2005-12-28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 28, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 75-2005 Randy Rivette 1.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-63
Use Variance No. 932-1984 Ned & Joyce Crislip 4.
Tax Map No. 297.6-1-22
Area Variance No. 88-2005 Wally & Kate Hirsch 13.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-45
Area Variance No. 86-2005 Bradford Neron
17.
Tax Map No. 308.12-1-19
Area Variance No. 87-2005 Mary A. Brown 18.
Tax Map No. 301.18-1-2
Area Variance No. 90-2005 Leslie Tucker 20.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-65
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO
BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL
OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 28, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
LEWIS STONE
JOYCE HUNT
ROY URRICO
CHARLES MC NULTY
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALLAN BRYANT
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RANDY RIVETTE OWNER(S): RANDY
RIVETTE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 57 SULLIVAN PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE WITH ABOVE STORAGE AREA.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF. BP 98-519 SEPTIC ALT., BP 93-477 2-STORY ADD. WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-63 SECTION 179-4-030
RANDY RIVETTE, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was tabled at the previous meeting.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2005, Randy Rivette, Meeting Date: December 28,
2005 “Project Location: 57 Sullivan Place Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 900 sq. ft. detached 2-car garage with above storage area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 7-feet of front setback relief from the 30-foot minimum, and 5-feet of
relief from the maximum building height for a garage of 16-feet.
All relief required per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 98-519: Septic alteration.
BP 93-477: Issued 2/25/95, for a 24 x 24, two-story addition to existing SFD.
Staff comments:
As you will recall, this project was tabled on October 26, 2005 (see resolution and minutes),
the Board indicated that the request was substantial relative to the height relief sought. This
plan reduces the height of the garage to 21-feet, from the previous 26-feet. This reduces the
amount of height relief required, from 10-feet to 5-feet. The applicant has submitted pictures
that show the view from Glen Lake Rd., as well as a graphic of the slope of his property.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
The existing house is located on the property line, thus no setback from Sullivan Place. The
garage is proposed to be setback 23-feet from this same property line.
The existing house totals 1,018 sq. ft., which is the applicant’s justification of need for the
additional storage space.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 75-2005 please
approach the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your
place of residence, please.
MR. RIVETTE-My name’s Randy Rivette. I live at 57 Sullivan Drive.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Proceed with your appeal. Explain to us why you feel we should
approve your request.
MR. RIVETTE-With the pictures you can see my neighbor’s garage on the left, the 21 feet
with the same setback. I want that to parallel my house, which would be a 24 by 24 addition
you spoke of, and you see where it goes into the bank you’ll see my roof will match his, and
it’ll be pretty much identical to his, and then I can put my car in it and her car in it and use
the top for storage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any time during the hearing, I’m going to continue on, but if you feel
there’s any additional information that would help you with the case, raise your hand, let me
know, and I’ll identify you, recognize you, and you can continue, okay.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now I’m going to move on and ask if any of the Board members
have any questions?
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, and Mr. Rivette. When was the neighbor’s garage
built? Do you know or do we know?
ROBERT SULLIVAN
MR. SULLIVAN-I’m the neighbor. It was probably about 1983.
MR. STONE-Okay. So just about the time the new zoning came into play.
MR. SULLIVAN-I had to face a Board just like this for the other building.
MR. STONE-You did? And you are, sir?
MR. SULLIVAN-Robert Sullivan.
MR. STONE-Okay. So there probably was a variance for that garage, but we don’t know.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board have any questions? No questions?
Okay. What I’m going to do, then, is open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 75-
2005, and ask any of those in the public wishing to be heard please raise your hand, I will
recognize you. I will ask you then to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and
identify yourself. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address this
issue? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone,
and for the record identify yourself and place of residence, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROBERT SULLIVAN
MR. SULLIVAN-My name is Robert Sullivan. I own the property next door. I have no
objection to what Randy wants to do, and I know Bob Harris who owns the property across
the street would be here tonight and speak in favor of it, too, but he went away, he had to go
south tonight. So, this property goes back before zoning. These lots were probably marked
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
off 50 years ago. It’s probably the only use the property could be put to, and I’d ask the
Board to make a favorable.
MR. ABBATE-You request the Board to approve?
MR. SULLIVAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-So, Mr. Sullivan, you’re saying that the two garages are on the same level of
ground? I mean, it’s flat ground?
MR. SULLIVAN-No, it’s not flat.
MR. STONE-I know there’s a hill where he is, that he’s going to take out.
MR. SULLIVAN-You see on the left, the left two pictures, that’s my garage from the
Sullivan Drive this way, and on the other end, you can see that this hill comes up enough so
that it’s just about even with the roof. It’s only one story in the back and two stories in the
front, and his will be the same way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. SULLIVAN-You bet.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area
Variance No. 75-2005? If not, please, sir, madam, would you be kind enough to come back to
the table. I’m going to ask, now, members of the Board to offer their comments concerning
this. If I may start with Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-All right. Thank you. Well, I voted in favor in October, and looking over the
minutes and notes, I think there are mitigating circumstances. I think the fact that the home
is small, you need storage, I think the fact that it’s going to be built into a hill, and it’s the
same as your neighbor has, it certainly won’t detract from the neighborhood, and I know we
have to look at each petition on its own merits, but we also have to be fair in our decisions.
We have given variances to people for 20 foot, 21 foot garages. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with what Mrs. Hunt said. I don’t think this is going to
detract from the neighborhood. I think there’s certainly some demonstrated benefit to the
applicant, and the applicant has tried to make it conform as closely as he can to comments we
had at the previous meeting. So I think he’s made an effort to keep this to a reduced size. I
think it’s going to be typical of the neighborhood. So, I think the benefit to the applicant is
going to outweigh any possible detriment to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was in support of the application the last time you came before us,
and I think this time, due to the fact that you’ve lowered it five feet lower than what you had
originally proposed, I have no problem with it at all. I think that, you know, in the case of
Waterfront Residential property, we need to make the distinction between properties that are
actually on the waterfront, and this one clearly is not. It’s just a reflection of the zone being
extended further out, but in this instance, too, I think if you compare it to the existing
neighbor garage there, it fits. So it’s not going to be any problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I concur with what I’ve heard. I think Mr. Rivette is to be congratulated for
listening to us. I mean, we were pretty tough on him, at least some of us were the other night.
Twenty-six feet was a lot of relief. Five feet is a lot, but certainly in keeping with the
neighbor’s garage on one side, and across the street, and therefore I’m certainly in favor of the
revised application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. URRICO-I pretty much echo what everybody else has said. To me, 21 feet is better
than 26 feet was when you came here last time, and that’s what we were hoping for is some
mitigation on your part. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-I would certainly agree. It was all positive. I think you should be
congratulated. You did listen to what we said, not that you had to follow to the letter what
we said, but, you know, we try and give and take, what have you, and you wisely chose that
path, which is the correct path, and as a result, it appears that you are going to have
approval for your plan this evening.
MR. RIVETTE-Great.
MR. ABBATE-So, let me move on, and I’m going to ask for a motion, but before I ask for the
motion, I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of
the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out
five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant this
variance or not. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 75-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 RANDY RIVETTE, Introduced by
Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
57 Sullivan Place. The applicant proposes a 900 square foot detached two car garage with
above storage area. The applicant requests 7 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot
minimum, and 5 feet of relief from the maximum building height for a garage of 16 feet. All
relief required is per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Can the benefit be achieved by
any other means feasible to the applicant? Well, Mr. Rivette has already made a change in
his plans to be more compliant. Will an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or
to nearby properties be caused? I don’t think so. The garage will be similar to one a neighbor
has. While the request might be considered substantial, it is half of what Mr. Rivette
originally asked for. I don’t think there will be any adverse physical or environmental effects
on the neighborhood, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it’s created because of
the size of his home and his desire to have space for storage. So I therefore request that we
pass Area Variance No. 75-2005.
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 75-2005 is six in favor, zero against. Area
Variance No. 75-2005 is approved.
MR. RIVETTE-Thank you.
RE-HEARING REQUEST 932 YEAR 1984 SEQRA TYPE NONE NED & JOYCE CRISLIP
OWNER(S): NED & JOYCE CRISLIP ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 693 RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANTS REQUEST A REHEARING OF UV 932 APPROVED 8/15/1984. APPLICANTS
REQUEST THE LIFTING OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL STATING, SPECIFICALLY,
THE OPERATION OF THE B & B IS, “LIMITED TO THE APPLICANT’S LIFETIME”.
