY-You can come back and ask for another variance for whatever configuration
you need for the deck. The problem right now is knowing exactly where that deck is going to
be. You’ve got four votes yes for the pool, without the deck. So you can at least get the pool
going and use it.
MR. TAYLOR-I’d be willing to withdraw the application for the deck.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I need a motion for the application of leaving, a variance that would
leave the pool where it is and the fence where it is, and who wants to take a crack at that?
MR. HAYES-I’ll do it.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Roy’s got it.
MR. STONE-Roy’s got it? Go ahead, Roy.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2003 BELINDA SPINNER, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
536 West Mountain Road. The applicant in this case has erected a 27 foot diameter above
ground pool in the front yard of a corner lot. The applicant is requesting 39 feet of relief from
the 49 foot minimum front setback requirement per 179-5-020, C. Section 2. All pools shall be
located in the rear yard only. The applicant has met the criteria in at least several cases. The
benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. That seems to be
locked in due to sewer lines running on that property. The change in the neighborhood would
not be undesirable. Many of the neighbors have spoken out in favor of the application. None
have spoken out against it. The request is considered substantial per the Town Code. The
request will not have any adverse effects, physical or environmental effects on the
neighborhood, and the difficulty is self-created in this instance. I just wanted it noted that this
application is modified to exclude the relief sought on the pool deck. We’re allowing the fence
to be as it is currently constructed which involves zero setback.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-The applicant will, at a later deck, seek a variance for some kind of deck.
MR. BROWN-May.
MR. STONE-May, yes, may.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-So, the motion, the variance is granted by a vote of five to two. Without the deck.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. TAYLOR-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN
DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER: JEFFREY INGLEE ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 104
TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED 5.09
ACRE LOT AND FROM THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED 3.53 ACRE
LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 7745; BP 85-537 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX
MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 9.20 ACRES PER RPS RECORDS SECTION: 179-4-030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2003, Jeffrey Inglee, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 104 Tuthill Road Project Description: Applicant proposes a two lot
subdivision in a Rural Residential 5 acre zone. The proposed lot sizes would be 5.09 acres and
3.53 acres. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.47 acres of relief from the minimum 5 acre
minimum requirement of the Rural Residential 5 acre zone per 179-4-30. Additionally, the
applicant seeks relief from the 200 foot minimum lot width requirement for the 5.09 acre lot.
The 5.09 acre lot (lot 4) appears to have an average lot width of approximately 197 feet. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): This property was previously included with a
subdivision application for lands on the westerly side of Tuthill Road. This property was
ultimately removed from the previous Inglee subdivision application and no approvals were
considered for this parcel. Staff comments: Will the creation of two non-conforming lots in
favor of the one existing, conforming lot present significant adverse impacts on the
neighborhood or community? Previous Planning Board approved subdivisions along this road
have met the minimum lot size requirements.”
MR. MC NULTY-And no County.
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves and Jeff Inglee, for the record, representing him on
this application. This property, as was stated, is located on the east side of Tuthill Road. It is
the existing residence for Mr. Inglee, and we’re proposing to create a lot that he can give to his
daughter. As the Staff notes had indicated, we had a three lot subdivision on the other side of
the road approved and filed that. We had applied for four lots, due to some of the constraints,
the concerns that the Planning Board had, we’ve reduced it to three lots. We do have some
density over on the other side, but (lost words) use this or treat this as a separate lot because of
the fact that the road separates it and it was two distinct tax parcels purchased separately. So
they weren’t, when it was part of the original subdivision application to do this, we realized
that variances were going to be needed, we decided to come to this Board and get the variance
before we (lost words) the three lots on the other side of the road, since it was two distinct
parcels. As far as the comment and the requirements or the variance requested for a lot of 5.09,
that’s correct. There is just over 200 feet of road frontage, but it’s very narrow in the back, but
the building area, developable area, near the road meets the 200 foot width, but if you average it
all the way back, exactly, we’re at about 197.38 feet, and we could accommodate sliding that lot
to the north and reducing the other lot slightly, but we didn’t see where that would be any
advantage to the proposal. So we look for any questions or comments from the Board.
MR. STONE-The only thing I would comment on so far is you said it narrows very much
toward the back?
MR. STEVES-No, it’s 195.
MR. STONE-I was going to say.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STEVES-It’s a long narrow lot, and by looking at the configuration on the map, you can see
by sliding that lot over, toward the lot to the existing home, about six and a half to seven feet
really doesn’t change anything. We could do it, but it just makes the lot that is less than five
acres even more nonconforming and we thought that this would be the better scenario. If the
Board has any comments or opinions on that, we’re more than glad to listen to them.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Who owns the land on either side of the two lots?
MR. INGLEE-Dr. Michael Paul owns property just to the north of my property, and Butch and
Cara Beames own the property on the south side of my property.
MR. HIMES-And what is the approximate size of the lots on either side of you?
MR. INGLEE-Well, the property that was to the left of my property, the Beames’ property,
started out to be 13 acres. Consequently, they’ve subdivided that into two parcels, and they
sold one of the parcels off, and the parcel on the right side of me still belongs to Dr. Paul. He
owns four acres on my side of the road, or the east side of the road, and four acres of swamp on
the other side of the road.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That brings the question of considering acquiring more land to balance out
what’s missing in the, to bring both parcels up to.
MR. STEVES-On the north side, Dr. Paul’s lot, north of Mr. Inglee’s on the east side of the road,
is approximately four acres. He is land hooked with property on the other side of the road, and
to the south there is a 5.2 acre parcel. The tax rolls, for years, was assessing him at about.
MR. INGLEE-9.20 acres for years.
MR. STEVES-Like I said, the actual survey, that’s what we have to go by, and it ended up being
8.62 acres. So, as far as ability to acquire some land.
MR. INGLEE-I don’t see it.
MR. STEVES-The potential may be there. It won’t change the location of the developable area
on the lot. If you’ve ever been up there, you’ve got the nice field there. You would definitely be
building within 75 to 100 feet of that road. I don’t see where it would drastically change the
configuration of the property. I mean, it wouldn’t change the location of the proposed
structure.
MR. HIMES-I’m not sure I follow all that. I’m just saying looking at it from a feasible
alternative, there’s a lot of land up there. Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-When you look to the north of your lot, that lot is four acres?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. What happens is they joined the land across the road. It’s four
acres on one side and I believe four acres on the other side.
MR. BRYANT-So that makes an eight acre lot.
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STEVES-Right here, this is Mr. Inglee’s lot, and this is about four acres and the other five is
over on that side.
MR. BRYANT-But this is all considered one parcel.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STEVES-It’s all considered one parcel because he bought it all at one time. Mr. Inglee
bought this piece that he owns and this piece that he owns across the street at different times.
MR. BRYANT-I see.
MR. STONE-And the aim here is to have separate deeds for the two lots that we’re talking
about, for children and one across the street for Mr. Inglee. Is that correct?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. Well, we’ve been, I’ve just got a short presentation or story, if you
will, in hopes that, when I tell this story, everyone here will understand, they will understand
my devotion towards this project. Twenty-six years ago, my wife and I had decided that we
wanted to raise our children in a very rural setting, a very quiet, idyllic mountainside setting.
So we set out and we found the piece of property. We had to buy eight and a half acres at the
time. That was what it was zoned for, eight and a half acres, and on this eight and a half acres,
there was a small shack. We attached an addition onto the back of the shack and we attached
an addition onto the front of the shack three or four years later down the road, which is what
has been housing me over the last 26 years. Over that 26 years, the piece of land that you see
when you drive by my property, I didn’t buy it like that. I spent 26 years of my life toiling and
laboring very, very mightily to create this piece of land to be what it is today. I was granted
permission by the Town Board last fall to build my retirement home up on the side of the
mountain where I’m going to be starting my project here very shortly. It leaves me in a very
sticky position. What do I do with my existing old house that sits on 8.78 tenths of an acre.
Well, certainly I could sell it and I could probably generate enough money to purchase enough
material to build my brand new home free and clear. I cannot even fathom the idea of selling
this piece of land after working it for twenty-six years. My thought would be to try to give it to
each one of my children. I’m in a situation where, on the other side of the road, I have a small
structure that occupies one of the lots that I use for rental income, that I rent out part time. I
have another lot that I am definitely going to be giving to one of my sons, and the third lot will
be where I will be building my retirement home. Now, the situation I’m in is I have two other
children. I do not want to award one or just two of my children a piece of land. I want to
award all three of my children a piece of my land. Folks that live up there that had bigger lots
on some situations have subdivided these lots and sold off these lots. I have no intentions,
whatsoever, of selling any of my land. My land is to be designated to my children. So with that
in mind, my children and I have come up with a master plan, if you will. I think it’s a plan that
is a good plan. I think it’s a plan that exercises good judgment, and I think it’s a tremendous
tradeoff. I have some photos here that I would like to present to the Board. The first photo is a
south end shot of my existing structure. The plan would be, if we are granted permission, and
given the relief of this a little over an acre, so not only just one more of my children, but both of
my children can build a home and enjoy the serenity of the mountain as they raise their
children, we will, in fact, tear down this old structure. There’s several other photos behind this
photo of buildings that have been recently constructed in that neighborhood, and we really
sincerely feel that the neighborhood does deserve the type of structures that follow the first
photo, and I’d like to pass these to the secretary. Again, the plan would be to totally demolish
the existing old building, which was originally erected in the early 1900’s, and several additions
attached on to it. I had an opportunity to meet a very interesting energized sort of individual
last Friday afternoon, and he came up to my place and we were looking things over and I was
describing to him what our plan was, and his first reaction was, what do your neighbors think
about all this, and I was very frank with him. I said we are going to get some opposition from
some of our neighbors, and they don’t like this idea. I’m not doing this to upset the neighbors.
I’m doing this because I feel in my heart this is what I want to do for my kids. I’m asking the
Zoning Board for relief of a little over an acre, with exchange for not only building two new
homes but demolishing that old home, which, needless to say, would greatly enhance the value
of not only my land or my children’s land, but the surrounding lands as well, and it would
definitely conform to the setbacks, because consequently the new structure would be built
another 100 some odd feet off the road. So it would set up on the hillside. Anyways, this
gentleman said to me, if you’ve got neighbors that are going to show up in opposition to what
you are trying to do, maybe you should talk to some of the other neighbors, and I kind of rolled
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
my eyes at that idea, and he looked at me and he said, hey, don’t be so damn negative. Go talk
to them and see what they think. Members of the Board, I’ve got to tell you, I was
tremendously overwhelmed with the response that I have gotten from some of my neighbors. I
have submitted to the secretary ten different letters from folks that live on Clendon Brook Road,
folks that live on Tuthill Road, folks that live on Luzerne Mountain Road. So consequently,
when you’re on the mountain, you see, you have neighbors, but they’re not necessarily real
close to you. So everyone that lives on the bottom of the mountain, and on the sides of the
mountain and on the top of the mountain, and on the back side of the mountain consequently
are my neighbors, and we have ten letters, but theoretically those ten letters represent about 14
or 15 people’s personal views on what we are attempting to do. We are not any way shape or
form looking to destroy the integrity of this mountain. I have worked way too hard, and I’ve
made this mountain a part of my life, and all I’m asking to do is to be able to share it with my
three children. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else? Any questions, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-No. With a colleague of mine, I think we spent close to two hours with the
applicant the other day, and my absence of asking questions is not that I’m not interested. It’s
just that I have a wealth of information.
MR. STONE-And since you mention that, let me just say for the people who are here, that it is
the practice of this Board to each of us, individually, visit pieces of application properties. We
go out individually. Sometimes we do run into each other, depending, but our aim is to go out.
We don’t necessarily look to talk to the applicant. We are willing to talk to the applicant. We
make no commitments. We ask questions. It’s another opportunity to ask questions, but it is a
totally, I’d say hit or miss. We don’t necessarily look for the application. We don’t go to the
door. We look at the property, and we look at the application, and I think that’s what Mr.
Abbate is talking about, and that’s what we do.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Well, let me, hearing none, let me open the public hearing.
All those in favor of this application? In favor of? And these letters that Mr. Inglee talked
about, along with any other correspondence, as our normal practice, will be read at the end of
the personal presentations. Wishing to speak in favor? Please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KERRY INGLEE
MRS. INGLEE-Okay. My name is Kerry Inglee. I’m Jeff Inglee’s daughter, and I live in Glens
Falls currently and I’m hoping to build as soon as this variance gets approved. I came here,
personally, to voice my thoughts in regards to the variance that hopefully will be approved.
Board members, I’m asking that this variance does get approved so that, not only can I fulfill
my dream to raise my son in the beauty and the serenity of West Mountain, those are the
grounds that I, myself, was raised on, and into. I was born into those grounds, and I want the
same for my son. Also, I want my father’s dreams, for all three of his children to be fulfilled.
His dream is to share with us the land that he has worked for 26 years to, it’s amazing. He is an
amazing man, and he has worked so hard to make it what it is today, and his intentions are
extremely honorable, and extremely precious. So I’m asking if you could please grant that for
him and us children. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Opposed?
Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Please come forward.
CARA BEAMES
MRS. BEAMES-My name’s Cara Beames, and I live at 78. My property adjoins Jeff Inglee’s.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-To the south?
MRS. BEAMES-The south. On the south side.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. BEAMES-First of all, I want to mention that, I’m so glad that Mr. McNulty had mentioned
earlier that us ordinary people really don’t know the due process, and being here, I mean, we’ve
been up here for several years with Jeff and his developments of property on Tuthill Road, and I
do have some questions, if you can just bear with me for a minute, maybe give me some
answers.
