2007-04-25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2007
INDEX
Area Variance No. 46-2005 Jean Hoffman 1.
Tax Map No.227.17-1-9.11
Area Variance No. 18-2007 Peter and Nancy Kudan 5.
Tax Map No. 295.19-1-29
Area Variance No. 25-2007 Charles M. Webster 10.
Tax Map No. 290.00-1-15
Area Variance No. 26-2007 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 15.
Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7
Area Variance No. 27-2007 Walter Bohlman 29.
Tax Map No. 309.15-1-46
Area Variance No. 28-2007 Steven Greene 35.
Tax Map No. 253.3-1-25
Area Variance No. 29-2007 Irish Bay Partner LLC c/o John Lefner 42.
Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3
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 4/25/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
RICHARD GARRAND
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 25 April 2007. Prior to setting this
hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you
with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided
by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board
of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may
bear upon the issue we are deciding. The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny)
two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm,
reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either
permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s
decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is
for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in
NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the
minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than administrative items
public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please
be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this
evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5
minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to
provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the
length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the appellant or the
public will be addressed this Board. All dialogues during the hearing will be between the
appellant and this Board, and I’m going to ask that the Secretary please monitor the time.
Mr. Secretary, at this time, do we have any correspondence that should be read into the
record and, if so, would you be kind enough please to read it into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-None that I see.
MR. ABBATE-None that you see. Very well. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2001 & 46-2005 JEAN HOFFMAN
MR. ABBATE-Our first order of business this evening is to address an administrative
item, concerning Area Variance No. 91-2001 and Area Variance No. 46-2005, Mrs. Jean
Hoffman. The public hearing will not be open and the Chairman will not entertain
questions or comments from the public or Staff. Is Mrs. Hoffman present this evening?
Apparently Mrs. Hoffman is not present this evening. Since Mrs. Hoffman is not present
this evening, then I will move to the protocol. Each of the Board members will be given
the opportunity to raise relevant questions or relevant comments, and I would
respectfully ask that Board members who wish to ask questions or make comments not
be interrupted. Once a Board member has concluded, please advise the Chairman and I
will move to another Board member. I will start out with seniority of the Board members,
Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, and Mr. Garrand. Before
we begin, it may be prudent to set for the record the events leading up to this
administrative hearing and as the senior member present, I will begin. I would like to
read the following correspondence I forwarded, as Chairman to Mrs. Hoffman and
William J. Keniry, Esq. “Date: April 19, 2007 Re: Hoffman Boathouse – Area Variance
No. 91-2001; Area Variance 46-2005 Dear Mrs. Hoffman and Mr. Keniry: The members
of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury have directed that I advise
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
you that the Zoning Board of Appeals will discuss whether or not to go revisit the above
referenced applications, and all decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals related thereto,
at its next meeting Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 7:00 pm at the Queensbury Activities
Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804. By way of this notice, you are advised
of your right to appear at this meeting and be heard on the question of whether or not
said decisions should be revisited by rehearing. If you are unable to attend, please
contact Blanche Alter, Director of Planning, Zoning and Codes Administration for the
Town of Queensbury at 761-8221. Sincerely, Charles Abbate, Chairman Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Copy to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, and Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.”
Additionally, on 19 April 2007 the Chairman, ZBA also faxed this letter to both
addressees. I now enter this document into the record as Exhibit A, and Mr. Secretary,
would you please accept this as Exhibit A. Thank you very much. Members of the
Board, I had difficulty attempting to recreate the history of AV#91-2001 and AV#46-2005.
However, taking one small step at a time I determined from the official files the following
information: Mrs. Hoffman submitted several appeals to the ZBA identified as AV#46-
2005 and AV#91-2001. Included in Mrs. Hoffman’s appeal to this Board; AV#46-2005
are several items of evidence she submitted to support her case. One of the items of
evidence submitted was a deed Mrs. Hoffman represented as a copy of the deed
Hoffman property, recorded on page 1188/179 in the Warren County Clerk’s office. I
would submit into the record Exhibit B which is a copy of the deed submitted by Ms.