CROSS REFERENCE: BP 88-440 ADDITION, BP 97-467 SEPTIC ALT. [AV 932 (YEAR
1984) NOTE SHOULD BE USE VARIANCE] WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
1.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-22 SECTION 179-4-030
NED CRISLIP, PRESENT
MR. ABBATE-Before I call the next appellant up to the table, I’m going to ask the Secretary
to read into the record a request by the appellant of Use Variance No. 932-1984, and after it’s
read, I have a motion I’d like to make, and then I will invite the appellant to come up to the
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
table, please. Mr. Secretary, please read into the record the request by the appellant of Use
Variance No. 932-1984.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Re-hearing Request 932 Year 1984, Ned & Joyce Crislip, Meeting Date:
December 28, 2005 “Project Location: 693 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant requests a rehearing of UV 932, specifically for reconsideration of the condition
of approval that the operation of the Bed and Breakfast be limited to the applicant.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 97-467: Issued 8/19/97, for a septic alteration.
UV 41-1994: Approved 8/17/94, for a 3.5 sq. ft. sign (B&B) in a residential zone.
Staff comments:
The ZBA, on 8/15/84, approved a UV for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast in the SR
zone. The resolution states, “The Board approved this use variance as unnecessary hardship
has been established. It doesn’t seem to alter the essential neighborhood character.” With
the condition, that it be, “Limited to the applicant’s lifetime or the termination of this
applicant’s “bed and breakfast” use.”
The applicants, having operated their business for 20-years, wish to sell the property as a
B&B. Thus, the request for the lifting of the condition specifying “the applicant”, as
traditionally, a variance would “run with the land”.
The Board may choose to remove the condition without a rehearing of the original use
variance application (UV 41-94). This meeting has been noticed as a public hearing;
therefore, the Board may act at this meeting or hold further discussion at another public
hearing at a later date.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Secretary, before we continue, may I respectfully suggest to the
Board members, rather than a re-hearing of Use Variance No. 932-1984, we move to consider
this appeal as a reviewable condition, exercising our discretion to consider striking the
conditions placed upon it. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should ignore any
other conditions, and that we should necessarily grant unconditional relief to the applicants.
This may be addressed after the public hearing. As such, a reviewable condition would be
consistent with the fact that a variance runs with the land and not the land owner. It follows
that only a majority of this Board is required for a reviewable condition, rather than a
unanimous vote required for a re-hearing. My rationale that we consider this appeal as a
reviewable condition, I believe, is supported by substantial evidence.
MOTION TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST AS A REVIEWABLE CONDITION RATHER THAN
A RE-HEARING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-We have a tie vote, it’s three and three, and under the rules, and based upon
precedents, a tie vote is in fact a defacto denial. So as a result of that, my motion to hear this
as a reviewable condition has been disapproved. So I will move on. Would the petitioner for
Re-hearing of Use Variance No. 932-1984 please approach the table, speak into the
microphone, and for the record state your name and relationship with this appeal, please.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. CRISLIP-Hi. I’m Ned Crislip. My wife and I reside at 693 Ridge Road. She is absent
this evening because of illness. In fact, she’s going to have surgery early tomorrow morning.
So she sends her excuses for not being here.
MR. ABBATE-Well, before you continue, let me make three particular points for you, please.
MR. CRISLIP-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-This is a re-hearing, and this Board may reverse, may modify or may nullify
its original order, decision or determination upon the unanimous vote of all members present,
provided this Board finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith and in reliance
upon the re-heard order, decision or determination will not be prejudiced thereby, and before
presenting your line of reasoning for a re-hearing, please be advised that the request for a re-
hearing should state the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in
rendering the past decision, and also state all other grounds upon which re-hearing is sought.
In addition, the re-hearing, if granted, would only be on the written record, and please be
mindful of the fact that a re-argue of the appellant’s original position only reaches a level of
another hearing and will not reach the threshold for a re-hearing. Any member of this Board
may make a motion to re-hear. However, there must be a unanimous vote of all members
present for such a re-hearing to occur. At this time, I’m going to respectfully ask Board
members to withhold any dialogue while the appellant is presenting his argument. Would
you continue, please.
MR. CRISLIP-All right, and I hope I got all of that. As you’ve heard, we’ve had the business
for 20 years, and we have presently gone out of business. The house is on the market right
now as a private residence. It is not being marketed as a Bed and Breakfast. The reason that
we are asking that the condition be lifted is for the simple fact that we have had inquiries
from potential buyers to purchase it as a Bed and Breakfast, and they’ve already been told,
no, you have to buy it as a residence. Unless this condition is lifted, it can only be bought as a
residence. So we are not selling the house as a business. It is marketed right now as a private
residence. In the 20 years that we have had the Bed and Breakfast, to my knowledge, we
have never received, directly or indirectly, any complaints regarding the business operation at
693 Ridge Road. I have no complaint about the condition that’s in the, as it was written up
because we understand fully that it was granted to us for our use only during our lifetimes. I
have no argument with that whatsoever. I don’t know what else I could add.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Have you concluded, then, your
argument?
MR. CRISLIP-Yes, I have.
MR. ABBATE-You have. Do any of the Board members have any questions concerning?
MR. STONE-Well, the first thing I want to say, I hope your surgery goes as well as it can,
whatever it is. So you’re saying right now it is a private home?
MR. CRISLIP-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And this is where the complication starts to come in with the Use Variance.
The rules have changed with the Use Variance, and almost any property that can be used as a
private residence, really, it’s almost impossible to get a Use Variance for, which is why you’re
trying to go back to 1984. One of the things, if I were to consider that, I would like to know
how this place was operated, and what it did, and I don’t know. I’m asking dumb questions
because I really don’t know the answer. You said back in 1984, we have two unused
bedrooms.
MR. CRISLIP-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-That you want to use. Is that all you have ever used for the Bed and
Breakfast?
MR. CRISLIP-As time went on, we used one more.
MR. STONE-Okay, there was an expansion of this use?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. CRISLIP-Right. In the earlier stage, people didn’t even seem to know what a Bed and
Breakfast was, when I came before this Board back 20 years ago. I hadn’t even known what
it was, but we had stayed in a Bed and Breakfast in Europe, but we got into this at a
suggestion of a friend, but, yes, we did expand to the third room, and we have what’s called
an overflow room that probably has only been used probably about twice a year, that is a
room without a bathroom, a very small room, almost a cubicle. Sometimes an extra child has
stayed in there or a mother-in-law or somebody that’s with a family.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do other members have any questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you classify the usage as primarily a Bed and Breakfast? I
know that there’s been some question as to whether or not large events have been held there.
I don’t know what the instance of those was.
MR. CRISLIP-We were approached, several years ago, if we would do a wedding, and we did
do a wedding for a lady from, I believe she was from Lake George. It was her granddaughter
who was getting married, and we did try that because we were seeing if we would be
interested in that, and it was very difficult to do. After that time, we did two for friends. The
last one was probably no more than four years ago. My daughter’s best friend from college
and present day lived in Manhattan, she and her husband, and their families lived out of the
city. I think that both families were in Ohio, and they asked if they could have their wedding
at our place, and we did that as a favor to them. We’re not interested in that. It’s too
difficult to do. There’s too much traffic on that road. We’ve been approached many times
since then to do weddings, but we don’t do it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Typically, how many guests do you have staying there?
MR. CRISLIP-Well, it’s increased over the years, and it goes well into October now. It’s not
daily trade, but you can expect weekend trade all the way into October. Now when we first
started, it was primarily June, July and August, and then we got some leaf peepers as time
went on that way, but it does start early, but your busiest time doesn’t really get started,
doesn’t really begin until about mid-June.
MR. URRICO-And how many guests do you have?
MR. CRISLIP-Well, you can have them daily, at least two rooms.
MR. URRICO-Two rooms?
MR. CRISLIP-Roughly. I’m only speaking, some years are different than others. You never
know what you’re going to get. We used to get what I called the trickle trade. In the off
season we would get occasional people in the wintertime, but as other Bed and Breakfasts
opened in the area, then you shared that trade. So it practical amounts to nothing once you
get past October. Something I failed to mention before, now that we’re no longer in business,
there is no Bed and Breakfast business in Queensbury. Nobody’s in that business right now.
So there are two, I think three in Glens Falls, but none in Queensbury.