MR. STONE-Address your questions to us, please.
MRS. BEAMES-Right.
MR. STONE-He can reply later.
MRS. BEAMES-Sure.
MR. STONE-Address your comments to us.
MRS. BEAMES-Well, I really, because I wasn’t here at the last meeting, or the last time with his,
as Mr. Steves says it was approved.
MR. STONE-That was not this Board.
MRS. BEAMES-All right. What do you mean that was not this Board?
MR. STONE-That was the Planning Board. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MRS. BEAMES-But due process, don’t you follow that you apply, you have the variance, the
people that adjoin the property, I mean, it was tabled, the issue was tabled, and we were not
informed. I mean, what’s the due process with this? What happens? We’re not informed to
come up, and you asked, at the time of the meeting, on 9/24, for an open hearing, but we can’t
comment if we’re not informed that there’s even a meeting going on. So, I mean, how can we
give our opinion. You guys, the Board that was here, approved what was going on without
hearing our comments. Because we weren’t informed.
MR. STONE-That was a different Board. I’m sure, according to the rules of the Town of
Queensbury, if you’re within 500 feet of the project, you were notified. Supposed to be. I’m
sorry.
MRS. BEAMES-We weren’t. See, what happened, this is the second time this has happened,
actually, and Pam wrote a letter, the first time this happened, to the Board, and it was
overturned. All the neighbors were notified. They came up, the clustering act. Your decision
was overturned.
MR. STONE-Were you notified of this hearing?
MRS. BEAMES-Of this one, yes. Only because Mr. Gomes happened to be down there talking
to, I think, you, Mr. Brown, and found out that he had applied for this. So then I called and I
talked to Pam and asked her to send me not only the minutes from the last time, but to make
sure that she did send me a notification and the neighbors that this was happening. There was
no, I mean, at one time you guys had that you had to put a poster up on your land. So that
people driving by knew what was going on. Nothing. The last two times, you know, the
subdivision over from the last time and this one.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-This has, this has changed again. Now applicants for a variance, and I can’t speak
for the Planning Board, but applicants for a variance get a sign that they post on their property
for us, primarily.
MR. HAYES-I think you need to explain to her the difference in the actions of the two.
MR. STONE-Yes. All we do on this Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals grants relief from the
Zoning Ordinance, and it can be as much, in this particular case, it’s relief for a substandard,
nonconforming lot. Your Rural Residential Five Acres, and the proposal here for the
subdivision creates one legal lot, in terms of the size. It does require a slight variance, in terms
of road frontage, but the basic request is for a relief of about an acre and a half in the size of the
second lot.
MR. HAYES-For Lot Two.
MR. STONE-For Lot Two. Yes.
MR. HAYES-Craig, will this have to go before the Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. HAYES-That’s the difference.
MR. STONE-So you’ll have more opportunity.
MRS. BEAMES-What happens when we’re not informed?
MR. STONE-You should be informed.
MRS. BEAMES-Well, we’re not. That’s why I’m asking you.
MR. STONE-Are you the next lot to the properties?
MRS. BEAMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Then you should get a notice informing you.
MRS. BEAMES-And you’ll hear, we are not always informed, and then it’s brought up, and
then it’s approved, and now here we sit.
MR. STONE-Well, here you are tonight.
MRS. BEAMES-So I’m letting you know. I’m just letting you know. Just so that we’re doing
history here.
MR. STONE-You’re in a timely fashion.
MRS. BEAMES-Okay.
MR. STONE-I think what I’m hearing, too, is she may have been informed the first time this was
brought up before the Planning Board, but they tabled it, and we don’t always go back and
notify people again when the tabled item is going to come back up. So it can sneak up. They
have to keep calling the Town and asking.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MRS. BEAMES-But if they leave it at, for an opening hearing for the public, then we should be
notified.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re notified at the initial presentation, the initial application, or the initial
meeting. Then it becomes your responsibility, as an interested party to follow what goes on
after that.
MRS. BEAMES-That’s what I’m asking you, because that’s not the way I understood it, and,
Pam has apologized to us.
MR. STONE-Well, the only apology that is necessary is if you were missed at the initial hearing.
MRS. BEAMES-Well, and that has happened.
MR. STONE-That may be. You got this one.
MRS. BEAMES-I got this one.
MR. STONE-For our Board. Our Staff has done its job. If you have comments, I’d appreciate
them, about the application. We’ll start the clock on you now because you.
MRS. BEAMES-Okay. Thanks. The other thing that I just want you to do is, as you had stated
before, is put yourself in my spot. We have been here before, and as Mr. Inglee and Mr. Steves
had mentioned, that when he first started developing the land up there, that he has, it was for
his son. His son was going to live there. As I presented to the Board before, to remind you, is
that.
MR. STONE-Different Board.
MRS. BEAMES-Okay. Then I’ll let you know his intentions, okay. Because his word was his
son was to live there. It was for his son, and that’s why the Board, that Board, approved it,
basically, okay. This is where his son does not live, okay.
MR. STONE-Are you talking about these two lots?
MRS. BEAMES-Across the street.
MR. STONE-Across the street is not on the table.
MRS. BEAMES-Yes, I know, but I need to give you history.
MR. STONE-It’s not on the table.
MRS. BEAMES-Mr. Steves brought it up. I’m just giving you the history of that piece.
MR. STONE-He only told you that he owns property over there. We’re only concerned with
these two lots, and if we get any further a field, we have a problem.
MRS. BEAMES-I need you to look where I’m sitting. The intentions of this building,
subdivision for another house, if it was for probably for all his families, I wouldn’t have a
problem with it, but I’m living next to a motel. I have different people in that house every
weekend. I don’t know who my neighbors are. If you went and moved to a development, he,
this is what he’s looking to do.
MR. STONE-What piece of property are you talking about? You’ve got me confused, and I’m
sure the rest of the Board.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MRS. BEAMES-I’m talking about the property that was just approved, that they had mentioned
across the street.
MR. STONE-Across the street to the west side, I heard Mr. Inglee say that there is a property, a
building on there that he rents.
MRS. BEAMES-Right. Exactly. That was originally brought to the Board as a house for sale.
Now he’s coming to the Board and he’s asking you, he wants to build a house for his daughter.
MR. BRYANT-Can I cut to the chase?
MRS. BEAMES-Please.
MR. BRYANT-Why do you object to this?
MRS. BEAMES-I object because I object to his intentions.
MR. BRYANT-Well, how do you know his intentions are not what he says they are?
MRS. BEAMES-Because, right here.
MR. STONE-Yes, but what is that? I don’t even know what that is.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that has something to do with another piece of property.
MRS. BEAMES-This is what he advertises. When he first was starting all this development, it
was for his family. He doesn’t. He’s using it for advertisement to rent every weekend.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. He’s got three lots on the other side?
MRS. BEAMES-He has three lots. Now let’s do the math to that. Three lots.
MR. BRYANT-Does he rent all three?
MRS. BEAMES-He doesn’t have the houses built yet. He has one done, and he rents it. He’s got
two more going up. That’s three. Then he has the house he lives in, right now. Tha’ts four.
Now he has three children and himself. To me that’s four. Now he wants to build another
house. That would be five. Is that right?
MR. STONE-No. I didn’t hear that. I heard.
MRS. BEAMES-He wants to build a house for his daughter.
MR. STONE-Those are the two lots that we have before us, subdividing an eight and a half acre
lot into two lots. One conforming, in terms of size, the other not conforming, and that’s the only
thing that is before us.
MRS. BEAMES-Well, I think in order to make a decision, though, you need a lot of history.
MR. STONE-By law, we can’t even consider intention, even when we ask the questions of
people, and we have. I mean, we have kind of gone a field and said, what are you going to do,
but there’s nothing legal about that, in terms of intention. So, I hear you. Your concern that if
we grant this variance, and I will summarize for you, if we grant this variance, that he’s going
to build two houses that will be additional rental property?
MRS. BEAMES-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MRS. BEAMES-Well, and I also, we did move up there. It’s five acres, and there’s no reason to
change it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. BEAMES-It’s five acres. That’s why we moved up there.
MR. STONE-And that’s why we’re here. That’s exactly why we’re here. Thank you. Who else
wants to speak opposed to this?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. Mr. Stone, the SEQRA law allows you to quantify
events that are likely to occur, and a pattern of activity on the part of an applicant is an
indication of events that are likely to occur. Specifically, there’s a map here that shows these as
lots four and five. There’s a presumption that there are Lots One, Two, and Three someplace. I
have to assume that at one time all of the land encompassed in Lots One, Two, Three, Four, and
Five, was titled in Mr. Inglee.
MR. STONE-We’ll ask him the question.
MR. SALVADOR-And it was titled in him probably in a single deed, and Tuthill Road is
probably a public easement, and that initial subdivision that was approved, the One, Two,
Three lot subdivision, was really a four lot, a subdivision of four lots, the three lots one side of
Tuthill Road, and the one lot on the other side. That’s the reason why the Real Property Tax
Map people are indicating more acreage than what it shown on this map. The title of Tuthill
Road is in Mr. Inglee. It’s a Town road by use. You know, this is awful close to Fuller Road.
Okay.
MR. STONE-I don’t agree, but go on. This is not a taking.
MR. SALVADOR-What is not a taking?
MR. STONE-The request here.
MR. SALVADOR-No.
MR. STONE-Or a giving, if you will.
MR. SALVADOR-No. What happens to the title of the land in the bed of Tuthill Road? Does it
just fall in limbo some place?
MR. STONE-I can tell you my own experience with my own road by use. Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-No, no it doesn’t.
MR. STONE-That’s what happens practically, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll ask for more of my road back.
MR. SALVADOR-In any case, this application before you, is for a two lot subdivision. It’s, and
they’re titled, and they’re listed here on the map as Lot Number Four and Number Five. Why
aren’t they Lot One and Lot Two?
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-We’ll ask the surveyor who prepared this survey for an explanation. Anything
else? Anybody else wishing to speak against this application? Please come forward, sir.
DAVE STEWART
MR. STEWART-Hi. My name’s Dave Stewart. I live at Cone Mountain Drive, which is right off
Clendon Brook Road. My property borders on the east to Jeff.
MR. STONE-Down the hill, so to speak.
MR. STEWART-I’m on the back side, yes. I own approximately 60 acres on the side of the
mountain and really, as I’ve said before, different Board, I just want to make sure that what’s
done for him could be done for all of us. I own 60 acres. If we going to start taking this down to
three acres a lot, then that could possibly change my thought on what I want to do with my 60
acres. At this point in time, I don’t want to sell it. If my kids want to live there, they’ll be
subdivided on eight and a half acres, and I think we should all be treated the same way, that if
you’re going to start taking these lots down to nonconforming sizes, I just want the idea in my
head that should I come before this Board, I’m going to get the same consideration, and I know
the other neighbors would be here doing just what they’re doing, and that would be protesting
that you’re going to try to reduce this. It was eight and a half when we bought up there.
Developers got up there, bought some of the land. They got it hammered down to five, and
since then that road is pretty well populated. Now we’re talking about taking it down to three
and a half, and I just don’t want to see it happen. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition?
RUI GOMES
MR. GOMES-My name is Rui Gomes. I live on 91 Tuthill Road. I’ve moved from New Jersey in
1996 to live. I looked as far Canada and as far south as Florida to live up here, and I have a
dream. We should all have dreams, but there’s a limitation of our dreams, obviously, when you
know the rules and regulations. I wish this Board would follow the rules. When I moved up to
Tuthill Road, I found the environment to be exactly what I wanted. I’ve asked the owners of the
property if anything else would be going along over the period of time, in other words,
subdividing. They assured me they didn’t know what was going to happen, but they assured
me that it’s Rural Residential Five Acres, and they made the sale, and I expect this Board to be
not so open to the dreams of many people, because we do have, all of us have incredible
dreams. That’s what life is all about. I do not condone Mr. Inglee to have these dreams, but I
do have mine, and once I signed the paper that I own, now, 50 acres on one side and right next
to me another 11, and I tell you the God honest truth, like the prior person that was here, I find
myself wondering how far are we going to go with this, especially when we went from eight
and a half acres, this was before my time, to five, and now this, not this particular Board, but a
previous Board that we talked about, has almost approved 1.97 acres, and those, you don’t have
to be a mathematician with 60 acres. If we got down to three, I could start an enormous colony
up there. The neighbors that I deal with, speak to, they are there for the same reason as I am. I
believe Mr. Inglee has the same reason, to live up there, where you’re away from everything,
but very close to everything. It’s an ideal, it’s ideal. We are ten degrees cooler than when you
live in Glens Falls or anything like that. The mountain is absolutely gorgeous, as you’ve
noticed. Mr. Abbate showed up, and I tried to tell him, I almost got personal, and he said I
don’t want to hear anything personal. What is your bottom line. My bottom line is five acres.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak?
KATHY GOMES
MRS. GOMES-Hi. Nice to see you again. Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. We looked for five
years to decide where we were going to move, and we looked all over the country as my
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
husband just indicated. One of the pieces of property we looked at was a 200 acre Comstock,
Colonel Comstock’s farm out in Corinth, and we also looked at a property in Hartford that was
many acres, and the reasons we didn’t buy in those towns was because they were notorious for
their poor zoning enforcement, and in talking to realtors, we decided to buy our property in
Queensbury because we were told there was stricter zoning enforcement, and we liked the fact
that our property was RR-5 and LC-10, and that that would limit the development in our
neighborhood. This is not a personal thing against Mr. Inglee. I’ve been here four times
between Board or the Planning Board regarding other people’s projects as well for this exact
same reason. I was here in 1998, when the Gereau’s wanted to subdivide and use less than five
acre lots, and we asked the Board not to allow that, and they were told to do five acre lots, and
that’s worked out very well for everyone involved. I was here in 2001, for Mr. Inglee’s original
proposal on the other side of the street, asking the same thing, to please enforce the five acre
and ten acre zoning. I was here in 2002, for the Ashton property, which I don’t know if you
remember, you may, for the same reason, to say this is a unique part of Town, nothing personal.