Hoffman, to the ZBA as representative of the deed recorded in the Warren County
Clerk’s Office, Page 1188/179. Mr. Secretary, would you please accept this as Exhibit B.
Thank you very much. After review of the deed Mrs. Hoffman presented as a copy of the
deed to the Hoffman property, as well as other evidence she submitted; the ZBA made a
decision on the evidence contained in the record, and the Board moved a motion and
approved AV#46-2005. Subsequent to the approval of Mrs. Hoffman’s variance, it was
brought to my attention in late March early April 2007; that there is a letter to Mr. Craig
Brown, Zoning Administrator, dated 19 July 2006 that raised issues of sub-plat approval
restrictions that were included in the deed. I also discovered a letter dated 3 January
2007 addressed to the Zoning Administrator that directly addressed as an enclosure
contained two (2) different deeds to the Hoffman Property, and you can imagine I was
somewhat puzzled. As a result I conducted an extensive review of the records Mrs.
Hoffman submitted to the ZBA as well as the documents Mrs. Hoffman submitted to the
Planning Board, and I became even more perplexed when I could not find a response
from Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator addressing these issues, and as a result I
burrowed, if you will, even deeper into my research of all official files. The final result
after a vigilant review established that the deed Mrs. Hoffman represented to the ZBA as
a copy of the deed to her property; and the deed Mrs. Hoffman submitted to the PB on 5
July 2007 varied greatly. On 5 April 2007 Mrs. Hoffman submitted a letter to Mr. Craig
Brown, Zoning Administrator, stating in part; Paragraph 1 the following: “Warren County
certified deed. This is the correct (and she underlined correct) deed. Deed previously
submitted should be disregarded. My lawyer talked with the Town’s ‘lawyer’”. I would
now enter into the record Exhibit C correspondence from Mrs. Hoffman to Mr. Craig
Brown, Zoning Administrator dated April 5, 2007. Mr. Secretary, would you accept this,
please, as Exhibit C. Now, had Mrs. Hoffman been here this evening, I would have
proposed and asked the following question. When and how did the subject deed she
submitted to the ZBA as evidence representing to be a copy of the deed to the Hoffman
property come into her possession and what were the circumstances surrounding that
event? I would like to enter into the record Exhibit D a FAX from William J. Keniry,
Tabner, Ryan and Keniry, LLP dated March 21, 2007 to Matt Fuller. “Attached please
find the deed requested by your client”. That deed enclosed with that FAX is in fact a
copy of the actual deed filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office, page 1188/179, and in
fact varies greatly from the deed submitted to the ZBA as evidence ion Appeal #46-2005.
Mr. Secretary, would you please accept this as Exhibit D. The second question I would
have asked Mrs. Hoffman would be, What prompted you to request the Planning Board
to disregard the documents previously submitted to them, and substitute a deed not
identical to the deed previously submitted to the ZBA? Now that concludes, I do have
one comment. As I understand it, and I would like to make this for the record. If I’m
correct in my assumption, I do believe that Mr. Keniry no longer represents Mrs.
Hoffman. Counselor, is that correct?
MR. FULLER-Before these Boards, but I would wait for her to state that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then for the record we will wait until there is a confirmation from
Mrs. Hoffman herself. That concludes my portion of it, and I’m going to move on now to,
as I indicated earlier, to Mr. Bryant, please.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you want to, just for the benefit of other people who are here
tonight, go over what the differences were, just so they’re on the record?
MR. BRYANT-I was going to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-I just wanted to point out the difference in the deed that was presented to
this Board on the original applications versus the actual in fact deed that’s on file in the
County. There are two paragraphs of restrictions in Section C, both C & D. C states that
no new docks may be constructed on the lakefront, but the existing docks may be
modified within the allowable regulatory limits, and Paragraph D, In the event of future
subdivision, there shall be no access to any subdivision lot over Heron Hollow Road. My
questions are as follows, Mr. Chairman. At some point during the application process,
there had to be an original deed that was copied for your application, which actually
eliminated those two paragraphs, and I’m just wondering if Mrs. Hoffman has that in her
possession, if her Counsel has that in his possession. The second question I would
have for Mrs. Hoffman is relative to the original applications, and whether or not she
reviewed them in their entirety with her Counsel before submission. At that point, she
would be able to see if there was a problem with the deed, and the third question I have
is actually for you, Mr. Chairman. You reference a number of letters at the beginning of
2006 that brought this situation to light, but you didn’t reference the origin. The origin of
the letters, please.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-You dated to letters.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Well, the first letter, as Exhibit A, I was the author of that.