MR. URRICO-And normally how long do the guests stay?
MR. CRISLIP-Generally one night. On the weekends you may get them for two.
Occasionally, when luck has it, you’ll get them for a week, or five days. That’s very nice for
people in the business because it means far less work.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a couple of comments, and maybe one question. The first
comments were kind of drifting a little bit, and I’m going to make it worse, but we’re really
considering now whether or not to re-hear this, we’re not considering whether to approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely correct.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. MC NULTY-But to go and make that a little bit worse, with the letter that we have
handed to us tonight, there’s a comment in there about the way this property is listed. I have
the listing sheet up live from the Multiple Listing system. Let me read the remarks,
“Lovingly cared for 1800’s home. Parlor is now an efficiency apartment, perfect for in-laws.
Family room has walk-in fireplace. Wraparound porch is set off by a lawn and gardens use
for weddings. Variance required for continued B & B use.” So, it’s pretty plain, while it lists
the assets, it’s very plain saying you’ve got to have a variance if you’re going to continue Bed
& Breakfast use. That leads me to my other comment. We’ve gotten a lot of information
about how this property has been operated. That tells us nothing about how it might be
operated by a new owner, and the applicant certainly can’t give us any guarantee of how a
new owner’s going to operate this either. My inclination is to let the new owner come and
apply.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other comments or questions from members of the Board?
Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing, and I’m going to ask members of the public if
they wish to comment on Use Variance No. 932-1984, and if you do, would you be kind
enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself. Yes, sir,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, again, I think we should caution the public, this is only as
to whether we should re-hear it. It’s not a question of the merits of whether it should be
granted or not.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. Let me emphasize this. The objective of this evening’s
hearing is merely to decide whether or not there will, in fact, be a hearing. We address
nothing else. The burden of the responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of Mr. and Mrs.
Crislip to convince this Board that there are mitigating circumstances to merit a re-hearing,
but the only thing we are discussing this evening is whether or not to re-hear it. If we decide
not to re-hear it, so be it. If we decide to re-hear it, it will be in the future. So would you
continue, please.
PETER CARTIER
MR. CARTIER-Yes. Peter Cartier, 704 Ridge Road, Queensbury, directly across from the
property in question. I would encourage you to postpone whatever you’re going to do with
this, to give you time to review a great deal of information that has been provided to you
tonight. In doing that review, I’m not going to read my letter. You already have a copy of
my letter and attachments in there. I would ask you to very carefully review the information
that’s in there because the property is, in fact, while not be advertised as a B & B, has, if you
go on the website type in Bed & Breakfast, there’s a ton of stuff that shows up in terms of
corporate events, breakfasts and weddings, Bed and Breakfast events, Breakfast and Event
Planning, Breakfast Business Meeting, Breakfast Congress.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Did you sign this letter? No? Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Which letter are you referring to? A copy of my letter? Yes, you should
have a signed copy of my letter.
MR. ABBATE-Separate letters. Okay. Go ahead. Continue.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. That’s about all I have to offer. It’s just that however you decide on
whether to hear it or not, be aware that there’s a great deal more information below the
surface than appears, and I respectfully request that you do take the time to carefully
consider all the information that you’re being provided. Can I ask a question?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may.
MR. CARTIER-If this does go to a re-hearing, does all of this material submitted tonight
become part of that?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public
who would like to address this particular variance? Yes, sir, please. Approach the table,
speak into the microphone, and identify yourself and place of residence, please.
CHRISTOPHER LYNCH
MR. LYNCH-I am Mr. Lynch, Christopher Lynch. I live at 695 Ridge Road. My property is
next door to the current Bed & Breakfast.
MR. ABBATE-Now I’m going to suggest you’ve handed us this document this evening. I
want it read into the record, so I’m going to ask you to read it into the record, please.
MR. LYNCH-If I can take the five minutes, I would love to. Thank you, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy for yourself?
MR. ABBATE-But of course.
MR. ABBATE-Please read it into the record.
MR. LYNCH-Thank you, sir.
MR. STONE-Does that bear, Mr. Chairman, on the re-hearing, or does it bear on whether we
grant it? I’m not objecting to the reading. I’m just wondering.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll leave it up to the Board to decide. Do you want it read into the record?
MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me that it’s more appropriate at the time of a re-hearing if we
decide to re-hear.
MR. ABBATE-Would you also agree? Then I will retract my statement. You do not have
to read that into the record. That saves you some time.
MR. LYNCH-Thank you. I will paraphrase parts of this. We heard about this late. I don’t
know what happened with the mailing. My other next door neighbor who lives 25 feet from
this also as of yesterday morning.
MR. ABBATE-You may make any statement you wish. So proceed.
MR. LYNCH-Okay. I enjoy the idea of the re-hearing. I think the Board members are
coming very much around to my fears for continuation of this and deeded rights. You might
ask what are we afraid of? I’m afraid of whoever’s going to buy this. We basically would
have, you know, if a neighbor bought it, we could be looking at somebody running it from
their house. We’re looking at 10, 12 rooms, you know, it’s already advertised. There have
been weddings, who know what else is going to be coming up. If a corporation bought it, and,
make no mistake, Bed & Breakfasts are big business, and there are a lot of people making a
lot of money with some very high priced ones. Who knows where that’s going to go. We can
go variance, variance, variance after that. If winters are such that, you know, you never
know. I know they have to come in for a variance for, you know, if they wanted a restaurant
there, for example, or wanted to make permanent the wedding, but we’re very scared. This is
my wife Maureen Lynch, by the way. We have two children, nine years and ten years. Quite
honestly, in the years from a two room now to a four room with wedding parties and
whatever else is going on over there, I don’t like the idea of who is living there. We’ve got
Level Three sex offenders in schools and churches, and, I don’t know who’s living right next
to me. We have people walking down the driveway on nature walks. I’ve found some, you
know, but what if my kids are home alone or, you know, you never know. This is not, in any
way, shape, or form a proper use for this land. It’s a single family area. The idea of a re-
hearing, it’s been suggested that the lifetime portion of this variance is illegal. That’s a
distinct possibility, but I would hold that I think what the original Board was trying to do is
just put some sort of a cap on this, and they may have been fearing exactly what’s going on.
All of a sudden going from two room to four rooms. Now a new owner comes in, six rooms,
eight rooms to ten rooms. Now it’s an apartment, you know, and who knows where it’s going
to end. I say re-hearing of the entire variance is very, very, very much in order. I’ve heard
them say that the original Ordinance was granted in total error, on a hardship basis? I don’t
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
think so. The only discussion in the original was, gee, we bought a house and we want to put
a couple of room so we can fix it up nice. That’s not a hardship, and, you know, looking at
Town zoning, you’ve got four things really to look at, as to whether something like this can go
in. Is there hardship? No, there isn’t. Is it unique to this property? No, not in any way,
shape or form. Is it self-imposed? Well, yes, this whole situation obviously is self-imposed.
Nobody forced anybody to buy anything and turn it into a B & B or anything. Probably in
the three or four days that I’ve had to look at to look at this entire thing, the one thing that
really comes out is, you know, there’s all this gray area in law, and in the State law that I’ve
quoted in Hans Dexter, etal., etc., which I’ve quoted, which I’ve become aware of, which you
will become aware of, I think, there are a couple of things going on here, but in Town law, the
one thing that pops out, quote, your job is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community, and to protect the property values and aesthetics of the community to the
maximum extent possible. It has nothing to do with people making a little extra money
when they sell their businesses that should or should not be a business. That means protect
me. I’m the next door neighbor. Protect my children. Like I say, I don’t like the idea of
whoever the heck living hither and yon, in and out and back and forth. I also believe it’s
been suggested that you could just take this lifetime out and then just leave the rest of the
variance intact, and the one other, well, the one legalese thing that I really want to point out
is in the Hans, etc., etc., which is suggested to be case law on this point, the presiding judge,
quote, it does not necessarily follow that the condition should be ignored and petitioners be
granted the benefit of unconditional variance. Ergo, is this comes out, that doesn’t mean,
we’ve got a Bed & Breakfast the rest of our lives. Whoever comes in, they get to do whatever
they want, as has been happening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I ask a question?
MR. LYNCH-Please do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where is your property in relation to this?
MR. LYNCH-I’m the next door neighbor. My land circles 80 plus percent of their non-road
perimeter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re to the north or to the south?