We want to see the zoning enforced so this unique part of Town is maintained, and now I’m
here again tonight in 2003. So, since 1998, I’ve been coming before Town Boards with the same
message, please enforce the zoning as it’s written, RR-5 and LC-10, in this very unique part of
Town, as Mr. MacEwan has quoted, in some of our past meetings, that we are dealing with a
unique section of Town here, and we have to be careful what we do with it. The relief being
sought, yes, it’s 1.47 acres, but those of you who have any mathematical ability, if you set up a
proportion, and compare that to the total lot size of five acres, it’s a 29.4% relief that’s being
sought. That’s pretty substantial. We all have our dreams. I think it’s wonderful that Mr.
Inglee’s children want to live on the mountain. I hope my daughter feels that way, some day,
but we like to see the zoning enforced strictly, and the other houses that were recently built in
the neighborhood did comply with the five acre zoning, every one of them, as did the Gereau’s,
as did Mr. Inglee’s other project. So that’s what we’re asking. I’m also concerned that, as other
people have stated, there are big chunks of land up there, and if we start hacking it back from
five acres to four acres to three acres, you know, we have 63 acres. We could put 21 houses up
there, if we could do three acres lots. That’s not what we’re up there for. I don’t think that’s
what anyone’s up there for. So, it is just simply asking, as I asked, for all the other properties on
all the other meetings over a five year span, that I’ve been coming before this Board, and I’ve
only lived here for six years. So I’ve been doing this for five out of the six years I’ve lived here.
Asking to please, in this part of Queensbury, enforce the zoning as it’s written. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your concern. Anybody else wishing to speak? Well, let’s get in to
the correspondence.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a number of letters. This first one is from Mrs. Christine
Kobel. She says, “This is a letter in regard to Mr. Jeff Inglee. Currently we are land owners of
property on the corner of Tuthill Rd. and Clendon Brook, soon to be building. My husband and
I are aware of Jeff’s plans to add two family homes to his already, well maintained and
extremely well cared for property. This is not, in our opinion, an unreasonable request. We are
familiar with his children, and would welcome them as neighbors, we hold Mr. Inglee in high
regard, and trust he only has good intentions. In closing, we have no reservations about his
plans, and support his request. With any questions, you may contact us. Thank you, Mrs.
Christine A. Kobel” Another one from Glen Batease. “Members of the board and others it may
concern. I am a land owner on the mountain with over one hundred acres that join to Jeff
Inglee’s land. I have known Jeff from as far back as when his family lived upstairs from the
IGA market on South Street in Glens Falls. He grew up hoping some day to live on a mountain.
I know Jeff as a man with a strong admiration and love for his children, his land and the
mountains. Many of the neighbors, including myself, have watched him over the last twenty
five years work very diligently to turn his land into the show place that it is today. One can not
help but to slow down in passing to see what a great job he has done. I do understand that Jeff
is just a little over one acre short of being able to split his land to give each one of his children a
place to call home. I as a land owner and a neighbor have no problem whatsoever with his
request. I know each one of his children, and I know that each one of them will work just as
hard as their father has to maintain the integrity and serenity of the mountain. I truly think if
any of us were in his position we would be looking to do the same. Sincerely, Glen Batease” A
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
letter from David C. Seymour, 37 Tuthill Road “Dear board members, Please be advised that I
have no objections to the board granting a variance to Jeff Inglee, to allow his property at 104
Tuthill Rd. described as 8.75 acres +/- to be divided into 2 parcels for the purpose of building of
2 residential dwellings. Sincerely, David C. Seymour 37 Tuthill Rd. Queensbury” A letter
signed by Darrow Maille and Linda Maille, “To Interested Parties, in regards to the subdivision
request by Jeff Inglee. (104 Tuthill Rd.). I have been a resident of Queensbury for 44 years and
Neighbor on (394 Clendon Brook Road) for 12 years and it is my understanding that Mr. Inglee
wants to subdivide his property but is a little short of the required land. However, I do not
believe that it is substantial enough to hinder this process due to the fact that it would only
enhance and beautify the area as well as raise the economic value of the community. This
request would have no adverse environmental effects, or cause any safety conditions or hazards
in the surrounding area. I have noticed over the years the many beautification and projects Mr.
Inglee has completed and I feel that he would only continue to do so. It is my understanding
that this request is not for personal gain but only for the inheritance of his children to enjoy
living in the Adirondacks as many of us have had the fortune to do so. Sincerely, Darrow
Maille Linda Maille” A note from Michael Ringer “Dear Sirs: I own approximately thirteen
acres of land on West Mountain. I understand that a fellow land owner, Jeff Inglee, is seeking
relief through a land variance of a little more than an acre in order to subdivide the land for his
children. I further understand that many other landowners in the area are in full support of Mr.
Inglee’s subdivision request. I am also in support of Mr. Inglee’s request. I have absolutely no
problem with his request for a land variance so that he may better provide for his children. I
further understand that his request for a variance will not hurt the integrity of the land in any
way. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Michael J. Ringer” A letter from Kenneth Santucci.
“Dear Board: I am in full support of the residence vision proposed by Mr. Inglee. I’ve known
Jeff for well over ten years. Jeff was a good friend of my Uncle Don Feller who lived over the
mountain on Beartown road. Now I own Feller’s Folly as my Uncle termed his property. Both
Jeff and my uncle are men of the earth. I will maintain my uncle’s vision of nature and the
preservation of the value of living in the Adirondacks. Jeff is attempting to have his children
maintain the spirit of this area, just as my uncle and I are doing. Jeff’s plans will enhance the
Tuthill area and he has the skill and energy to do it. His love of the area, respect for both people
and animals, combined with a champion attitude, should be recognized. Please grant citizen
Inglee his variance request. Kenneth F. Santucci 537 Beartown Rd. Lake Luzerne, NY” A letter
from Eugene Hoyas. “Dear Sir I have known Mr. Inglee for over two years and have found
him to be a generous and gracious man, and an avid sportsman and conservationist. He has
often expressed his wish to share with his children the fruits of a lifetime of hard work and
careful husbandry; his property. Mr. Inglee has spoken many times of the dream to provide
each of his kids with a place of their own, and this seems to me to be what we all want for our
children. I believe that Mr. Inglee is honestly trying to do the best he can for his family, and I
can find no fault in that. Sincerely, Eugene Hoyas” A note from Joan Mahar. “To the
Queensbury Zoning Board – We have no objections to the property of Jeffrey Inglee, to be
divided into small amounts on his land of 8 + acres on Tuthill Rd. in Queensbury. Thank you,
Robert & Joan Mahar” And a note from William Herald “I am writing this letter in support of
Jeff Inglee’s request to divide his land on the east side of Tuthill Road. I support this project as
Jeff described it to me. My understanding is that he plans to divide the lot, which consists of a
size between 8 and 9 acres into two lots that would go to two of his children. Upon completion
of their houses, the existing structure would be torn down and removed.” And letter from Lee
Jarvis “Dear Sir or Madam: I Lee Jarvis have lived on West Mountain Road for over forty-two
years. I have eight acres on the bottom of Luzerne Mountain Road and the top five acres of my
fathers land “Marshall L. Jarvis”, that is at the half way point up the mountain. I have talked to
Jeff over the past couple of years of his plans for his lands and his reasons for the divisions that
he is seeking. I have no problems with anyone in my neighborhood to develop their land, as
they need. With the economy as it is the build up of more homes can only help in the future
stability of our local economy. The lands in this area that I have lived my life are mountainous
by nature and only few places can be utilized for homes. I have known Jeff’s property since the
Wibles owned it back in the 1960’s when I was a child. With the intentions of the divisions, it
would only enhance this underdeveloped part of the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Lee A.
Jarvis” And finally a letter from Horacio Gomes “To the Queensbury Zoning Board, My son
informed me of your letter inviting me to a meeting on June 25, 2003 about the Inglee
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
subdivision. I cannot attend because I am currently residing in Portugal. I hope you will accept
this letter that I am e-mailing through my two sons since there is not sufficient time before the
meeting to send a letter through the mail. I purchased my property with the plan of building a
house to live in when I sell my house in Portugal. I was told by my son and the realty agent
that the property is five and ten acre zoning. I have eleven acres, some in the five acre zone and
some in the ten. When I did the closing, my deed says ‘single dwelling only’. Even though I
have more than five acres I am prevented from subdividing. I accepted this because I wanted
the property near my son’s. I like the property also because it has many trees and few houses in
the area. This is similar to the pine preserve where my current house is. The laws here are
strictly enforced. I cannot even cut down a tree without permission. I hope that you will
enforce the law strictly in America as well. if the rule is that we need five or ten acres to divide
the property, then that is the rule. It applies to me and my property. It should apply to
everyone else the same way. Thank you. Horacio Gomes”
MR. STONE-Is that it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Would you gentlemen like to respond to any and all?
MR. STEVES-Certainly. A few comments, as far as the acreage of the lots, and I understand,
you know, all the neighbors concerns. You heard them. What we’re saying is in an RR-5 Acre
zone you must have the overall density of five acres. So if you have 50 acres you’re allowed 10
lots. If you’re allowed to have a one acre lot, because minimum lot, if I’m not mistaken Mr.
Brown can answer that, in that zone is one acre if you cluster. That doesn’t mean that you’re
allowed to have more lots than density allows. It just means you’re allowed to go down to one
acre in size. So I don’t want to have anybody from the audience or the public misconstrued
thinking that this means you can create three times the zoning. That’s not what it means.
MR. STONE-Would you comment on that, Mr. Brown? You’re shaking your head yes. That
doesn’t get on the tape.
MR. BROWN-I will.
MR. STEVES-We’re not asking for a cluster subdivision.
MR. BROWN-You can go ahead. It’ll take me a minute to find what I’m looking for.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as the density issue, I understand that’s why we’re here for a
variance.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-But we’re not asking to exceed the density on Mr. Inglee’s entire holdings, if you
included the property on the other side. Mr. Salvador’s comments, whether or not this was
land hooked on the other side, no it’s not. These were two entirely separate deeded parcels to
Mr. Inglee. Yes, as a surveyor, I do realize it’s a road by use, but for Town setback
requirements, we have to go to the width of the road as claimed by the Highway
Superintendent to conform to the setbacks for front setbacks. If the road was ever abandoned, it
would go back to the landowner that had title underneath. I didn’t use it in my density
calculations. I could, if you want to call it, cheat on that a little bit, and say, what, he really does
own to the center of the road, but he has, he owns it, in fee, but has an easement over it by use,
for the public. So therefore we just excluded out to be on the safe side.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-How about the Four and Five, on your?
MR. STEVES-(lost words) lots for other parcels Mr. Inglee owns, not by this deed, Lots One,
Two, and Three. So for convenience purposes, with dealing with Mr. Inglee and the Town
Planning Staff, I called them Four and Five. I can call them A & B. I can call them Q& R. It
doesn’t make any difference. It’s two lots on the east side that is a totally separate parcel by
deed than the one that we had subdivided on the west side.
MR. STONE-Mr. Inglee, how many acres do you own on the west side?
MR. INGLEE-On the west side of Tuthill Road, I believe it’s 32 acres, in the Town of
Queensbury, 16 plus acres in the Town of Luzerne.
MR. STONE-And your plan is to build five houses on these eight plus thirty-two acres in the
Town of Queensbury?
MR. INGLEE-No. What my plan is to do is to build myself a retirement home on one of the lots
that I was allocated on the west side,
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. INGLEE-Give my son the second lot, and leave the existing structure left alone as it will
collect some sort of a minimal rental income for me, and my intentions were to apply for a
variance to split the property on the east side of Tuthill Road, and consequently give all three of
my children a place to call home up there. I’d like to point out.
MR. STONE-But that’s the five I’m talking about.
MR. INGLEE-Yes. That’s five.
MR. STONE-Five in thirty-two plus, thirty-two acres.
MR. INGLEE-No, the thirty-two acres is on the west side of Tuthill Road.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but I’m trying to get the density. I mean, if you own, you have
personal ownership of 40 acres, a combination on both sides of Tuthill Road. Correct?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-All right, and your intent is to eventually have five homes on these 40 acres?
MR. INGLEE-No. I only want to have one home.
MR. STONE-No, no, but you giving it to your children.
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-You intend to have five homes.
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Don’t fight me on this. I’m trying to help you at least understand it better. You’re
trying to have five homes that will be, at some point, under yours or your children’s control.
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I want.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. INGLEE-I would like to point out just one thing. I really find it somewhat ridiculous that
some of my neighbors would come in here and scream and holler and want to abide by the
codes and by the laws and by the regulations, when they in fact themselves, and I’m not going
to get into detail. I’m not going to mention any names.
MR. STONE-I don’t want to go too far. Please don’t go there.
MR. INGLEE-No.
MR. STONE-I mean, I just don’t think that’s necessary.
MR. INGLEE-That’s right.
MR. STONE-They’ve made a cogent argument. You’ve made a cogent argument.