That’s the one inviting to Mrs. Hoffman and Mr. Keniry, I was the author of that one. The
second letter that I reference was a letter, well, before I answer that, let me check with
Counsel, please. The second letter, yes, the second letter which was dated 19 July 2006
was written by a Mr. John Salvador, and the other letter that was written on, that I
referenced to on 3 January 2007, which was also addressed to the Zoning Administrator,
that had in its enclosure two different deeds to the Hoffman property, was also authored
by Mr. John Salvador.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
MR. BRYANT-Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The crux of the problem here that we have to deal with is the fact
that originally there was a subdivision that was granted up there on the property, and the
original subdivision was from Mrs. Leigh Beeman at the time, and as part of the
subdivision regulations, as part of the subdivision that was part of the plot that was filed
with the Town, both with the Town and the County, those stipulations were part of that.
So I think that’s really where the problem emanates from. We were lead to believe, I
think in the initial meetings that the Board went through and made their determination as
to whether they were going to grant her a variance for the boathouse as she had applied
to us for, and I was not part of that at the time, since I was an alternate, but at the time I
believe that the Board voted it down unanimously, and then she came back to us at that
point with more information and I think that’s when this initial deed was provided to us
with the alteration in it, removing that language in it. So as far as the Board goes, my
general feeling is that, you know, our Board has made a decision, you know, regarding
the boathouse, acting in good faith and on the information at hand at the time, and I think
that, you know, we can’t really blame ourselves for all the trouble that it’s been through,
but it’s been a very convoluted series of events. The Town was sued, and there were
lawsuits that ensued with the Town at the time, and also, you know, blame was cast on
the builder of the project because it came in over height and things like that. So there
were a lot of things, and I think our Board acted in good faith in trying to iron out the
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
differences in resolving this, but at this point in time, I don’t know what we should do with
this. It’s a little bit up in the air.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d like to turn to Mr. Urrico if I may, please.
MR. URRICO-I think this goes to the foundation of how we make our decisions, and our
decisions are based on the benefit to the applicant versus the health, safety and welfare
of the community, and when we don’t have accurate information to start with, then we’re
faced with making a decision that may not meet that balancing test correctly. We may
arrive at a decision incorrectly as a result. So I’d like to find out why this was not the
same deed that was presented in all cases. When did it change and why did it change.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I think that the case has been very succinctly reported by
the other Board members, but I feel that we acted on evidence that was false and
therefore I feel that our decision should be re-visited.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman. The very basis of our
decisions are based in fact of the evidence presented. When the evidence presented is
misleading or fraudulent, do we have the option to vacate our previous decision?
MR. ABBATE-When you conclude, I have your answer for you.
MR. GARRAND-I’m done. That was my question.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, you are done. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I do have one other question, and Mr. Urrico brought to
mind. He mentioned the accuracy of information that’s provided by the applicants. A
question in the back of my mind, if we have a fraudulent deed presented in the
application, how can we be certain that the balance of the information presented is
accurate? I mean, where is the credibility?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If that’s a question to me, you’re absolutely correct. I think right
now what is up in the air is the credibility, if you will, of all of the information contained in
the record as purported evidence that we based our decision on. If you’ve concluded, let
me just tidy this thing up. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Section 267,
subdivision 6 of the New York State Town Law authorizes a Zoning Board of Appeals
Upon a motion initiated by any member, to rehear any order, decision or determination
which has not been previously reviewed. Such motion may be adopted by a majority of
the members present, but not less than a majority of all members In effect, ladies and
gentlemen, this basically means that this evening if we move to perhaps place this on the
agenda in May, it only requires four. The ZBA must under this statute reopen a case and
reconsider its previous decision without any showing that circumstances have changed
or that new facts have been discovered. It can revoke a variance which it approved at an
earlier hearing or reconsider an earlier decision granting a special exception. Now,
having said that, and if I have the pulse of the Board, I’m going to move a motion.