MR. LYNCH-I’m just to the north. I’m contiguous to the north, and my other neighbor who
didn’t get notified on this, who I don’t think is really all that positive on keeping a B & B in
there, some of her land comes within 25 feet of this parcel here. So, somewhere in this letter I
think I might have preeminent standing in this whole thing, as the next door neighbor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How long have you owned your property there?
MR. LYNCH-Mid Seventies. It took me a long time to get enough money to build my first
house there, which I was forced to sell, and we kept enough of the land, about nine plus acres
in back, and my father bought this in the 60’s. We’ve had it ever since then. Again, who
would have thought. Our purpose here is the same purpose as keeping 10 acres of land. We’re
contiguous in the back with Rolling Ridge. It could be valuable property. Personally, I like
the deer, and I like a little bit seclusion and all the critters and just to keep it as single family
rural and as nice as humanly possible. I’m here to say that the B & B, over the period of
time, here, there and other places, just very much affected the character of the community,
the very local community. We are actually afraid, again, people in and out, in and out, but
the real fear is who’s going to buy this. As you say, there’s no guarantee who can come in,
what can they do, how many rooms can they put in, how many weddings a year can they do.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry to cut you off, but your five minutes are up. Yes, ma’am, you may
have five minutes also.
MAUREEN LYNCH
MRS. LYNCH-I don’t think I’ll need that much. My name is Maureen Lynch. I also reside
at 695 Ridge Road. To give the Board an understanding, our property has a driveway which
borders the one side of the Crislip property, comes back off Ridge, winds behind his parcel,
and then cuts further back. Our parcel is set back off the road. One of our primary concerns
is that the original variance was granted supposedly on the basis of hardship. I am not at all
sure that threshold was met. Of course this is way before my time. Our other concern is that
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
since that original variance has been granted, it looks like two additional variances have also
been granted since then, and we don’t know where the tide will be stemmed as far as
preventing further potential expansion. Given that the Bed & Breakfast has been shut down,
I presume for the season at least, the demonstrated need for the variance has also been
removed if it is not actively being operated, but this looks to be putting in a new variance to
grease in the way for the next owner, and since the property is already on the market for sale,
it’s also being advertised way beyond the limitations of the original variance, and once the
property is sold, once again, we have no control over who is going to buy the parcel, or who
will the second or third time it changes hands. Our intention is to remain on our land for the
long term, hopefully to pass on to our kids. We don’t know, but it is not going to get better if
we have got increased traffic. We have had people walking down our driveway. We’ve had
their pets wandering onto our property, and you don’t want to be rude to people out of town,
but this is not the world I grew up in, and I am afraid to let my kids out of my sight. I should
certainly not have reservations about my children walking around on their own property.
They should feel safe on their own land. Giovanna Garner has a house full of kids. She lives
right in front of us closer to the road. She did not get notification as of yesterday. I don’t
know if Mark Kazazean, who lives next to her, also well within 500 feet, I don’t know if he is
even aware of these proceedings. He does not reside. He rents out the house, but with
intention to retire there down the road, as I understand. These are our concerns. The rest of
them are detailed in the letter, but we would seriously ask the Board to review this, certainly
on the basis, does the original hardship still exist, and was the burden of proof met in the first
place. We are very concerned about where this will go down the road. We don’t want to be
facing lawyers and expensive legal proceedings trying to preserve our remaining property
rights going into the decades ahead. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other members of the public who
wish to be heard concerning Use Variance 932-1984? Yes, sir, please.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I would recommend that you
not re-hear this application, for the simple reason that it appears to me that the initial
granting of an Area Variance, when a Use Variance should have been granted, makes that
hearing a nullity.
MR. URRICO-It was a Use Variance granted the first time.
MR. SALVADOR-It says here Area Variance 932 in 1984, note, should be Use Variance. Was
it a Use Variance or was it an Area Variance?
MR. ABBATE-A Use Variance.
MR. STONE-The application was, Use Variance was checked.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. With regard to everyone’s concerns about the future use of the
property, bed and breakfasts are regulated by New York State Department of Health. On an
annual basis, you’ve got to get a permit to operate. They check the safety, the septic, the
water supply, the parking, the egress, emergency, everything. If you have a swimming pool,
that’s part of the operation, but you must qualify on an annual basis for that permit.
Otherwise, you don’t open your doors, and this Town does not have a business license
procedure, and so sometimes operations like this fly under the radar, but any new owner will
be required to get a temporary residence permit. These permits are not transferable. You
must qualify for your own permit. So the concerns that the neighbors have, in that regard,
should be put to rest. Any future variance that’s granted to this property can be conditioned
upon them qualifying and obtaining a New York State Department of Health permit to
operate a temporary residence. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who would like to address Use
Variance No. 932-1984? If not, what I’m going to do then is close the public hearing.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. URRICO-Chuck, can I ask a question about these proceedings here?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means.
MR. URRICO-I just think it’s important that we review where we are. If we elect to vote on
a re-hearing, we have to have a unanimous vote in order to approve that re-hearing.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-If we vote to re-hear it, are we then going to use the current Use Variance as it
stands, or are we going to refer back to the Use Variance in effect when the initial Use
Variance was granted?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. To answer your question, Number One, in the event there is a re-
hearing, it must be as a result of a unanimous decision. Part Two of your question is this. In
the event of a re-hearing, how will we address it? That will be up to the Board to take all the
evidence that is in to the record, including the 1984 decision, as well as what we heard this
evening, and new documentation that came in to us, and make a decision.
MR. URRICO-And then if it’s re-applied, if we vote not to re-hear it and a new person buys
the property, they must come back in here for a Use Variance, and then we’re using the
current Use Variance criteria?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Again, let me make this clear. You say vote not to re-hear, it only takes one
person to dissent. Let me continue. I do believe I closed the public hearing. Okay, I did.
Would you like to come back up to the table, Mr. Crislip, please. Is there anything else you’d
like to say before I speak to the members?
MR. CRISLIP-Only one thing. Mr. Cartier quoted some information referring to, that it
came from our website, and that information is not on our website. Pete, I don’t know where
you got that.
MR. ABBATE-Quite frankly, I’m not going to get into an argument here. You can discuss
that later. That plays no role in our decision here this evening.
MR. CRISLIP-That’s what I gathered. By the way, our website is still active, and the only
reason it is active is that for potential, as a reference so people can see the interior of the
house, prospective buyers. That’s the reason that’s on there, but if any of you wish to take a
look at the website, everything’s right there.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Members of the Board, the only issue at this point is to decide, did
the appellant present a compelling argument for re-hearing. If any Board member believes
this to be true, they may make a motion to re-hear. Please note, at this time, we may not
address any other issue. Is there a motion to re-hear or deny request for Use Variance No.
932-1984?
MRS. HUNT-May I ask a question first?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may.
MRS. HUNT-This letter we have from the Town Counsel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t read it. You can’t even talk about it.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. Now, I’ll start again, is there a motion to re-hear or deny Use
Variance No. 932-1984?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MRS. BARDEN-Can I say one thing? Maybe because it has to be a unanimous vote, if Mrs.
Hunt has a question or concern about that, maybe you should take a break and try to clarify
her question.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to request about a 60 second delay, please. I don’t have a copy of
this.
MR. STONE-I don’t have a copy of it.
MR. ABBATE-How did you get it?
MRS. HUNT-It was given to me.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a copy of this. I’ve never seen it before.
MRS. HUNT-I just got that tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s Page Two.
MR. ABBATE-Page Two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the same one. You’ve got that.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I do, yes, I understand it. Yes, I don’t have a problem with it. We
can’t discuss it. It’s privileged client information. Counselor/client, we cannot discuss this in
public.
MRS. BARDEN-I know you can’t discuss it in public.
MR. ABBATE-Did you have a specific question you wanted to ask, if we go into Executive
Session?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just go and ask in his ear.
MR. ABBATE-Explain to me what it is. We have cleared that up, ladies and gentlemen, and
thank you for your patience, and I will, again, ask if there is a motion to re-hear or deny Use
Variance No. 932-1984.
MR. STONE-Are you saying that’s the same re-hear or deny?
MR. ABBATE-I need somebody to tell me whether they wish to move a motion to re-hear.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. I’ll move a motion to re-hear, with the opportunity to say
no, to put it on the table.