MR. BRYANT-One other question. I do have a question.
MR. STONE-Go ahead. Sure.
MR. BRYANT-It’s relative to the cabin that you’ve got existing on the other side, which is not, it
doesn’t have anything to do with the lots, the lot that we’re talking about. Did that cabin exist
prior to the subdivision on either side, or did you build it after the fact?
MR. INGLEE-That cabin was nothing but an old barn when I bought the property. I applied
with the Town of Queensbury.
MR. BRYANT-So it was there already?
MR. INGLEE-Yes. The structure was there.
MR. BRYANT-And you applied for a permit.
MR. INGLEE-I applied for a permit to turn it into a livable structure with the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. BRYANT-Was that prior to the time you subdivided it?
MR. INGLEE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the issue about intent was, not necessarily correct because you didn’t
do it after the fact?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. I would like to just point out one thing in my closing statement is
that I do not want to wait until I’m dead and gone to be able to give my land to my children. I
really sincerely want to be involved with them building their new homes. I want to watch them
raise their children in the serenity of the mountains, and I want to watch my grandchildren run
through the fields that I once created with my own two hands.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’d like to address the immediate time rather than the future. As the Board
may know, the public may know, we spent a considerable amount of time together. In your
application, you stated that there are no alternatives, and I said to you, there are alternatives.
You currently own 32 acres of land in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. INGLEE-Which has all been subdivided already.
MR. BRYANT-It’s 32 on one side.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Well, does that mean that you can’t build a home on there?
MR. INGLEE-Well, it’s already been allocated as separate lots, on the west side of Tuthill Road.
MR. ABBATE-Separate lots for who?
MR. INGLEE-For myself. One is for myself. One is for one of my sons, and one is
accommodating an existing structure.
MR. ABBATE-So all the 32 acres have already been allocated?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything that prohibits taking five acres or so and giving one five acres to
one child and another five acres to another child and what have you?
MR. STEVES-On the west side of the road, you’re talking about?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STEVES-No, we cannot do that.
MR. ABBATE-You can’t do that?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Why can’t you do that?
MR. STEVES-At the time we applied for a cluster subdivision of four lots over there. We agreed
to reduce it to three lots with the Board, with no further subdivision on that parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Now, I am concerned, and I mentioned this to you. I mentioned it to the folks, I
talked there the other day about the immediate impact, the impact on the neighbors who are
adjacent to you. I still am of the opinion that there are feasible alternatives. Nothing’s going to
change my mind, and in making the decision, part of the criteria is to make a decision based on
a number of things, but also on the welfare of the neighborhood, and I heard some rather strong
opposition, logical opposition, to why this should not be approved. It seems to me, quite
frankly, that you have sufficient land that you should be able to do what you wish to do, and,
quite frankly, satisfy the neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Let me ask a question. I’m not sure I, Mr. Steves has already said, Chuck, that the
32 acres on the other side have been frozen in time by the Planning Board in their agreement.
MR. ABBATE-This is true. Do you know what I forgot to mention? There’s some 42 other
acres, by the way, in another town, adjacent to this. There’s a total of 60 acres you own.
Correct?
MR. STEVES-There’s 16.4 acres in Luzerne.
MR. ABBATE-In Luzerne.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-So there’s a feasible alternative.
MR. STONE-Let me ask another feasible alternative, I mean, we’ve heard concern by a lot of
neighbors about maintaining the five acre. You talk density but maintain the five acre. Is there
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
any possibility of buying an acre and a half to go on this so called Lot Five? I just say that as a
possibility.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point.
MR. INGLEE-From whom, the Beames?
MR. STONE-I don’t know.
MR. INGLEE-I don’t think that’s going to happen.
MR. STONE-The concern I heard is five acre lots. That’s what I heard.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Five acre zoning. You’ve got to buy five acres. You can’t subdivide off of ten
acres.
MR. HAYES-Well, you could if the other lots were more than five acres.
MR. STONE-If they’re more than five, yes.
MR. BROWN-You can certainly, right. You could certainly create a boundary line adjustment,
without creating any new lots.
MR. STONE-Yes. Right.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Nonconforming lots. They have to have enough.
MR. STONE-Well, they’d have to have enough room.
MR. BROWN-They’d have to have at least six and a half acres to sell.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Anything is possible depending upon how the neighbors would react, if they
would be willing to do that. Another alternative would be, everybody’s concerned with
keeping it as close to five acres as possible, and I understand, and that’s what we’re trying to
do, and I could create a lot that meets the Code. Lot Five completely meets the Code, and Lot
Four doesn’t, or vice versa, or I could have a variance for both of the lots, but only ask for .69
acres on each lot, and make each lot 4.31 acres, by taking a tail on Lot Five all the way to the
back of Lot Four, but in a practical sense.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. STEVES-It isn’t practical.
MR. STONE-Okay, but, there are apparently, I don’t know where all of the people who spoke,
but there seem to be some fairly large land owners around who have more than six and a half
acres. It’s just a feasibility, I mean, going along with Chuck. I don’t know anybody, because on
your survey, I don’t know who owns what. I mean, because the concern that I hear, and
certainly, I am sympathetic to the concern of overbuilding, and maintaining the density in the
Town of Queensbury. I mean, this is what we have agreed up there should be five acre Rural
Residential. Mr. Steves makes a very good point that we’re talking that dictates density. Is that
correct, Mr. Brown?
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BROWN-Is what correct?
MR. STONE-Go ahead, the question he asked you. I mean, in terms of, can you actually have
smaller lots as long as your total property can support that number of five acre lots?
MR. HAYES-Cumulatively.
MR. STONE-Cumulatively.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I think one of the questions, though, was can we go down to one acre.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-That’s at the discretion of the Planning Board. There is no minimum size.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-For lots in a cluster subdivision. What is in the Ordinance is the minimum total
land you need to have before you can qualify for clustering.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Which is typically five times the underlying zoning. So this eight and a half acre
parcel wouldn’t qualify for clustering.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-There’s a whole bunch of other issues in there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I wasn’t trying to say that we were going to cluster that.
MR. STONE-No, I knew you weren’t.
MR. STEVES-I’m just saying, I want to be sure that everybody knows that we’re not trying to
exceed the underlying zoning, but as Mr. Brown has just stated, there isn’t anything, if you
went into a subdivision and you had 500 acres, and you said, I can create lots here that are good
usable lots, but I’m going to put it on a one acre or one and a half acre lot, you can ask the Board
for that, and as you have seen newer subdivisions come in on larger tracts, they like to have it
clustered. It’s less impact on their remaining property, creates more green space.
MR. ABBATE-And Mr. Steves has just confirmed my position that there is a feasible alternative,
not the most desirable, but there is.
MR. STEVES-And that is?
MR. ABBATE-You just mentioned it.
MR. STONE-They can’t cluster.
MR. BROWN-Can’t cluster.
MR. STEVES-You have to have five times the zoning, the underlying zoning.
MR. ABBATE-So then basically your position is that either it’s this or nothing.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-There is the feasible alternative of buying that. That’s feasible.
MR. URRICO-I don’t think he’s saying it’s this or nothing, though.
MR. ABBATE-Well, he said yes.
MR. STEVES-No, no. You’re asking me, as far as zoning at this time, what the Town allows, I
can’t, with 8.62 acres, I can’t go in for a cluster subdivision.
MR. ABBATE-Correct.
MR. STEVES-So I either have the feasible alternative to leave it where it as is, buying additional
property, or seek a variance from this Board.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but see, I just want you to know where I’m coming from. As someone said,
we all have dreams. You have dreams, but they may not favorably impact your neighbor. Your
neighbor has dreams, they may not favorably impact you. So we all have dreams. So that’s
immaterial.
MR. INGLEE-I’d like to make a statement, if I may. My property is well over 600 lineal feet on
the west side of Tuthill Road, and I own well over 400 feet on the west side of Tuthill Road.
MR. STONE-On the east side.
MR. INGLEE-On the east side. On the east side, I own 600 plus. On the west side of Tuthill
Road I own 400 plus. So needless to say, these two new proposed structures, no one in this
room or in this neighborhood will even see either one of these homes from their home. The
only way they’ll see them is in passing by.
MR. STONE-The concern that I heard, and anybody can jump in, on the people who were
objecting, was they came to a community where the lots were going to be in their judgment, in
their mind, at least, five acres, and that’s what they want to be the case. Mr. Steves does bring
up the other issue of we’re not going to have more homes than five divided into the total
acreage up on the mountain, in a sense, and that’s a given, unless the Planning Board, as we or
the Planning Board think.
MR. STEVES-He had the density for four on the other side, and we only took three, and then we
said no further subdivision. So, I mean, you look on the entire holdings of Mr. Inglee, all I’m
saying is that we do not exceed the underlying zoning. I just want to make everybody aware of
that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s just talk about it, because I have some thoughts, but I want to hear
what other people have to say. Al, let’s start with you. What do you think about what you
heard?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one quick question?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. BROWN-In the interest of time, I’ll try and keep it brief. Is this, the eight and a half acre
parcel, a separate parcel?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BROWN-Okay. Do you know what the APA zoning is up there? I was just curious what
their minimum lot size is going to be when you go to them. Are you going to need a variance
from, is it eight and a half?
MR. STEVES-I submitted the other side to them, and they never responded back with any
comments. After 45 days they said they had no comments.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I believe because the Town of Queensbury has an approved plan, the notice I got
back from them was basically you’re allowed, in the Town of Queensbury, to abide by the.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes, but they still have a right of refusal for 30 days.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STEVES-Yes, they do, every application, and they will on this one also.
MR. STONE-Yes, I know.
MR. STEVES-I’m just saying, the last application I submitted what we were doing, the size of
the lots, and they came back with no comment.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al, let’s start with you.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the first thing I want to say is that we all have dreams and I’d like to get to
mine tonight. I want to get back to something that Mr. Abbate said earlier when he mentioned
one of the criteria relative to the effects on the neighborhood. I did spend a lot of time up there,
and we did hear some comments from the neighbors today, and then of course we heard from
Mr. Salvador, but we also had a number of responses, positive responses, from the neighbors
that you brought in the form of letters. It’s too bad that they weren’t here to also make
presentations, but I did spend a lot of time up in the property, and I did walk around the
property, and one of the things that struck me about the property is the care of the property,
generally, overall speaking, as it compared to some of the neighborhood lots. For example, you
know, there’s a pond with fish. There’s gazebos and trails, well manicured lots. I mean, you
could tell that somebody was taking care of the lots, and then I went to some of these other
houses in the area, on the drive around, and they were very nice houses, but they didn’t have
the same impact, as far as the care, on the lots, and so I just wanted to touch on this effect on the
neighborhood, and that is I believe that a concept of a family occupying the five lots is going to
have nothing but a positive effect on the neighborhood. So, even though this is outside of my
nature, I’m going to be in favor of the application as it stands.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think I’m going to need to hear what some of my fellow Board members have to
say on this one.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s probably outside of my nature to agree with Mr. Bryant substantially, but
I do, in this case, I really do.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HAYES-I think that, I certainly understand the neighbor’s position on West Mountain, but
I think Mr. Steves’ argument, that cumulatively there’s 40 acres in Queensbury here that the
applicant owns, that are divided by the road, separately deeded, but nonetheless, that’s his
cumulative holdings, and the end result is if we approve or give the relief and the Planning
Board goes along with it, it will end up with five lots, and that, to me, ends up with a density of
eight acres per lot. Now, I understand it doesn’t work that way in absolute calculation, but the
primary objections of the neighbors have been, in overall argument, about the amount of
development that’s going to happen on West Mountain per the acres that are up there. That’s
their argument, and I think it’s a good one. I’ve certainly had to face it myself. So I understand,
you know, understand it, but I don’t think, in this particular case, that there’s going to be a
detriment to the neighborhood created by granting this 29% of relief on this one lot for Mr.
Inglee. I think that, I don’t think that’s substantial. I think the applicant has given the reason or
the benefit to himself of why he wants to do this, and that is part of test, what is the benefit to
the applicant, and I also don’t see an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in this district by creating what still is a three and a half acre lot, in an area that that
still is a very generous size lot. It’s just not creating something, to me, that the Code is being
taken advantage of. Mr. Steves has pointed out that he could, if so inclined, create a tail on Lot
B, for lack of a better word, and come up with two lots that were 4.3 acres and maybe that
would be more palatable to this Board, or easy to understand that those are both closer to five
acres, but I don’t think that we want to induce or encourage applicants to play games with the
Code or with the lot sizes. I just don’t think that’s the intention of this Board. There’s either a
good reason to grant a variance, and there’s no overriding negative impact on the neighborhood
or there isn’t, and I don’t like to encourage applicants to do things that I think are meant to be
somewhat of a fiction. So, I’m keeping in mind that it should take ten acres to have two lots. In
this case there’s 8.53, and that’s really not that far away, in the cumulative sense. So I really
don’t think that this is a substantial enough relief to trouble me. Is the difficulty self-created? I
think that it is in the sense that the applicant still wants another lot on, he wants to get two lots
out of 8.53 acres. So I think the difficulty is self-created, but on balance, you know, I think that
this variance carries, in my mind.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts, probably somewhat disjointed. I’ve been scribbling
notes here. I guess the first one maybe is I think in this particular case the neighborhood that
we’re talking about really has got to be considered to be the whole mountain. The mountain is
somewhat of a fragile ecosystem, and we can’t talk just about one lot and people that live 500
feet one direction or another from it. We’ve got to consider the whole mountain. At one point,
the people that had considered what’s appropriate for the West Mountain area had settled on
something over eight acres per lot, and that’s already been cut down to five by the zoning. It
strikes me that maybe that’s enough. Granted, there is property owned by Mr. Inglee on the
other side of the road, and technically maybe he could have gotten four lots in there, but they
were reduced by three. That’s something that the Planning Board worked with them. We
weren’t involved. We don’t know what the reason was, but there had to be some logic. If he
had room enough to put four lots in, and the Planning Board said no, we won’t agree to four.