MOTION TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA FOR MAY 16, 2007 A HEARING TO
DETERMINE IF AV #46-2005 SHOULD BE REVISITED. THE QUESTION TO SET THE
AGENDA ONLY REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to place the motion on the agenda for May 16, 2007 to determine
th
if Area Variance No. 47-2005 should be re-visited is seven yes, zero no. On the 16 of
May 2007, I will set the agenda tomorrow at 10 o’clock, Area Variance No. 46-2005 will
be on the agenda to be re-visited. Thank you very much.
OLD BUSINESS:
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER AND NANCY KUDAN
AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): PETER AND NANCY KUDAN
ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 10 PINEWOOD AVE., WESTLAND SUBD. SECTION 2
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTRUCTION OF A 645 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING TWO-BAY-GARAGE TO A TOTAL OF 1,173
SQ. FT. IN SIZE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWABLE FOR
GARAGE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO, RELIEF
FOR FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP
90-738 ADDITION; 95-507 ADDITION LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.19-
1-29 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-10
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Specifically, they were in before, and we had them go back. They
were going to modify their proposal and I think they were going to ask for more relief also
that was identified at the time.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2007, Peter and Nancy Kudan, Meeting Date:
March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 10 Pinewood Ave., Westland Subd. Section 2
Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a garage addition to an existing
528 sq. ft. (2-bay), totaling 891.5 sq. ft. (3-bay) attached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicants request, 13.5-feet of front setback relief from the minimum 30-feet for the
proposed addition. In addition, 23.23-feet of front 2 (Sherwood Drive) setback relief from
the minimum 30-feet is requested. Note that the latter relief is identified as rear setback
in the applicant’s agent’s cover letter.
Above relief requested is per §179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone.
Lastly, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is also required, per §179-13-
010.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be able to increase the size of their existing garage.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives to the front (Pinewood) setback relief requested may include
placing the proposed on the north side of the existing residence.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 13.5-feet of front 1 setback relief from the minimum 30-feet for the zone
is moderate at 45%.
The request for 23.23-feet of front 2 setback relief from the minimum 30-feet for the zone
is considerable at 77%.
The relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure may be deemed considerable due
to the existing nonconformities with regard to the setbacks from both fronts (Pinewood
and Sherwood), as well as increasing the nonconformity with regard to the setback on
Pinewood.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 95-507: Issued 9/8/95, 280 sq. ft. residential addition (living room and foyer).
BP 90-738: Issued 10/26/90, 240 sq. ft. residential addition (bathroom and closet).
AV 28-1990: Approved 6/20/90, 20-feet of rear setback relief (Sherwood Drive) for a
proposed addition to be located 10-feet from this property line.