MR. ABBATE-You can do that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO RE-HEAR USE VARIANCE NO. 932-1984 NED & JOYCE CRISLIP, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: NONE
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six to zero, no, not to re-hear the case. The request for a re-
hearing, in fact, is now denied as a result of a unanimous vote for a re-hearing. Mr. Crislip,
your request for re-hearing has been denied.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. CRISLIP-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2005 SEQRA TYPE II WALLY & KATE HIRSCH OWNER(S):
WALLY & KATE HIRSCH ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 145 BIRDSALL ROAD
EXTENSION APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 3-CAR GARAGE WITH STORAGE LOFT
ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF. BP 2004-819 DEMOLITION, BP 2004-862 SFD BP 2004-872, DETACHED 3-CAR
GARAGE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-
45 SECTION 179-4-030
WALLY & KATE HIRSCH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2005, Wally & Kate Hirsch, Meeting Date:
December 28, 2005 “Project Location: 145 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant has constructed an 828 sq. ft. detached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 2.25-feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum, per §179-4-
030 for the WR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 20-2005: Approved 4/20/05, 4-feet of height relief for a 20-foot high, 900 sq. ft. garage.
AV 2-2005: Denied 1/19/05, request for 7-feet of height relief for a 23-foot high, 900 sq. ft.
garage.
BP 2004-872: Permit issued 5/25/05, for 900 sq. ft., 3-car garage.
Staff comments:
This garage was built 2.25-feet too close to the side property line at 17.75-feet, was to be 20-
feet from same. The applicants stated in their cover letter that, “Due to the angled property
lines and extreme variations in elevations, a minor error was made.” Furthermore, the
applicants indicate that they spoke with their immediate neighbors, “and they realize that
this error was unintentional and they do not have a problem with the location”.”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 88-2005 please approach the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence,
please.
MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch. This is my wife, Kate. We live at 145 Birdsall
Road.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Proceed, please.
MR. HIRSCH-Again, this was, I don’t know if any of you have been to the site. It was a big
hill that was taken down. My neighbor, Russ Pittenger, I believe he submitted a letter. I
don’t know if you have it. I can read it in if you don’t have it, and he basically is saying that
he hasn’t got a problem with it at all. From the base of the trench that the excavator left for
the concrete contractor, was about 15 feet from the top of the neighboring property. The line
goes at an angle, and they made a little bit of an error, very minor, and that’s how it got set
like that. We had requested 900 feet. We made the garage a little bit smaller anyway, and
the building, both the house and the garage, I think blend very nicely into the surrounding
area. We’ve tried to disguise this as well as we can with coloration and with leaving the
terrain or adjusting the terrain. There’s further landscaping that will take place between
myself and Pittenger. We’ve both planned to do some stuff when the season opens up again
next year, but we’re asking for relief on the small change and it really is pretty minor,
especially when there is a variation in elevation between our garage and his property line, and
he has constructed a berm that he and I are going to landscape this spring.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any time during the course of this hearing, if you feel there’s
additional information you wish to enter into the record which will support your case, raise
your hand and I’ll recognize you.
MR. HIRSCH-All right.
MR. ABBATE-Until then I’ll move on to the next section. Do any of the Board members
have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 88-2005? Board members?
MR. STONE-You didn’t expect to come back, obviously.
MR. HIRSCH-No. Believe me, this is the last place we wanted to be.
MR. STONE-I figured that.
MR. ABBATE-Any of the Board members have any questions?
MR. STONE-I will say, in terms of blending in, you’ve done a very nice job.
MR. HIRSCH-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Driving up there, as I did today, it’s very nice, well done.
MRS. HIRSCH-We’ve very happy with it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to, at this point, open up the public hearing, and would
those in the public wishing to be heard on Area Variance No. 88-2005, please approach the
table, speak into the microphone, and for the record state your name and place of residence.
Do we have anyone in the public wishing to address this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. My questions tonight are
procedural in nature. I note here on the agenda that only building permits have been issued
to date for this project. This project has never been before this Board for any variances.
MR. STONE-Yes, it has. Area Variances, one denied and one approved were definitely before
this Board. Mr. Hirsch was given a tough time by this Board.
MR. SALVADOR-They’re not listed here.
MR. ABBATE-Specifically it’s Area Variance No. 20-2005 and Area Variance No. 2-2005.
One was approved, the other was denied. So they, in fact, did come before this Board.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, they’re before you tonight because they’re asking for
additional relief, and why have they been brought before this Board? Which of the many
public officials of this Town has made a determination that they must come before this Board
for the relief being requested?
MR. ABBATE-Is that a question you’re asking me?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to have to assume that the Staff notes have a degree of integrity,
and that this application of Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch has been, in fact, renewed by Staff, and I
place confidence in the ability of Staff to determine whether or not there’s approval or
disapproval, and in fact if there’s a question, Staff then moves this application to this Board
for a review.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it was a reflection of the final survey.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-When they went over, and I’m sure it was somebody from zoning.
MR. STONE-As built survey.
MR. ABBATE-I honestly don’t know.
MR. SALVADOR-Is it to be understood, then, that there’s a deviation from a previously
granted variance, the final survey indicates a deviation from a previously approved variance.
MR. STONE-No. The siting was done, for a building permit, it was going to be here. We
granted relief for height.
MR. SALVADOR-All right. What I’m getting at is that I believe the applicants are here
tonight seeking relief because the Code Enforcement Officer, the Building Code Enforcement
Officer cannot give them a CO because they don’t meet the criteria of the building code, okay.
Now let me read to you one of the duties and responsibilities of the Director of Building Code
and Enforcement. As I’m quoting from Chapter 88, Section Seven of Town Code. The
Building and Code Enforcement Officer shall administer and enforce all provisions of the
laws, codes, ordinances, etc., etc., applicable to the location, design, materials, construction,
etc. Applicable to the location. There’s a problem with the location of this completed
structure, and therefore an appeal is brought before your Board. The point I would like to
make is that I believe your, the appeal is an appeal from a determination made by the
Building Inspector. That’s my point.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe that’s correct. I think what happens is when a building
permit is issued for this, they get the building permit, they build it, and then a final survey is
drawn, and it comes back, before they get their CO, the Zoning Administrator checks to make
sure it’s in compliance with the Zoning Code, realized it wasn’t, because of the side setback,
and the Zoning Administrator issued a letter to the applicant stating that they were
encroaching on the side setback. So it’s not a building code that’s in violation. It’s a zoning
code. So they could get a CO, but they couldn’t get a Certificate of Compliance for their site.
MR. SALVADOR-They couldn’t get a CO because, from the Building and Code Enforcement
perspective, they had not adhered to the criteria of the building location, as permitted by the
Building Code Enforcement Officer. He has a location plan that is a part of a building permit
application, and the applicant has not met the condition of that plan, and it shows up in the
as built survey.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think Building and Codes really cares about where it’s built. I think
the Zoning Code cares where it’s built.
MR. SALVADOR-They are responsible, it says so here in Chapter 88, for the location. They
are responsible. I think it’s an appeal from the determination of the Building Inspector.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your comments are duly noted. Do we have any
other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 88-2005?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to read the Pittenger letter?
MR. HIRSCH-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or you can give it to me and I can do it.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t you hand it to the Secretary, and the Secretary will read it into the
record, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter is dated November 10, 2005, to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, RE: The Hirsch garage, side yard setback variance application on Birdsall Road.
“Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in support of the variance before the Board. We own and
occupy the property immediately north of the Hirsch parcel along the line affected by the
setback encroachment. Please consider that the encroachment was inadvertent, is minor [as a
percent of the relief requested], and due to the grade differences will have no deleterious effect
on the use and enjoyment of our property, nor impact the neighborhood. It is prudent and
proper for this Board to carefully consider each request as it relates to preservation of the
fabric of our neighborhood and the protection of the natural and recreational resources of
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
Glen Lake. We feel that the Hirsch project represents a fine example of use transition from
seasonal camp to year-round home, and encourage you to rule favorably upon their request.
Thank you for your consideration. Russell Pittenger, Lin Whittle 19 George Street Saratoga
Springs, NY 12866”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Is there anything else you’d like to add before I go
on?