We’ll only agree to three, there may have been reasons why they insisted on the extra area. I
don’t think we can use that extra area again on this subdivision and then use it on another one
somewhere. All we’re looking at is this one particular request for two lots, and I think that’s
what we need to focus on. That’s the only thing that we’ve got control over. I guess another
point I’d like to make is that, while we’ve heard from a lot of people, and certainly public
comment is important to us, our decision should not be a popular vote. So it’s not just simply a
contest to how many people said yes, how many people said no that we heard from. Regarding
the care of the lots, I’ll agree that Mr. Inglee’s property certainly looks well manicured, but
frankly, in this environment, that’s one of the things that concerns me. Well manicured lots do
not support wildlife anywhere near as well as wild growing lots. I think one of my big concerns
is that we don’t want everything to be lawn and blacktop driveways and manicured. That’s one
of the reasons for the five acre minimum here. So I guess the bottom line from my
environmental background is it strikes me that we’ve gone from eight acres to five acres. We’ve
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
recently rezoned and adjusted our rules. They left this section of West Mountain at five acres. I
think that’s what it should be. I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think the, you know, the future goals and
objectives you have for your family are understandable and admirable, and, emotionally, I kind
of go along with you in that spirit. The Town of Queensbury also has some goals and objectives
for the future, you know, open space and comprehensive land use and so on, and so this is
where the kind of conflict comes into play that I see. Another thing that concerns me, and I
guess there’s been some talk about it here, but in our Staff notes it says, this property was
previously included with a subdivision application for lands on the westerly side of Tuthill
Road. This property was ultimately removed from the previous Inglee subdivision application
and no approvals were considered for this parcel. Whatever the reasons being for that at the
time, that probably back then I would have expected you would have had in mind the goals
and objectives that you would expressed tonight. I wonder what would have happened if that
was included with the planning committee back then, but that’s kind of a, really a minor point.
I don’t know the answer to that question is. The thing is I think that, as others have said, there
may be an alternative which evidently wasn’t pursued at all, although you may expect one kind
of a consequence or the other in terms of the acquisition of some land to compliment what you
have, so that you wouldn’t even need a variance, you wouldn’t have needed to be here at all. I
know land isn’t free, but it still may be feasible in terms of the way we’re trying to weigh the
impact on the Town or the Code and what you have for your goals and your vision for the
future for your family. So I think the aspect of maintaining the five acre is important, and I
really kind of perceive it in my mind as as much as I would like to do it, and I think probably
most of us here, you’re asking us to do you a favor. I just don’t see, other than that, from the
standpoint you take the personalities out of it and some of the emotion out of it, I come to grips
with that in a way that unfortunately isn’t going to suit you. I’m sorry to say that, because I
certainly can understand the family and all, but as submitted, given the remote possibility of
feasible alternatives, as submitted, I don’t think that I could be in favor of this application, and
I’m sorry to say so.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. It’s seldom that I agree with the far left, that’s Mr. McNulty. He’s
the far left, but he made some valid points, as far as I’m concerned, but let me try this from a
different perspective. I think it’s fair to assume that we all have reasonable expectations. The
folks who purchased land on West Mountain had, including the applicant, reasonable
expectations. It went from eight acres to five acres, and, you know what, next week its going to
go down to one half an acre, if we allow it, and so, based on a good reason to approve or
disapprove, I think reasonable expectations are extremely important in all of our lives, and I
think Mr. McNulty said it right. I’m not going to belabor the issue, but as it stands right now, I
would not be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Well, never let it be said that I do not care about the environment. I’ve spent a
great deal of my time up here being involved in lake activities, locally and across the State. I’ve
been involved in areas of on-site wastewater management things. Therefore, I really do care
about the environment, and it’s interesting to hear both sides of this argument. Certainly Mr.
Inglee makes a very cogent argument for doing what he’d like to do. On the other hand, the
loyal opposition, and I applaud you for being here, one of the things that I heard loud and clear
was a concern for overcrowding. That’s my word. I mean, you’re seeing five acre zoning and
you don’t want to go beyond that. Okay, but on the other hand, one of the people who got up,
and maybe more than one, talked about what went on across the street, okay, and I tried to take
it off the table, because it’s not why we’re here tonight, but it is on the table, in the sense that
Mr. Inglee currently owns, hasn’t given it to anybody. He’s got an intent, but he currently owns
40 acres in the Town of Queensbury up on either side of Tuthill Road. He wants to put five
houses under his control at the moment, and I don’t want to go to the kids, but you want to
have five houses. Guess what. That divides into eight acres a house. Now that’s the kind of
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
density that everybody’s saying it was when they bought up there. Well, that seems to me
fairly simple when you think about it. I don’t want to crowd land, but we’ve got 40 acres of
wonderful land up there, and I think every one of us who went up there, and we don’t go very
often. There’s no question about that. It’s a part of Town we don’t get to very often, but the
point is, the density factor that Mr. Steves talks about is being maintained, eight acres per
building, and when I consider that, and certainly we will make, as the Planning Board did, we
will certainly put Mr. Inglee on the spot in any motion to approve this, that there will be five
houses on his cumulative 40 acres, and I assume that he would agree to that. I feel that I can
support this thing, because I don’t think it creates any kind of precedent. I think it says the man
had 40 acres, 32 went in one division, and three lots on it, and here are two more, A and B, or
whatever you want to call them, but it’s eight acres, and therefore, I would.
MR. GOMES-You cannot look at the property across the street because that belongs to another
thing. You cannot use that any longer.
MR. STONE-It was used by one of the members of the opposition who made a very strong
point all about that.
MR. GOMES-I cannot accept that.
MR. HAYES-The public hearing is closed.
MR. STONE-The public hearing is closed. This is how I feel.
MR. GOMES-You have been taken to the cleaners.
MR. STONE-Sir, please. This is the Board, we’ve all explained to you where we’re coming
from. If you have individual differences with us, that is fine. That is the process that we work,
I’m very comfortable with the process that we use.
MR. GOMES-Sir, we are looking at one piece of property.
MR. STONE-Sir, I will call the sheriff’s office if you do not be quiet.
MR. GOMES-You do that, sir. You do that, please. You have to listen to me.
MR. STONE-We’ve listened to everybody. The public hearing is closed.
MR. GOMES-I will bring you up the law, sir, and I will do it legally.
MR. STONE-You have that right. You can appeal any decision that we make. It’s called an
Article 78 proceeding. I encourage you, if you don’t agree with the ultimate decision, and quite
frankly, I don’t know what it is right now.
MR. GOMES-But you are using the second lot, you cannot use 1, 2, 3 for your thinking, too,
because there was (lost words) after the 8.9 acres.
MR. HAYES-Sir, this Board listened to you politely.
MR. STONE-We listened to you.
MR. GOMES-Thank you, gentlemen, I have to apologize. I have to tell you something.
MR. STONE-Sir, the public hearing is closed, and I’m going to be rude, and say I’m not going to
listen.
MR. GOMES-I beg you to open it.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, with all due respect, you talked about 40 acres and five dwellings.
Are all 40 acres developable land? That’s the question, then. Are all 40 of the acres?
MR. STONE-I have no idea.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, that’s important.
MR. STONE-RR-5 does not say that.
MR. SALVADOR-Then the Subdivision Regulations refer to developable land, and steep slopes
and rock outcroppings and things like this are not developable and cannot.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll take my statement back and say I have no problem with dividing
8.62 acres into a conforming lot and a nonconforming lot. Does that make everybody happy?
Okay. I don’t know where Mr. Urrico comes down. I mean, I have it three noes, three yeses,
and an undetermined one.
MR. URRICO-I’ve had sufficient time to think about it, and I’m in agreement that I see this as a
doable situation. I look at the total acreage and I see it subdivided into manageable lots that are
attainable, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-I need a motion to approve. Jaime, do you want to do it?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2003 JEFFREY INGLEE, Introduced by
Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
104 Tuthill Road. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision in a Rural Residential Five Acre
zone. The proposed lot sizes will be 5.09 acres and 3.53 acres respectively. Specifically, the
applicant requests 1.47 acres of relief from the minimum five acre requirement of the Rural
Residential Five Acre zone per 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 200
foot minimum lot width requirement for the 5.09 acre lot. The 5.09 acre lot, Lot Four, appears to
have an average lot width of approximately 197 feet when 200 is required. The criteria for
considering this variance. Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by granting the area variance? In
making that determination, consideration should be given to the following: Whether an
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created. I do not believe that the creation of a 3.53 acre lot in this
particular circumstance will be a detriment to the neighborhood. It’s a substantial piece of
property. A 3.5 acre lot is still a very large lot. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can
be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
Mr. Inglee has indicated that this particular parcel that’s being subdivided was separate from
the lots across the street. It’s a separately deeded 8.5 acre piece of property. Based on the
neighborhood input, input from the neighbors immediately adjacent to the property, I’m of the
opinion that it would be difficult if not impossible for Mr. Inglee to buy or purchase the
additional land necessary to make this a conforming lot. Number Three, whether the requested
area variance is substantial. It’s been calculated that it’s a 29% variance. While that is not
minimal in my opinion, I do not think it is substantial. I think as far as a percentage, the 1.5
acres, plus or minus, that are needed to complete this variance is not overwhelming or
troubling. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I do not believe
that it will. There’s been evidence supplied that Mr. Inglee has maintained his properties in
good condition, and well groomed. I don’t think that the fact that we are creating a lot that is
slightly nonconforming in this area will negatively impact the environmental conditions in this
particular district. Is the difficulty self-created. I stated earlier that I thought the difficulty was
self-created. Mr. Inglee was aware that this is not 10 acres which would be required for a two
lot subdivision, and he has decided to pursue the variance that’s requested. Based on that fact, I
believe that the balancing test that we are charged with falls in favor of the applicant, and I
move for its approval.
68
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. I do apologize for losing my temper slightly to anybody
in the room, but I believe I was somewhat justified.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II BARBARA DAVIS AGENT:
VANDUSEN AND STEVES OWNER: BARBARA DAVIS ZONING: SR-1A/WR-1A
LOCATION: 38 RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A PROPERTY LINE
ADJUSTMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED 1.90 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 93-029; BP 95-197
TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-48.2 LOT SIZE: 4.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-19-020(C)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2003, Barbara Davis, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 38 Richardson Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment to create two parcels. The proposed parcels
would be 1.9 acres and 10.91 acres. Relief Required: Applicant requests 100 feet of relief from
the 300-foot minimum lot width requirement per 179-19-20,C. All residential lots fronting on a
collector road (Richardson Street) shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone in
which the lot is located. The alternative to the “double width” requirement is the sharing of a
drive entrance onto the road. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable Staff comments: The structure and drive on Lot A are existing conditions. Does it
appear as though the proposed house location on Lot B, while not sharing a drive with the
undersized Lot A, meets the intent of the requirement? Might a dimensional separation
condition be imposed to insure safe and adequate separation of drives consistent with the intent
of the code?”
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves. I represent Barbara Davis on this application. If you look at the map,
it’s gong to be quite simple to, once you look at the map. She has the existing home on the
northerly end of the property. The lot line, the dashed line that comes out to the iron pipe
found right between the words “Richardson” and “Street” is the existing lot line. Her
grandfather planted these large areas of blueberry bushes she wants to maintain, where she’s
proposing her new house. Irregardless of we have 300 foot of frontage or 150, or the 200 feet of
frontage on Lot A, we cannot have a shared driveway irregardless, because of the fact you see
that wetland, the stream is a classified wetland by DEC. I have their letter, and they have that
100 foot no disturb zone. So we couldn’t share a driveway. Irregardless the existing house with
the existing driveway, we would have to cross through the stream and a 100 foot buffer to get to
Lot B. So no matter where we place that lot line, we still have to have two driveways. So,
therefore, she would like to be able to maintain the blueberry path that her grandfather put in in
the 50’s. So therefore we move the line to the north to accommodate that.
MR. STONE-Now, there is a stream on the north side, too. Right?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-That you don’t show on your thing.
69
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STEVES-Yes. It crosses, that one that we show.
MR. BRYANT-Another question, if I might. Why did you propose the line here and not where
the other iron pipes are?
MR. STEVES-The one in the middle?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Because that’s the existing lot line. We’re proposing to move it to the north to
accommodate the areas that her grandfather had planted the bushes on, so she can maintain
them, the lot she’s building her new house.
MR. BRYANT-So there already is an existing line there?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We’re adjusting the line to the north.
MR. STONE-So that line is a straight line from south 80 11700.
MR. STEVES-This lot right now is here, and this lot is here. We’re proposing to move this up,
because you can see the wetland. You can’t share a driveway. This driveway has to come in
down here. She wants to move it to the north because her grandfather planted a large blueberry
patch right there. She’s selling this and wants to maintain the blueberry patch as sentimental
value.
MR. BRYANT-Why doesn’t she move the blueberry patch?
MR. STEVES-It’s huge. It’s huge. I wouldn’t want to move it. I hate it when my wife asks me
to move one little rhododendron or something. So, I mean, I wouldn’t want to move the thing,
but irregardless of the fact of where that lot line is, the lot width requirement says 300 feet or
shared driveway. There’s no practical way to share a driveway because of the wetland
crossing.