MR. HIRSCH-No, I guess that it’s.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d now ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance
No. 88-2005, and I respectfully remind each of the members that precedence mandates that
we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our
conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. This is necessary for
an intelligent judicial review. Any position we take must be based on the regulatory review
criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective performance or not liking a particular
project. May I please start with Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, as I noted in my opening comments, Mr. Hirsch has been put through a
great deal by this, Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch by this Board. We have scrutinized this project. I
think it’s unfortunate that it’s his garage that’s in error. It would be so much easier if a
variance hadn’t been granted and you hadn’t had to go through, but, looking at the property,
coupled with the most affected neighbor’s acceptance of the mistake, and recognizing that
there was a mistake. I mean I have to assume that that was the case, I have no problem in
granting this small variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I essentially agree with Mr. Stone. It is unfortunate we had to re-visit
this. We’ve worked so hard to get it to where we were all happy with it, I think, and my only
issue at the time was really with the height relief, and that’s not changing. So I’d be in favor
of this relief.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I agree. I don’t think this was self-created, and I think it’s a minor
adjustment, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. If the applicant had come before us, before building
this, and asked to have 2.25 feet of relief on the side setback, I would have said no, put it
where it belongs, and that’s what the applicant obviously intended to do was put it where it
belonged, but given that it’s ended up where it is, and it’s understandable on a lakefront lot
that he was trying to get it just as close to the side setback line as possible, but given where it
is, it doesn’t seem to intrude at all on the neighbor’s property. It’s nice to hear the neighbor
has no objection. I don’t put a lot of weight on that because the neighbor may sell tomorrow
and there’d be somebody else there that might have a differing opinion if this really was
encroaching, but in this case, I think any new owner is going to feel the same, probably, as his
neighbor does now. So I think clearly the benefit to the applicant, not having to jack the
garage up and move it 2.25 feet, certainly outweighs any detriment to the community. I’d be
in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in agreement with everyone else. I don’t think
that this incursion into the side setback really changes the neighborhood or alters anything.
I’m sure you’re going to landscape it and no one’s even going to notice that it’s that close to
the line. So, I’d be all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I, too, would support my other Board members, and Mr. and
Mrs. Hirsch, I would like to offer this to you. I would hope that we both have learned
something. I would hope that you walk away from our hearing this evening knowing that
none of these hearings are of a personal nature, but rather we have a duty and responsibility
to protect the health, safety and welfare and I truly hope you really understand that.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. HIRSCH-We do.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, very much. I know it’s tough. You’ve come before us a couple of
times, believe me, in our deliberations, each of these individuals, I can assure you, without
exception, try to do the thing that’s right.
MR. HIRSCH-I’m sure they do.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2005 WALLY & KATE HIRSCH,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
145 Birdsall Road, Extension. They’ve constructed an 828 square foot detached garage, and
they’re seeking 2.25 feet of setback relief from the 20 foot minimum. As explained, this
project was supposed to have been built in a compliant zone, but it was unfortunately built a
little bit too close on two corners, and so we are granting the 2.25 feet of relief in totality on
the property line to the south side towards the Pittengers. The Board feels that this is a
minor inconvenience and it really isn’t going to be any alteration on the neighborhood.
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 88-2005 is six in favor, zero against. Area
Variance No. 88-2005 is approved.
MR. HIRSCH-Thank you very much.
MRS. HIRSCH-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2005 SEQRA TYPE II BRADFORD NERON OWNER(S):
BRADFORD NERON ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 11 EAST DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 294 SQ. FT. MOBILE HOME WITH A 1,522 SQ. FT. DOUBLE-
WIDE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. RES. SET FOR TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 19, 2005, BP 2001-153
MOBILE HOME AV 2-2001, TOWN BOARD RES. NO. 4, 2001 REVOCABLE PERMIT TO
LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT. WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-19 SECTION 179-4-030
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2005, Bradford Neron, Meeting Date: December 28,
2005 “Project Location: 11 East Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes to replace a 924 sq. ft. (single-wide) mobile home with a 1,522 double-wide.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests:
15-feet of front setback relief, from the 50-foot minimum
11-feet of side setback relief (S.-side), from the 30-foot minimum
24-feet of side setback relief (N.-side), from the 30-foot minimum
11-feet of rear setback relief, from the 30-foot minimum
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
All relief per § 179-4-030, for the LI-zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
TB, 12/19/05, request permit for the double-wide.
AV 2-2001: Approved 1/17/01, for similar relief as this application, for the siting of a mobile
home.
TB resolution no. 4-2001 (1/8/01), authorizing revocable permit to locate a mobile home
outside of a mobile home park.
Staff comments:
AV 2-2001, required less side setback relief (N.-side), 11-feet, this application requests 24-feet
of same. However, less front setback relief is required, previous approval was for 25-feet, this
proposal requests 15-feet. The other two setbacks, side yard (S-side) and rear yard, remain
constant for both applications, specifically both applications sought 19-feet of relief each, side
and rear setbacks.
The lots in this neighborhood (East and West Drives) are all comparable size to the
applicants, ranging from .15-acres to .3-acres. The LI-1A zoning requirements seem to be
restrictive for the small residential lots in this area.
Consideration should be given to the potential for any negative impacts to the neighbor to the
North. The proposed will be 6-feet from this property line.”
MR. ABBATE-Before we start, I have a question for Staff. It seems to me, somewhere back
in my memory here, that the Town Board has already addressed this, or is going to address
this. Am I right?
MRS. BARDEN-They addressed this on December 19, Monday December 19.
thth
MR. ABBATE-And?
MRS. BARDEN-And the permit was granted.
MR. ABBATE-The permit was granted. That answers my question. Would the petitioner of
Area Variance No. 86-2005 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the
record identify yourself. Are you folks here this evening? Mr. Neron? Mr. Neron is not here
this evening? Well, in that case there, I’m going to ask one more time. Is the petitioner of
Area Variance No. 86-2005 here this evening? Please approach the table. It appears they are
not here this evening. So, Staff, what I’m going to do, I’m going to reschedule this for March
29. Please note.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-There may be public here to comment on this.
MR. ABBATE-We’re not hearing this. Why do we need public comment?
MRS. BARDEN-Because it was advertised.
MR. URRICO-Because they can, and it was advertised.
MR. ABBATE-It was advertised. You’re right. Thank you, Staff. Do we have any members
of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 86-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SCOTT ROWLAND
MR. ROWLAND-My name is Scott Rowland. I reside at 68 Wisconsin Avenue, which is
across the south side of Luzerne Road from East Drive. I’m probably at the wrong Board
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
asking the wrong question, but in the master plan that the Town has, it shows that East and
West Drive should be the same as the Western Park, which is MR-5, with a Mobile Home
Overlay, which would eliminate a lot of people coming to see you for variances for that piece
of property, and I’m wondering why this hasn’t been done yet.
MR. STONE-Well, as a member of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, I suggest that
you come to one of our meetings, get it on the record, so that when we get to zoning changes
that would at least be on the record.
MR. ROWLAND-Okay. When’s your next meeting?
MR. URRICO-The Focus Group dealing with dwellings is January 5.
th
MR. ABBATE-The 5, okay, January the 5.
thth
MRS. BARDEN-You can submit something in writing, too, if you prefer.
MR. ROWLAND-I can just show up. It’s easier.
MR. URRICO-You can send a letter, too.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anyone else in the public who would like to address Area Variance
No. 86-2005? Okay. Staff, you have noted it’s going to be moved to March 29.
th
AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MARY A. BROWN OWNER(S): MARY
A. BROWN ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 706 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A STOCKADE
TYPE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE TYPE OF FENCE FOR LOCATION IN THE
FRONT YARD. CROSS REF. BP 91-637 PORCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-2 SECTION 179-5-060
MARY & JOHN BROWN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-2005, Mary A. Brown, Meeting Date: December 28,
2005 “Project Location: 706 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes a total 20’x118’ stockade-type fence, 5-feet high, in the front yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from § 179-5-060, “no stockade-type fence shall be allowed in
any front yard”.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 91-637: Issued 9/10/91, for a porch.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s residence sits on a corner lot, thus two-front yards and required relief for a
stockade fence in the front yard (Michaels Drive).
Relief from maximum height for the fence was identified in the project description on the
advertised ZBA agenda. However, this relief is not required, the fence is proposed at 5-feet,
“No fence over five feet in height shall be erected or maintained in the front yard not
considered to be the architectural front yard”.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 87-2005 please approach
the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself and place of residence, please.
MRS. BROWN-Hello. I’m Mary Brown.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. BROWN-My name is John Brown, I also live at 706 Upper Sherman Avenue. Yes.
We’re seeking relief for this fence. I think you all have a drawing in your packet. As we
stated in the notes, the relief that we’re asking for is just the one foot addition in height of the
fence, and changing it from chain link to a vinyl stockade fence.
MR. STONE-There is no need for height relief. You want five feet. You’re allowed five feet.
MR. BROWN-We’re allowed five feet, but I guess what we’re looking for is the stockade
portion.
MR. STONE-The stockade.
MR. ABBATE-Correct.
MR. STONE-Is that stockade going to go all the way around the property?
MR. BROWN-No. It will go horizontal to the garage.
MR. STONE-I couldn’t tell from the drawing, that’s why.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Horizontal from the back corner of the garage and then parallel to
Michaels Drive 118 feet, and then it will meet with the existing chain link fence.
MR. STONE-And they will stay chain link on the south side and the east side?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I wasn’t sure of.
MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If no members of the Board have any other questions, then what I’m
going to do is open up the public hearing, and I’m going to ask those of the public who wish
to comment on Area Variance No. 87-2005 please raise your hand so I can call upon you and
I’ll ask you to approach the table and speak into the microphone, give your name, place of
residence, etc. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No.
87-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-It appears not. I’m going to now move on to ask members of the Board if
they have any comments or would like to offer their comments on 87-2005?
MR. STONE-I do have one. Is the fence going to be like that little section of stockade fence
you have right next to the house?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. ABBATE-We have this little diagram. Did you take a look at it?
MR. BROWN-Yes, of the fence, I know that, but there is a fence there.
MRS. BROWN-That’s being replaced.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all. It’s all going to by like the designs that you have. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do any other members of the Board have any questions?
Questions, comments?
MR. STONE-I have one other comment, because fences have been a problem in the Town of
Queensbury, and you are to be congratulated for coming forth to ask. We have a lot of
stockade fences in this Town that were not asked for, in front yards. Whether we say yes or
no, you’re still to be congratulated for asking.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right. Based upon that, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 87-2005. Is there a
motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2005 MARY A. BROWN, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
706 Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes a 20 by 118 foot stockade type fence, five feet
high, on the Michaels Drive side of the property, this being a corner lot. Normally no
stockade fence is allowed on the second front yard, or any front yard. The applicant asked for
this fence because of the need for privacy for an above ground pool in the back yard of the
property. It certainly will benefit the applicant to provide privacy that is not clearly evident
now with the wire fence that’s there. We have heard no neighbor concerns by this fence, and
certainly looking at the property, this is a project that will not be degrading to the
community, and it will be an asset in that it will be an attractive fence and hide some of the
activities going on in the back yard which may not want to be seen by the neighbors. I think
it’s a good project, and I move that we grant this variance.
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 87-2005 is five yes, one no. Area Variance
No. 87-2005 is approved.
MR. BROWN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2005 SEQRA TYPE II LESLIE TUCKER OWNER(S): LESLIE
TUCKER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 12 RYAN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A 1,120 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH FRONT PORCH.
RELIEF FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIRED. CROSS REF. BP 2004-411
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-65
SECTION 179-4-030
LESLIE TUCKER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2005, Leslie Tucker, Meeting Date: December 28,
2005 “Project Location: 12 Ryan Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
The applicants have constructed a 1,120 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which encroaches on
the front yard setback.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 7.18 feet of front setback relief, where the minimum is 30-feet in the
SR-1A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-411: Issued 6/24/04, for a single-family dwelling with attached garage.
Staff comments:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
The applicants have built a 1,120 sq. ft. residence, which encroaches on the minimum front
yard setback. The plot plan shows the house setback 28.82-feet from the front property line,
however, the measurement is taken from the front property line to the front porch. The front
porch is 6-feet wide; therefore the setback is 22.82-feet.
The applicant has indicated that the 15-foot ROW from Ryan Street was not anticipated
when applying for the building permit; it was identified when the as-built survey was
submitted.”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 90-2005 please approach the table,
speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence, please.
MR. TUCKER-I’m Leslie Tucker. I’m building a house and for some strange reason it’s too
close to the road, unbeknownst to me until we were selling it. When we were closing, we got
the word from Queensbury that the closing had to stop, and until then we didn’t know it. I’m
talking we, my son and I.
MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. Just continue on.
MR. TUCKER-Well, so there we are, it’s too close to the road and I can’t move it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and if there’s anything, during the course of this hearing,
that you feel you would like to add which would help you support your case, raise your hand
and we’ll stop and you certainly may add it, or if there’s anything you simply don’t
understand what we’re doing, stop us and we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you.
MR. TUCKER-Well, I’ve got a question.
MR. ABBATE-You may ask all the questions you wish.
MR. TUCKER-If there’s any way to fix it, I would. If there was any way to move it. I think
the problem here is, and I’m not certain it’s true, but I think the problem is, I did not realize
that I don’t measure from the edge of the road. I measure from a post inside, and that’s
where the problem began. Now what to do about it, it’s up to you.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re here for, sir.
MR. ABBATE-This is your due process, right here.
MRS. TUCKER-The house has already been sold, and the people are living in it. They got
their occupancy and are living in the home. So, we were told that we have to get this
variance for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me continue on, then. Do any members of the Board have any
questions?
MR. STONE-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Go ahead.
MR. STONE-That 22.82 is from where? I mean, it looks like there are steps on there. Were
they taken into consideration? I’m only thinking about the relief that’s required.
MRS. BARDEN-No. It was just estimated that the front porch.
MR. STONE-Well, he’s got 22.82, but that goes to the house, and I want to know.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, well, the porch is scaled to be six feet wide.
MR. STONE-Yes, but how about the steps down from the porch? Is that another couple of
feet? I’m only talking about relief. I am not concerned, at least I’m not.
MR. TUCKER-It would be another two feet or so.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. STONE-I’m just thinking about the amount of relief that we have to grant, because it
does go from the porch, I mean from the steps. I’m sorry.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Tucker, the stairs on the front or on the side?
MR. TUCKER-There’s both. There’s two steps on the side to the garage and there’s two
steps in front.
MR. ABBATE-Well, while you’re researching that out, why don’t we continue so that we can
move on with this thing. Do any of the other members of the Board, pending an answer to
Mr. Stone’s question, have any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Mr. Tucker, when was the home completed?
MR. TUCKER-About two months ago.
MR. URRICO-Two months ago.
MRS. TUCKER-It was in October.
MR. TUCKER-About two months, yes. Because I went downstairs to get the paperwork
here to fill out for you people, and I paid them the money and they said they’d get in touch
with me, and they forgot me. This is why I’m here two months later. I mean, nothing
personal, but I got a thing in the mail here two days before I was supposed to, before the time
run out in two months. So you people didn’t see me because I didn’t know you were supposed
to. So I went back up there and paid them again, and the lady helped me fill out this
paperwork, so that I’d have it ready for you people, and that’s why I’m here now. So if you
were waiting for me, you’re all ticked off.
MR. STONE-No, no, no. We’re not. You just showed up on our agenda.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to assume full responsibility for everything that happened to you,
okay. Do any other members of the Board have any questions of Mr. and Mrs. Tucker?
Okay. If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing, and I’m going to ask if there are any
members in the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 90-2005. Would you be
kind enough to raise your hands, please. Mr. Salvador?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, you better start listening. These applications get sillier by
the moment. I presume that Mr. Hatin issued a building permit for this project, I presume.
That building permit requires a plot plan. That is a requirement of the law. You must tell
the building inspector where you’re going to locate the structure, and it requires dimensions.
Dimensions from roads, dimensions from property lines, etc., and the building permit is issued
on the basis of that application and that drawing. Now we hear the poor gentleman tonight
saying that somebody else is coming along and measuring from a different location of the
road. Did I hear that correctly? Did I hear it correctly, that there’s two different?
MR. MC NULTY-The applicant said that he measured from the road edge, not realizing that
he needed to measure from the front property line.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. It’s the difference between the plot plan that was submitted and the
as built survey.
MR. SALVADOR-What was on the plot plan? Is the building in the wrong place?
MRS. BARDEN-No, the building’s in the right place, but they were measuring from the edge
of the road instead of from the front property line.
MR. URRICO-The plot plan shows it 28.82 feet from the front property line. Where the
Town is saying it’s 22.82 feet. In either case, it would have still needed a variance.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MRS. BARDEN-No, the plot plan would have showed about 38 feet from the edge of Ryan
Street. It’s when the as built survey showed 28.82 feet from the front property line to the
house.
MR. SALVADOR-Is there a map for Ryan Avenue on record, a map?