MR. STONE-That’s what Staff notes say, right?
MR. STEVES-Yes, and I’ll leave it at that.
MR. HIMES-You’ve got quite a distance, though, from the driveway to what is the proposed,
where the proposed driveway is going to be.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We have three, four, close to five hundred feet.
MR. STONE-What you do is the scale on this one is very different than the scale on the one we
just looked at, and that’s why I think we’re confused. I mean, this encompasses over 12 acres.’
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And it looks smaller than the one we just looked at.
MR. STEVES-I really don’t know, but it is listed as one.
MR. STONE-Right down to the water.
MR. STEVES-What the purpose of that, the intent of that is, as everybody would know, is to
have no more than, you know, a driveway every 300 feet, basically, by double the lot width.
Well, we’re going to have it, irregardless, five to six hundred feet away.
70
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Your client is willing to say that this is all the development? I mean, she’s not
going to further subdivide?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-And if we put that in the motion, she would agree to that?
MR. STEVES-Yes, she will.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, in other words, it would be 10.91, and 1.90, and that’s it?
MR. STEVES-You’ve got it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions anybody has? All right. Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-No County. No nothing. You did that. I’m sorry. Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s, hearing no other further comments, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-The short of it is I would be in favor of the application? I don’t see any
undesirable changes to the character of the neighborhood from this. I’m satisfied, from what
Mr. Steves explained, that there are really no feasible alternatives. Actually, there’s a feasible
alternative, but I think in this case, not a practical one. The requested Area Variance is
moderate, I think, rather than being substantial, but again, the end result is we’re ending up
with one driveway in this parcel, and I don’t think it’ll have a physical or environmental impact
either.
MR. STONE-You mean one new driveway.
MR. URRICO-One new driveway.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-And this difficulty is considered self-created, but I think in this case I understand
the desire to perform this, create this driveway. I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think that’s well said. I think this is a little bit of a technical variance, in the sense
that it’s a collector road, which Richardson Street is listed, creates a higher standard, and I don’t
think that the standard that’s set there is really going to be impacted in any way (lost words),
between the two drives, and further with the agreement that there won’t be any further
subdivision or action on this property, I don’t see a negative impact. I’d grant this variance.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can agree with Jaime in this case. In this particular case we do have some
control over both lots, and as long as the condition is in there that there be no further
71
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
subdivision, then we’ll still have the effect of no more than one driveway every 300 feet, which I
think is the purpose of the requirement. So, we get to the same end by a different means. I’d be
in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-I support the application. I have nothing further to add. I agree with what I’ve
heard from my fellow Board members here tonight. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Even blueberries have dreams, and they have a right to reasonable
expectations, and the reasonable expectations is to survive. So, based on that, Mr. Chairman, I
would support the application.
MR. STONE-That is a new one, folks. That is a new one. Al?
MR. BRYANT-I’m not quite the environmentalist, and I don’t feel sentimental about the
blueberries, but I’ll concur with all my fellow Board members, and I’ll be in favor of the
application.
MR. STONE-I think the Board, collectively, has well spoken, spoken well on this particular
application. I certainly looked at the property today. I understand Mrs. Davis’ desire, dream to
have the blueberries on her property. She informed me that she used to (lost words).
Nevertheless, it’s a reasonable request. Therefore, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2003 BARBARA DAVIS, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
38 Richardson Street. The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment to create two parcels.
The proposed parcels would be 1.9 acres and 10.91 acres. In requesting this relief, the applicant
is requesting 100 feet of relief from the 300 foot minimum lot width requirement per 179-19-020,
C. This is a result of all residential lots fronting on a collector road, Richardson Street being a
collector road, shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is
located. In granting this relief, we’re satisfied that the applicant satisfies the necessary criteria.
One being that there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. That
the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved in any other feasible manner. The
request for the Area Variance is somewhat moderate, but in this case, it’s mitigated by the fact
that the driveways will be no closer together than the 300 feet that is required by the Town
Code. Four, that the proposed variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the project, in this case, is self created,
through a desire to take advantage of the property’s current state. This is conditioned that no
future subdivision or development will occur on this lot.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VANDUSEN
AND STEVES OWNER: JEFFREY THREW ZONING: WR-1A/SR-1A LOCATION: 25
EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,280 SQ. FT. POLE
BARN AND CONSTRUCT A 2,400 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM BUILDING SIZE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000-
72
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
796 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/11/03 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.01
ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-020(D)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2003, Jeffrey Threw, Meeting Date: June 25, 2003
“Project Location: 25 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of a 1280 sq. ft. pole barn and construction of a 2400 sq. ft. storage/garage building.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 1900 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot
maximum allowable for a storage building. Additionally, the applicant requests 10.1 feet of
relief from the 16 foot maximum height allowed for accessory structures in the Waterfront
Residential, WR-1A zone, per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2000-796 2200 sq. ft. Single Family dwelling with attached 2 car garage Staff comments:
Does a 2400 sq. ft. residential storage building appear to be a significant request? Does the
applicant (excavating contractor) propose any commercial use with the proposed building?
Will there be any storage of items other than typical residential items? Does a 14 foot overhead
door appear to be excessive for a residential storage building?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11,
2003 Project Name: Threw, Jeffrey Owner: Jeffrey Threw ID Number: QBY-03-AV-55
County Project#: Jun03-34 Current Zoning: WR-1A/SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,280 sq. ft. pole barn and construct a
2,400 sq. ft. storage building. Relief requested from building size and height requirements. Site
Location: 25 Eagan Road Tax Map Number(s): 316.5-1-12.1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,280 sq. ft. pole barn and to construct a 2,400 sq. ft.
storage building. The storage building will be consistent with the architecture of the existing
home. The information submitted does not clarify and the need for the proposed storage
building. The building will be 26’ in height. The plans do not indicate stormwater erosion
control methods. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with
Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the
Stipulation that the proposed storage building does not exceed 1400 sq. ft., it be limited to
personal use associated with the residential use, and no vehicles greater than 1 ½ tons so as not
to have an impact on the residential character. {Clarification for size – 900 for a garage use and
500 for storage shed use as permitted under zoning}.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren
County Planning Board 6/15/03.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Jeff Threw. Jeff Threw is here with me.
This is property down on the Eagan Road, on the south side. He has approximately 6.02 acres.
The existing pole barn that is there, I don’t know if anybody has been down there to take a look
at that, two overhead doors. It does have outside storage of about 680 square feet also, as well
as the 1200 square foot on the inside, if you’ve noticed that, like a shed roof off the side on the
north. It was built prior to the construction of their single family home, when there was a small,
just a cabin down there when Mr. Threw first acquired the property back in the early 80’s, I
believe it was around ’87 or ’88 that the pole barn was built, not knowing that eventually this
would become their home lot. They wanted to build this house. They did, in the ideal location
for the home, and now they would like to move the pole barn, take it down, and put up a
storage building that would be in character with the house, as far as the type of siding, the roof,
the shingles, so that they can finish the landscaping. If you walk around the back of the house,
he’s done an extensive amount of work on the walls, the retaining walls around the back, and
they want to now complete their landscaping of the area, and instrumental to do that is to either
remove this and build a new one or re-locate this, and preferably to tear that one down and
build a new one.
73
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Well, if you try to re-locate it, you’ve torn it down. Is that correct, Mr. Brown? So
that is not a feasible alternative. Therefore, you still need a variance if you want to even put
that back up because it’s oversized. I do want to take umbrage at one of your comments. If any
of you visited the property, we all try to visit the property, and I know at least two of us were
there at the same time. I can’t speak for the rest.
MR. STEVES-I apologize for that. I know you all visit the property. I’ve been here enough
times to know that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. A quick question before my microphone dies. What do you have in that
pole barn?
JEFFREY THREW
MR. THREW-What do I have in it?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. THREW-I have some classic cars that I work on for myself, plus I have.
MR. BRYANT-Do classic cars constitute, does it have to be a registered motor vehicle, Staff, to
be garage? Because one of the things that the Staff notes brought up is the 14 foot overhead
door. When you have a big door like that, isn’t that an indication that you can store a vehicle in
there, maybe a truck?
MR. THREW-Boat. I want to buy an RV.
MR. BRYANT-An RV?
MR. THREW-Right.
MR. BRYANT-You mean like the camper?
MR. THREW-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So any kind of an automobile, it’s got to be considered a garage? Okay. So
based on that definition, if you’re going to put your classic cars in this storage building, it’s
going to be a garage.
MR. STEVES-I don’t know the exact definition, but if you’re storing stuff in the garage, or in the
building, call it what you want, it’s going to be.
MR. BRYANT-Then you’re allowed 900 feet for a detached garage. Right?
MR. BROWN-There’s already an existing garage on the property. So they’d need a variance for
a second garage.
MR. BRYANT-There’s no existing garage on the property?
MR. STONE-Well, it did say there was a two car garage, attached.
MR. BRYANT-That’s right. You’re right.
MR. STONE-But this would be, at a minimum, relief for a second garage, plus an oversized
garage.
MR. BROWN-The way it’s been advertised. If it’s going to change from a storage shed to a
garage, you’d probably have to re-advertise it.
74
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Well, it says 2400 storage/garage building in your notes. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-The only question is, if the applicant is going to store vehicles in it, I mean, it’s
going to be a garage.
MR. STONE-Yes, and that’s what he’s saying, it wasn’t advertised that way. So, if he said to us,
now, it’s going to be a garage. Therefore, we can’t hear it.
MR. STEVES-But if you’re storing a boat in there, and you’re working on your antique car and
fixing it up and restoring it, that’s a storage area. It’s not like you drive them in and you drive
them out every day like a typical household garage would be. He stores his tools in there. You
store a boat in there during the winter, he lives on the winter. I look at it as a garage, I open the
doors, I drive my car in, the next morning I open it up, I drive it out. The things.
MR. BRYANT-(Lost words) storage of motor vehicles. (Problems with Tape)
MR. STONE-I mean, I think some of us also are a little skeptical as at least the County put it
down on paper, and this is no, I’m not trying to pass any accusations or anything, but you are in
the business, the County was concerned that there’s a possibility you might store some of your
commercial vehicles in that.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Threw works for Schermerhorn Construction. He doesn’t own any of his own
equipment. He used to work for Bill Threw, Inc. He no longer does. He works for Richard P.
Schermerhorn. So he owns no heavy equipment.
MR. STONE-At the present time.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s nice to hear. Thank you. Chuck, go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The Chairman makes an excellent point here. Are we to completely
ignore the Warren County Planning Board recommendations? Surely there must be a little bit,
tiny bit of wisdom there. They’re concerned, and they make it quite clear that the proposed
storage building not exceed 1400 square feet, and that would be limited to personal use,
associated with residential use. No vehicles, etc., etc., and etc. Now, Mr. Threw is requesting to
demolish a 1280 square foot pole barn and construct a 2400. That’s almost, that’s 90 some
percent increase in storage areas, and, Mr. Threw has already admitted you have, what kind of
car, ancient cars, antique cars?
MR. THREW-I have a Cadillac and I have.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. You store it in the building, right?
MR. THREW-Right.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a garage. Thank you.
MR. STONE-If it looks like a garage and talks like a garage, or waddles, it’s a garage, I think is
what Mr. Abbate is saying, I mean, storing cars, the fact that they’re stored and they don’t go
out on the street every day, they are being worked on. They are vehicles, and they’re a garage,
and this is a very large garage, considering there are also two on the property. I mean, that’s
my concern. I just think it’s an awful lot of relief. It’s a very big building. Very big building. I
mean, we balk at a 1,000 feet garage, 1,000 square feet. We have balked at 980, as I can
remember, I think, and I’m very concerned.
75
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. 2,400 square foot is probably larger than the majority of homes in the
Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Anything you guys want to ask? I mean, we’ve raised a number of points, and we
certainly have a.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Just a comment, if you would, on the height that’s also part of the
relief that’s requested, and I know when you want a big building it’s hard to not have it a little
higher than say a building that would be smaller, perhaps, but would you address that, because
that’s up in the air, and it’s fairly close, well, 200 feet from the water.
MR. THREW-Well, I want to eventually buy an RV, and, I mean, they’re 12’ 6” high.
MR. HIMES-So your door’s 14 feet, but you’ve got, you’re going up to, what, 28 feet in height?
Is that what I’m reading here?
MR. STEVES-Twenty-six.
MR. HIMES-Twenty-six. I’m just wondering, is there going to be a storage up?
MR. THREW-No. There is no storage above it.
MR. STONE-But this is going to be?
MR. THREW-Twenty-six feet high.
MR. STONE-I know one time, Craig, we, over in Hudson Pointe, person wanted to put an RV
inside, and I think, an oversized garage, and I believe, we balked at that, as I remember.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me open the public hearing, if there’s anybody here wishing to
speak on this subject. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of ?
Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Please come up, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAT HOWARD
MR. HOWARD-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Pat Howard. I live on 20 Eagan Road,
right across the street. If any of you have driven down to the property, you’ll see my white
house as soon as you pull out of the property. Some of my concerns are that I am a new
homeowner, and I want to, me and my wife bought that house as an investment for our first
home, and I want to keep it as an investment. I don’t want to see the property value go down
because of any commercial storage. Now they indicated that he works for Schermerhorn, and
I’ll never deny a man from earning a dollar, but at the same time, he brings that truck home
with him every night. So I want to make sure that everybody knows that when that truck
comes up the road, that’s shining right in my house. Now I bought that house. It’s nobody’s
fault but my own, okay, but I don’t want that, more trucks coming in and out of that property
all day long, you know, with my son being woken up, and if I ever have any more children, I
don’t want them being woken up as well. So, to conclude, I’d really like to protect my
investment, and my family, and I hope you could deny this. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-What kind of trucks? What are you talking about a truck? Some sort of a van?