MR. ABBATE-Staff, let me go back to that one more time. 28.82 feet did you say from the
front property line, correct?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, to the house.
MR. ABBATE-To the house.
MRS. BARDEN-When we decided on relief, it was from the front property line, but when Mr.
Tucker did his plot plan, again from the edge of Ryan Street to the house, it was 38 feet to the
porch. The front setback is 30 feet.
MR. ABBATE-I see it.
MR. SALVADOR-The application for the variance that was granted, everyone must have
thought that that application, did he get a variance for the 28 feet?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He never came before us.
MR. ABBATE-No, Mr. and Mrs. Tucker have never come before us.
MR. SALVADOR-He didn’t come before you because Mr. Hatin gave the permit without
requiring him to go to the Zoning Administrator to check that he met the Zoning Code.
That’s the order of business, and Mr. Hatin is responsible for the location. Okay. I read that
previously from Chapter 88. I mean, we’ve got one person determining that the application is
complete. The permit is granted, okay, and then somebody else comes along and says,
violation. That’s grossly unfair. Grossly unfair. Something should be done about this, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other members of the public
who’d like to comment on Area Variance No. 90-2005? There are none? Mr. and Mrs. Tucker,
would you be kind enough to come back to the table, please. I’m going to close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask members to comment, offer their comments concerning Area
Variance No. 90-2005. Any members have any comments?
MR. URRICO-Well, I would like, you know, I would be remiss, especially with Mr. Bryant
not here tonight, to point out that once again we’re put in the situation, due to some sort of
error in the application process. This gentleman and his wife here are here tonight and we’re
basically faced with fixing a problem that should have been caught somewhere in the process,
and I happen to agree with Mr. Salvador wholeheartedly in this one, and, you know, this is
unfair for everybody. I’d just like to state that for the record.
MR. ABBATE-Let me address that issue. I have addressed that issue on a number of
occasions, while meeting with Staff, and surprisingly enough, I agree with Mr. Salvador. I
think, and I hope that we can resolve policy changes in the forthcoming year. I agree, Mr.
Urrico, that we do have some problems in procedures, and I am an advocate of changing these
procedures and correcting them, and I hope to work very closely in conjunction with not only
the Chairman of the Planning Board, but with Staff to include Mr. Hatin as well, to resolve
all of these issues. Your point, Mr. Salvador, is well taken. Mr. Urrico, your point is well
taken. Now, let me continue.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I wish you well, because in my tenure as Chairman I have tried
also to avoid these. Mr. Salvador obviously doesn’t agree with me, but that’s the way it is.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s why we’re here.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got two or three things I’d bring up. One, I also agree with Mr.
Salvador, and I’ve raised the issue before. The Town apparently has standard procedure that
setbacks are not a job of the Building Inspector. I think they should be. If not precise
setbacks, at least some general guesstimates and logic here. If I remember right, this place
has got a poured foundation, doesn’t it?
MR. TUCKER-Not the wall.
MR. MC NULTY-Not the wall. Okay.
MR. TUCKER-We laid up the wall.
MR. MC NULTY-But any time forms are set, there has to be an inspection of the forms. I
think connected with that there should be some kind of a rough measurement check on this,
as a back up. I think the other message that should go out to all the builders in Queensbury
is they’re supposed to be intelligent enough to check where the front property line is. So I
don’t think the Town should, by any means, take total blame on this. Builders have got to be
responsible and understand you don’t measure from the road and you don’t use a tax map for
boundary lines. You need to find out where the lines are indeed on the ground. The comment
that the applicant made earlier that there’s no solution, there is a solution. It’s probably not
reasonable at this point, but the solution is jack the house up and move it back, and it’s been
done before in the Town of Queensbury. I live in a house that was, had to be moved like that,
33 years ago, when it was built too close to the road. So it can be done. My personal opinion
in this particular instance is the benefit to the applicant of not having to move it is going to
outweigh any detriment to the community, but that’s where I stand.
MR. ABBATE-I think that’s a realistic approach, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really have any problem with the request. I think we’ve seen
these many times before, and again I fault the Building and Codes Department. I think that
the Building Inspectors can have the wherewithal when these applicants come in with these
proposals for these projects that they at least show them what the setbacks are on the
individual roads because they know it does vary from road to road in the Town. So I would
be in favor of granting this variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of the application, and I believe in this case
especially the benefit to the applicant far outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I agree with what Mr. Urrico said. I think this is, it’s an unfortunate
situation, and while apparently my efforts have not been understood, in trying to get the
Town to understand these things, we have been faced, as a Board over the years, with a
number of these things. Some very minor. Some not so minor, but in this particular case, I
certainly think, looking at the property location, certainly there was no effort on the part of
Mr. Tucker to put this house in an illegal situation. There’s certainly plenty of lot behind it.
It could have been moved back two, three, four, five feet without a problem, and I think, Mr.
Chairman, you are to be encouraged to see what we can do as a Board we should do it. We
should not have these kinds of situations, but in this particular case, I think, as Roy said, the
benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the community. I think this house,
we’re the only people who are going to know it’s in the wrong place, if you drive the road.
There’s obviously plenty of room there. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Stone. I think it’s a shame that Mr.
Tucker is here. He certainly would have moved the house back eight feet when he’s got one
hundred and fifty-five feet of property, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and I, too, would support the application, and let me say, don’t
despair, members of the Board or the public, because I am quite confident, I’m very
optimistic that we’re very shortly going to resolve a lot of these procedural problems. I’m
confident that it will take place. I see a lot of support in doing that, and hopefully part of this
will be resolved January the 11 at our joint meeting. We’re having the workshop on
th
January the 11. The public hearing is now closed, and I’m going to ask for a motion for
th
Area Variance No. 90-2005. Is there a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2005 LESLIE TUCKER, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
12 Ryan Avenue. The applicants in this case have constructed a 1,120 square foot single
family dwelling which encroaches on the front yard setback. The applicant is requesting 7.18
feet of front setback relief where the minimum is 30 feet in the SR-1A zone, per 179-4-030. In
making the application, the applicant, in my estimation, has proved that the benefit to him
far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and in
considering the five criteria which we’re also asked to support or address, can the benefit be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Well, I guess Mr. McNulty pointed out,
one feasible means would be to jack up the house and move it back. Whether there’s an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don’t see any
change in the neighborhood character or to any nearby properties. Is the request substantial?
On its own, the 7.18 feet of relief probably should not be considered substantial given the
location of this property, and the question as to whether indeed it is 7.18 feet of relief, there’s
some question as to whether that’s an accurate measurement, based on what we have in front
of us, but in any case, if that’s the measurement, I don’t think that’s substantial, and we
don’t see any physical or environmental adverse effects as a result of this, and whether the
difficulty is self-created, I think falls under the question of whether it was self-created or
created by a miscommunication. I guess we’ll never know. I move that we approve this Area
Variance.
Duly adopted this 28 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 90-2005 is six in favor, zero against. Area
Variance No. 90-2005 is approved. Let me make one other comment. I do want to give credit
to Staff. Maybe I just wore them down, but at our last meeting, debriefing meeting, I just
about had a unanimous consensus that in fact, yes, indeed, we do have to change procedures.
So that’s a pretty darn good sign.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think I was at the last debriefing.
MR. ABBATE-So everything is going quite well, ladies and gentlemen. Area Variance No.
90-2005 is approved, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. and Mrs. Tucker.
MRS. TUCKER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Yes, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of the floor. I just have one
comment. While we’re so busy changing all of these procedures, why don’t we stop the race?
MR. ABBATE-Because I’m not the captain.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, maybe we have to go to the captain and stop the race. This is
ridiculous what’s going on. We talk about changing, changing, modifying, doing all of this,
and meanwhile the race is going on.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/28/05)
MR. ABBATE-I have a debriefing tomorrow. I will raise that issue. Can we stop the race.
I’ll ask.
MR. STONE-Well, as the Chairman alluded, Mr. Salvador, we are having a joint meeting
with Staff, we’re having one to talk about these things.
MR. SALVADOR-The Planning Board’s even worse. People’s lives and people’s economies
are based on this.
MR. STONE-We understand that. We don’t take our jobs lightly and I don’t like being
lectured to that way, because I have taken this job very seriously ever since I’ve been on this
Board.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Gentlemen, what we don’t need is an argument. I’m going to end
this evening session, and thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your comments are noted.
MR. SALVADOR-Let’s stop the race.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
28