MR. HOWARD-No, it’s a truck. It’s like a big boom type truck. I don’t want mislead the Board
by any means, but it’s a big truck. It’s a big, big truck.
76
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. BRYANT-So maybe that’s why the County mentions the ton and a half, is that possibility?
MR. BROWN-That’s directly from the Ordinance. The definition of a private parking garage,
talks about three motor vehicles and no vehicles to exceed one and a half tons.
MR. HOWARD-There’s actually two trucks that go down there. I don’t know the name of the
other one.
MR. ABBATE-My question to the applicants would be, what is the size of that?
MR. STONE-We’ll get back to that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-We’re in the public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right. Even Mr. Threw has reasonable expectations. He bought a home.
He has his own dreams.
MR. HOWARD-Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Correct? And that’s an interesting point, huge, monstrous trucks bearing down
on a residential home. That’s quite frightening. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else opposed?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-No. Mr. Stone, I believe, said something about the size of the building and
the 2400 square foot building. It’s very, very close to the area of the room we’re sitting in. 2400
square feet is very close the area of this room.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Any correspondence? I’m sorry. Anybody else? Excuse me. I’m
sorry.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Salvador wasn’t clear as to why he opposed the application.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I wasn’t in favor of it, so I came up at the time.
MR. STONE-It’s big.
CHRIS HADSELL
MR. HADSELL-Chris Hadsell. I live at 25 Eagan Road, which is directly across the street also.
I’ve got a couple of problems, concerns, on the map that you guys all have, I believe, the
proposed building sits out on the edge of what is allegedly the top of the bank. Presently, if you
start at the, where it says Eagan Road on our sign there, there’s a big ditch that does down to
the river that the top of that bank doesn’t exist out there. So that’s something that they would
have to fill in at this point to get the top of the bank out there. The Town also has, I believe, a
copy of a petition that went around, signed by a number of people, 33 or so.
MR. STONE-We’ll read that in.
MR. HADSELL-That also states some of the concerns that were reiterated on the notes from the
committee, too. The use, the size, height affecting overall surrounding area, views. That’s my
concerns.
MR. STONE-Are you Lot Two, or is that the previous gentleman, on this survey?
77
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. HADSELL-On the survey?
MR. STONE-Are you on the same side as Mr. Threw?
MR. HADSELL-No, I’m across the street.
MR. STONE-All right. Because you both said you’re directly across the street, and I wanted to
be sure where.
MR. HADSELL-Lot Two is on his, the one stated as Lot Two was the existing.
MR. STONE-Okay, okay, but that’s his property. Okay.
MR. HADSELL-Actually that’s sold to somebody that signed that petition also. I live across the
street from Mr. Threw, and I don’t want to cause any trouble. He’s done a lot of work for me,
and I appreciate that, but the quality of life in my “dreams” comes into consideration there,
because that’s an awfully big building.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it? I’m not trying to cut you off. You’re well within your five
minutes.
MR. HADSELL-Yes. The other concern that I have, my sister lives on Pickle Hill, which Mrs.
Davidson, Debbie Davidson, and they have an existing structure that was created across the
street from them that they’ve had to deal with for 20 years now, that I just want to get, I didn’t
want this to become that type of situation.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Well aware of that situation. Is that it? Thank you.
MR. HADSELL-That’s enough.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s whatever you want to say. It’s your nickel.
MR. HADSELL-That’s my nickel.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thanks. Anybody else wishing to say anything? Okay. What about this?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a petition, I guess you’d say, a total of 34 names on it with
address and phone numbers, and the head of it says, “We, the undersigned would like to
express concern regarding the proposed change #55-2003. Size 2400 square foot building Use of
2400 square foot building Commercial in nature in a residential area Height affecting overall
views from surrounding area.”
MR. STONE-You say there are how many names in there?
MR. MC NULTY-A total of 34.
MR. STONE-And they’re Eagan Road, Eagan Road, Eagan Road?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, Big Bay, Eagan, Big Bay, Palmer, Eagan. So it’s a pretty good sampling of
that general area.
MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s it for the public?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s all I find.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
78
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do you wish to respond to anything that you’ve heard?
MR. STEVES-Certainly. Talking to Mr. Threw, and hearing what the Staff and the Board has to
say, and the recommendations from the County, and the neighbors, one of the larger vehicles
that he drives home, it won’t be there. We won’t store it there. It won’t come home. It’ll just be
his pickup truck. So they won’t have to worry about that large boom truck traffic. That can be
stored on one of the sites. As far as the building, we would still, and if, you know, 2400 would
be ideal for him. If there’s a size that this Board would be willing to compromise to, we would
like to get the existing building moved. It exists. If we don’t have a new building, it’s going to
stay there, but he would like to have it relocated. We would compromise to the 1400 square
foot that was placed on it by the County. That way he could maintain the 22 foot high that the
current one is, move it over to the side, where it doesn’t affect the front of the house, it would be
better for the homeowner and more aesthetic for the homeowner, as you can imagine being
down there. It also, for the neighborhood, because it would also be sided and shingled like the
existing home. That’s what we would.
MR. STONE-You’re saying Mr. Threw would propose a 1400 square foot storage building, 24
feet, did you say 24?
MR. STEVES-Twenty-two.
MR. STONE-Twenty-two feet high, on approximately the same site that is on this survey.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I quote a little comment you said. Mr. Threw will no longer be
driving that vehicle?
MR. STEVES-That large truck I think that they’re commenting on, that was sometimes brought
down there. He will just use his pickup truck.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, how large is that truck that you sometimes bring down there?
MR. THREW-It’s a boom truck.
MR. ABBATE-What’s the tonnage? Give me an estimate. Five, six tons?
MR. THREW-It’s more than that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That leads me to question the integrity of this application, Mr. Threw, quite
frankly.
MR. THREW-It’s a second job I have.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I don’t care what it is.
MR. STEVES-Well, we are willing to say that.
MR. ABBATE-After you’ve been caught.
MR. STEVES-I’m not saying it as being caught. We never denied that he had a truck there. He
drives it to work. It’s just like if you drive down Peggy Ann Road in Queensbury Forest,
somebody drives their logging truck in their and parks it. I mean, if that’s what you drive to
work. We just stated, in talking, that there was a concern, and we’re trying to address the
79
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
concerns of the neighbors, and you can ask the neighbors, if that truck doesn’t go down there
anymore, would that address their concerns?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but there’s errors of omission in the application. It appears to me, and I
don’t want to be harsh, but it appears to me there’s a lot of concealment here, which I don’t
appreciate. You had a big booming truck, and whoever said it is right.
MR. STEVES-We never stored it in the building. It was never stored.
MR. ABBATE-But it was stored on the property, commercial vehicle? Was it not? A six ton
vehicle?
MR. THREW-It’s a second job.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t care what, if it’s a tenth job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
MR. URRICO-This is a storage building, or a second garage? Has that been determined?
MR. STONE-I don’t think we have, yet. Ask the question.
MR. URRICO-Is it a storage building or a second garage?
MR. STONE-Careful as to what you say. Say, is it a garage or is it a storage building in which
automobiles will not be kept?
MR. STEVES-I think it’s a little bit of both, is my answer to that.
MR. STONE-Okay. If it’s a garage, then it’s been mis-advertised, and we can go no further.
Because the public has not been truthfully informed.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Maybe I’m misunderstood as far as the definition of a garage and a storage
building, and that may be my mistake.
MR. STONE-I doubt that. You’re too familiar with the Code.
MR. STEVES-I look at a storage building as something that I put things in there and I don’t use
on a regular basis. That’s where my definition of storage is, and maybe that’s different than
somebody else’s definition.
MR. STONE-Would you read the definition, Mr. Brown?
MR. STEVES-But I don’t think it says in the storage building, I don’t think it excludes vehicles.
A garage defines vehicles, but a storage building doesn’t exclude it.
MR. BROWN-Do you want me to read the storage shed? A Storage Shed is “An accessory
building used to store materials or small equipment, not including trucks, automobiles, or
recreational vehicles, which supports the principal use of the site.”
MR. STEVES-Storage shed, or a storage building.
MR. BROWN-A storage shed. That’s the only definition in the Code.
MR. STONE-So, and a garage?
MR. BROWN-A garage is for the storage of vehicles.
80
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Right. So if there’s any kind of vehicle in there, we didn’t say garage in the
application because (lost words).
MR. STEVES-Any suggestions, also, that you could enlighten us with, so that we could come
back? If you want us to call it an exterior garage.
MR. STONE-Well, he has already offered to go to 1400 square feet. So whatever this building is.
MR. STEVES-A garage.
MR. STONE-(Lost words). So what we need to advertise is a third garage on the property, or
second garage. I guess two car garage attached is one. A second garage, and an oversized
garage on the property, approximately 1400 square feet, 22 feet high. Would you agree, Mr.
Brown, that’s what we have to do?
MR. BROWN-That’s what I (lost words).
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-It may be the definition of a warehouse is closer to what the gentleman is
trying to do. “A building used primarily for the temporary storage of goods and materials,
associated with retail, commercial or industrial uses. Warehouses may be classified as either
principal or accessory structure, depending on the classification and context of the use.”
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re very familiar with WR-1A zoning. I don’t think a warehouse is
allowed in WR-1A zoning. It’s got to be, the point is it’s got to be re-advertised. They’ve got to
come back. That’s all I’m saying.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2003 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
25 Eagan Road. For up to 62 days, so that we can get clarification on the nature of this building,
recognizing that the applicant has already stated that whatever this building is, he’s request
1400 square feet, 22 feet high.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-I just have a question. You’re tabling it because it was improperly advertised. I
understand the concept, but the reality is (lost words) there’s some basic objections to the size of
the building.
MR. STONE-And concessions have been made in the size of the building.
MR. BRYANT-But no concessions were made about the height. I know that I have never voted
for a garage over 16 feet. So I mean, I don’t know how the other Board members feel, if they’re
willing to go with a 22 foot, whatever the dimension is. That may be fine.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the point is, I would prefer to make it legal, by advertising it correctly,
recognizing, they have to recognize that there isn’t an awful lot of sentiment maybe even for the
14, but let’s give them an opportunity, they’ve made a concession. We’re going to change the
advertising, re-advertise it. The same result may come.
MR. BRYANT-I understand, but I think it’s only fair to the applicant that he understands, you
know, where we’re coming from in the other regard, as far as the height, the height of the
building, the size of the building.
MR. STONE-Would you like the Board to discuss this issue, or can we just?
81
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STEVES-That’s fine. What I want to just bring up to the Board is that the existing building
is 1280 inside, with an outside storage area of a few hundred square feet. It’s 22 feet in height.
So what we’re saying is, basically, re-locate the building in approximately.
MR. STONE-Re-locate. You want to re-build it to approximately the same dimensions.
MR. STEVES-Okay. We’re going to tear that down, and we’re going to build a brand new one
that resembles that in size and height, as the current one that exists, except for the fact that it
will now match the siding and the roofline of the home.
MR. STONE-And that’s an argument that you can make when we hear it the next time, that, in
fact, you are not changing the dimensions too much, but we’re going to let the public know
exactly what it is you’re trying to do, that there will be vehicles in it at all times.
MR. STEVES-And I apologize to the Board for saying a storage building when I should have
defined it as a garage.
MR. STONE-So let’s vote on the motion to table for proper advertising per what I said before.
MR. BROWN-You should re-open the public hearing if you’re going to hear.
MR. STONE-Yes. Let me leave the public hearing open until the next time we meet.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Can we make one comment here? As a token of good faith, that six ton truck, as
of tonight, will no longer be parked there?
MR. THREW-It will not be (lost words).
AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & KATHRYN WALTER
AGENT: N/A OWNER: ROBERT & KATHRYN WALTER ZONING: SFR-1A
LOCATION: 3 HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 24 FT
DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND POOL ON A CORNER LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT POOLS
BE LOCATED ONLY IN A REAR YARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 92-150 TAX MAP NO.
289.11-1-50 LOT SIZE: 0.61 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020 (C2 AND 5)
ROBERT & KATHRYN WALTER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2003, Robert & Kathryn Walter, Meeting Date: June 25,
2003 “Project Location: 3 Hall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 24 ft diameter above ground pool on a corner lot. Relief Required: Applicant
requests relief from the Accessory Structures setback requirements in order to place an above
ground pool in a side yard rather than a rear yard. Per 179-5-20,C.(2), all pools shall be located
in the rear yard only. Additionally, the applicant seeks 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot
minimum property line setback requirement per 179-5-20, C.(2). Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-150 Single Family Dwelling Staff comments:
Are there any other more compliant locations on site for the proposed pool? What adverse
82
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
impacts might be anticipated with the proposed pool? Will the proposed fencing adequately
screen the pool from view? Would a smaller diameter pool be an alternative?”
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to the application? Introduce yourself.
MR. WALTER-I’m Bob Walter. First of all, the pool is not in yet.
MR. STONE-Hallelujah.
MR. WALTER-Well, just by the shape of our lot, the tiered effect is it’s built back into the
hillside. The only other type of pool we could put in might be a lap pool, but I have petitions
here from our neighbors along with some, I think you have one letter from Don Engle. Don was
here tonight briefly, but he couldn’t stay up this late, along with a couple of other of our
neighbors, but we’ve been out talking to everybody and there’s been no complaints. If you’ve,
when you saw our house, you probably saw the care that Kay puts into it on the outside, and
whatever fence, we will have a, still debating on the type of fence a little bit, probably an eight
foot stockade, but it’ll be well covered with shrubbery, to match the rest of the house. Any
other concerns?
MR. STONE-Is that it? You’re probably going to hear two different comments tonight. I’m sure
Mr. McNulty is going to give his speech, or it’s going to be my speech, too. You should be
aware, as you have heard us tonight, that a variance is not a God given right. I mean, the fact
that you’re seeking one is all well and good, and we’re certainly going to listen to everything
you have to say, but as Mr. McNulty said earlier, and I’ll steal your thunder because I’ve got the
mic, some lots just don’t lend themselves to a pool. This is not a negative to you people. You
obviously would like one, and I don’t blame you to want one, particularly with the way the
weather is the last couple of days, but it’s a tough lot, and that’s basically the comments.
MR. BRYANT-Unlike the earlier applicant, you really have no other place on your property to
put a pool, because you’ve got the Cliffs of Dover in the background there.
MR. WALTER-And a septic system on the other side.
MR. BRYANT-Well, my question is, I know that the thing is everybody wants a circular pool,
and I know you joked about the one lap, but I think it would be a little bit more palatable. Why
not get a pool that’s eight feet wide and you would lose six, you know, a rectangular pool, and
you would alleviate 16 feet or so of that relief that you need. You’ve got a 24 foot diameter
pool. So if it’s only eight feet across or ten feet across, you now save 14 feet, give or take a few
feet. I mean, it’s just a question as a feasible alternative, because that’s one of our criteria.
MR. WALTER-Okay.
MR. STONE-What do you when you say totally enclosed? What do you mean? Is this going to
be a separate building?
MR. WALTER-No. The fence that we’re looking at would come across from the, what would be
the front of the house as you’re looking at it from Hall Road.
MR. STONE-You mean on the south?
MRS. WALTER-On the lower yard, but the fence would go all the way around it. So you
wouldn’t see it from the road.
MR. WALTER-The pool would be blocked in by the house, the rock wall, and the two sides
with the fence.
83
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Right, with a legal fence.
MR. WALTER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Hopefully.
MR. WALTER-Six feet. I don’t know my fence.
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MRS. HUNT-You say here an eight foot wall. You mean eight feet high?
MR. WALTER-The stone wall?
MRS. HUNT-The stone wall.
MR. WALTER-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-How high are the other two walls that you have there? I mean, I’m just trying to
get a perspective of how.
MR. WALTER-Well, you have the house, and then off the one foundation, the back right
foundation of the house, is that rock wall, going toward Mr. Engle’s house.
MRS. HUNT-You’re not going to put in another stone wall then?
MR. WALTER-No.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MRS. WALTER-We have more than ample amount of stone wall there.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. WALTER-And then the six foot stockade fence would go here.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Am I on?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Walter are to be congratulated. You’re making
a proposal. Now, just as you heard me earlier, it’s seldom I agree with the far left, Mr.
McNulty, but I’m going to throw in a little philosophy here. My feelings are this, and under the
standards of fairness, it’s unfair to reward those individuals who overtly violate the Ordinance
and punish those individuals who come before us requesting a particular variance. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-I might say that’s the luck of the draw, having two pools on one night, too.
MR. ABBATE-I know.
MR. MC NULTY-Just a curiosity for Staff. This is a corner lot, right?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
84
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. MC NULTY-How come this one’s got a side yard, when most corner lots have front yards
and back yards and no side yards?
MR. BRYANT-It has one side yard.
MR. STONE-It’s not in the corner. The other corner is on Tee Hill. So this is on a side, this is in
a front yard. This is behind, it’s a side yard.
MR. WALTER-We have two front yards. The one to the left of the house borders Tee Hill Road.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure I understand your question, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, like they, this property has roads on two sides of it. So it’s got two front
yards, but your Staff notes say that the pool’s going in the side yard.
MR. BROWN-The relief that’s been requested, though, is relief from a rear yard setback
requirement of 20 feet, and relief from the, because it’s not in the rear yard. It’s not behind the
house, and it’s too close to the eastern/western property line. Those are the two reliefs.
MR. STONE-You’re three feet, you’re talking, now, on the drawing.
MR. BROWN-He needs four feet.
MR. STONE-I’ve got a three foot dimension to the left. That’s what I’m.
MR. BROWN-It’s three in the application.
MR. WALTER-It’s three in the application. What happened was I sited where I thought the line
was, and then after I turned in the application, I found the survey and found that I have, we
actually had another foot, which made it four feet.
MR. STONE-You wrote a letter here, as part of the application, making some arguments here,
that Mr. Engle is exactly aware of where you wish to locate the pool and has no objections, and
somewhere you say, yes, in your notes that if, you wrote in here, we don’t feel it would have
any negative impact. Our closest neighbors want us to have the pool so that their families can
use it. I would say that they have a parochial interest in this, a vested interest in this particular
pool, and the other question, the people who live across the street, who have no reservations, do
they have a pool in the back yard?
MR. WALTER-One of them does.
MR. STONE-The one directly across from you?
MR. WALTER-No, no.
MR. STONE-They’ve got a very big fenced in yard, but there’s no pool in there?
MR. WALTER-That’s right. That’s the Middletons. The Guidetti’s, they do have a pool.
MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, you mentioned about them, they have no reservation, and I
wondered whether, because I couldn’t see, they’ve got it so well fenced.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, could we have ten minutes of silence so I could say good
morning?
85
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? Well, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to
the application? Go ahead. You have a letter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ve got one letter. This is from Don Engle a 9 Hall Road. He says, “I
have reviewed the request for variance 56-2003 for Robert and Kathryn Walter for a 20 foot
above ground pool to be located on the right side yard of their property. My property at 9 Hall
Road is the immediate right of the Walter property and therefore would be the most directly
affected. Bob and Kay have always been wonderful neighbors and have always meticulously
maintained their home and landscaping. I have no objections to their request and recommend
approval by the Zoning Board.”
MR. STONE-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-And I will make a comment. That’s the person who’s going to get to use it, too.
Right? I just want to get that on the record. Okay. Does anybody have any comments? Okay.
Well, I don’t hear any other questions. Let’s go down the line. Let’s start with Mr. McNulty.
No, I’m sorry. Let’s start with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Well, looking at the property, there is no other alternative. Four feet seems a little
close, and what I’m concerned about are people that might buy the property next door to you in
the future, and how they would feel about that. So that’s my one concern.
MR. STONE-So would you approve it or not approve it?
MRS. HUNT-I don’t know yet.
MR. STONE-Okay. Reasonable. Chuck?
MRS. WALTER-Because there are trees and shrubs along that whole line between our lot and
Don Engle’s. So it’s really not going to be that visible.
MRS. HUNT-But it’s more than just, I mean, people in a pool make noise.
MRS. WALTER-I see. And his garage is what borders that.
MRS. HUNT-I did notice that. Yes.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can add to that. I talked to Don Engle, and he made that point, too. He
said that, with his garage being where it is, it kind of protected him from whatever kind of noise
that would be there. So, while there may be future neighbors later that won’t be Don Engle, but
somebody else that buys this house, I think there’s some validity hearing that from the
neighbor, that whoever’s there is going to have the garage to help them. As Mr. Stone has said,
you know, one of my favorite things is, gee, maybe some lots just weren’t intended to have a
pool, and yours is almost one of them. On the other hand, I think the particular location you’ve
got there mitigates the problem somewhat with it being next to the garage of the house next
door, and if you’re going to put a stockade fence around it, or something similar, to shield it
from across the street and what not, then it’s certainly going to change the view of the people
across the street a little bit, but they’ll be looking at a stockade fence instead of a stone wall. All
told, I think, balancing the benefit to the applicant versus any detriment to the neighborhood,
the balance falls to the applicant, and I’ll be in favor.
86
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Let me ask a question before I get to you, Norm. Above ground pools, permanent
structures, temporary structures? I mean, is it for the life of the property forever and ever? I
mean, an in-ground pool is, would seem to me different than an above ground pool. Is there a
difference in terms of above ground pool? Could you say for the life of the ownership of, or is
that a reasonable thing to do?
MR. BROWN-As you are aware, when you grant a variance to a property, you grant it to the
property.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. BROWN-If you grant a pool to be located four feet from the property line, it can be four
feet from the property line.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Ten years from now, they have a variance to do that.
MR. STONE-That’s just a thought that came up. I was just curious. Okay. Norm?
MR. MC NULTY-Before he starts, I had one other question, it just dawned on me. We were
talking about possibly using a rectangular shape instead of a round pool. Do they make
rectangular shaped above ground pools?
MRS. WALTER-They make oval.
MR. MC NULTY-Oval? Okay. So that would be one possibility then. Okay. Sorry.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. I’m going to, I think, be a bad guy here and come down as
opposed. Again, I do feel that this is one of the, a type of property that can’t accommodate a
pool, the fact that it’s in the side yard quite close to houses, the houses are fairly close together.
It isn’t like we’ve got 100 feet or something. So the relief is very, very significant, and I’m sorry
to say I don’t think that I can agree with your application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Again, I agree with Mr. McNulty, but I have some other reasons as
well, in supporting your application. Number One, I think it’s a reasonable request. What
would I do if I were in your situation, the identical same thing, and, two, I am pleased to say
that in my opinion this request was certainly made in good faith, and I will support the
application.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what Mr. Himes has said, however, in your particular
case, I think you may have an alternative in a different shape pool. It doesn’t have to be oval. It
could probably be one of these egg shape or whatever. You know, there’s different shapes, but
not being that familiar with swimming pools, I’m still in the sprinkler stage myself, I’m going to
be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I can’t tell you how relieved I was. This was the last property I went to view
and see a pool not there already. It was a big relief, and it’s a well maintained property. You do
a terrific job with it. I have no doubt that this pool will be shielded property from its neighbors,
and I think it’ll be a welcome addition to your house and the neighborhood. I’d be in favor of it.
87
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, my first thought, one I wrote down was, so maybe you shouldn’t
have one, but I’ve listened to my fellow Board members, who I regard highly in terms of their
thinking, and this is a beautifully maintained lot. The pool as invisible as any pool is going to
be on a relatively small lot, well, it’s a half acre, it’s a reasonable size, but most of it’s up the hill,
and we heard earlier about you can’t build up the hill and all that sort of stuff. I would be, with
some trepidation, I would go along with this thing. I would hope that you would do the kind of
job on the pool and the fence that you’ve done on the rest of the property, and having seen that,
I feel that I can be assured that you will, and I think that’s the important thing. So, having said
that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2003 ROBERT & KATHRYN WALTER,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
3 Hall Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 24 foot diameter above ground pool on a
corner lot. The applicant requests relief from the accessory structure setback requirement in
order to place an above ground pool in the side yard rather than a rear yard. Per 179-5-020 C(2),
all pools shall be located in the rear yard only. Additionally, the applicant seeks 17 feet of relief
from the 20 foot minimum property line setback requirement per 179-5-020. In reviewing the
application, we’re satisfied that the criteria, the benefit to the applicant in granting this
application, they would indeed benefit from it. The effect on the neighborhood would be
minimal. Even though there is a three foot buffer, that will be mitigated somewhat by a garage
and a tree line that separates the two properties. There are feasible alternatives to this variance,
but the septic system and the location of the property make it limited, and the relief is
substantial relative to the Ordinance. Again, I refer to the garage and the tree line that separate
the property, and we don’t anticipate any adverse impact, physical or environmental, to the
neighborhood, and yes, indeed, this condition is self-created.
Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. WALTER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, I know you want to ask a question, I assume. That’s why you’re
here. Please ask the question quickly, because Mr. Abbate can’t work after midnight.
MR. BRYANT-I want to say something. This is very serious. We had a discussion at one time,
at one of these meetings, that we need to limit the number of cases we have, our case load, and I
thought we had come to a conclusion, our mutual understanding, we were only going to have
seven. Now we have eight, and it’s midnight, and this is excessive, you know, and now, I’d like
to hear Mr. Salvador. I like most of the things he says, although I don’t agree with everything
he says, but I like it, you know, but I am so, right now, I’ve got to tell you, I’m so
discombobulated.
MR. STONE-But, Mr. Salvador, I think I know what he’s going to say, and it’s going to give me
a very good opportunity to say something. So would you please come forward quickly.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ve come to your meetings repeatedly for the express purpose of discussing
this letter of February 21.
st
MR. STONE-That is correct, and may I speak to that right now? I have promised you that I
think about it all the time. I recently had, and thank you for the opportunity, to mention
Cameron Samuel Stone, my four week old grandchild, who I’ve spent two trips to California in
88
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/25/03)
the past month. I did not get a chance to do it, but I will get back to it immediately, and I
promise you as quickly as I can, John, I really will.
MR. SALVADOR-How quick is as quickly as you can?
MR. STONE-Before the next Zoning Board meeting, you will have, hopefully, an approved
letter from Town Counsel and Community Development and all that sort of stuff.
MR. SALVADOR-Town Counsel and Community Development, if they were willing, would
have, could have done something about this a long time ago.
MR. STONE-You wrote to me and I apologize. I really, really do, and you know, John, and I
will call you John, you know, we’ve talked about it, and I will get it, and you know what it’s
going to say, so I don’t even.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t.
MR. STONE-Then I don’t either, then. No, I will write it. The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
89