Staff comments:
It is unclear what the exact size of the garage addition is. The application was not
revised and still states 645 sq. ft. Staff scaled the survey map which indicates
approximately 400 sq. ft., the existing garage is 528 sq. ft., this totals 928 sq. ft.;
therefore, relief from the maximum size for a garage would still be required.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I see that the petitioner and Counsel have approached
the table, and would you be kind enough, folks, to speak into the microphone, and for the
record identify yourself and place of residence, please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Peter and Nancy Kudan. We were here
last month and the Board indicated that it would be best if we went home and
reconsidered this and came back with an application that requested less relief, and that’s
what we’ve done. We’ll go through the math in a few minutes, but what we attempted to
do was to, what we proposed last time was 1173 square feet with a 900 square foot
maximum for a garage in Queensbury, and we’ve now reduced it to what our plans show
as 823.5 square feet. That’s on Page Six of what we submitted in the new drawing. So
we believe that it’s substantially smaller, although it is a three car garage, it is
substantially smaller than the 900 square feet, so that that variance is no longer
requested, and the variances that are requested are merely because the lot is this
unusual triangular shaped lot, not self-created but created by the fact that they’re on this
weird peninsula between two Town roads, and on top of that, there’s between 10 and 20
feet on either side in between the property line and the edge of pavement. So that even
though the variance request, it seems more, the variance request may seem like more,
but when you look at the edge of pavement, it’s really not substantial, and it’s really
because the shape of the lot and the location of the house. They do have room on the
lot, as we talked about last time, to put a garage in a location that wouldn’t require a
variance, but it would just be architecturally and visually a mistake to do that, to put it in
the middle of their lawn. So what we’ve done, we substantially cut down the size of what
we requested to under 900 square feet from almost 1200 square feet, and that enabled
the setback to be pulled back, so at the shortest distance to the property line, it’s now
16.5 feet, and it’s more than 30 feet to the actual edge of pavement. So I hope the Board
will see that as a substantial change from where we were last time. We were also on the
agenda because the Code Enforcement Officer pointed out that on the Sherwood Drive
side, which was a variance that was approved in 1990, they received permission for a 10
foot variance. They built exactly the dimensions on the addition at that time, the
bedroom addition. That was approved by the Board, but the measurement was wrong.
Surveys weren’t required at the time, and when it actually got scaled out and surveyed,
it’s 6.77. So we were asking for that to be cleared up. The Board last time was
comfortable with that, and so we had to formally apply for that to put that on the agenda
and reduce the setback and the size of the building request on Pinewood. The map, the
certified survey from Van Dusen and Steves shows what I just discussed with the 16.5
feet to the new edge of the garage, and then the revised drawings that we submitted
from Chris Fuller construction show the floor plan, and I’m going to ask you to turn to
Page Six, Drawing Number Four, Page Six, which shows on the top right total square
feet of garage, of the new garage, 823.5. Part of the confusion that Staff had with that is
if you look on the top of that page, on the left side of the garage, there’s a rectangle that’s
identified as three feet by 14 feet. Do you see where I’m pointing to? That is actually a
fireplace that goes into the room on the other side. It’s not part of the garage. So that’s
not included in the calculation because that’s not part of the garage, so it doesn’t count
for the 900 square foot calculation in Queensbury, and I’m going to ask you to turn to the
page before, which is Page Five, and that’s where we had the number 891 square feet.
Rip that out. That was part of the old design, and that’s wrong. That shouldn’t be
included. So the correct number that we’re using from the design, there was 823 square
feet for the total garage, and that’s all we’re asking for, and again, I’d just ask you to look
at this in terms of the distance to the road rather than just the property line. Last time we
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
submitted a petition. I have a copy of it here, with a substantial amount of the neighbors
saying that they support this, 23 on the first page, a total of 52 neighbors up and down
both blocks in the area. So we certainly tried to make an effort to ask for substantially
less relief based upon the Board’s comments last time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. Do any of the Board members have any
questions for the appellant?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I’m a little confused. I’m looking at the agenda. The agenda
clearly states that we’re building a garage with a total square footage of what the original
garage, original plan was, 1173, and my question is, isn’t that what’s advertised as one
of the relief required?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we asked for last time.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know, but it was also advertised this time.
MR. LAPPER-It didn’t change, you’re right.
MR. BRYANT-For the same amount, and if I were a neighbor concerned about the size
of the garage, I’d be awfully mad because you’re not asking for relief for the size of the
garage.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, the description of the project for the public does not coincide.
You’re absolutely right. It’s an inaccurate description.
MR. BRYANT-I just wanted to point that out.
MR. LAPPER-I noticed that also when I looked at the agenda, but it’s more. So in terms
of a neighbor that was concerned, we’re asking for less relief than that. So it’s erring on
the side of asking for too much relief. So I don’t think it’s a procedural problem. I had to
think about that one, too.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-The petition was also from the original 1173 where the neighbors were
supportive. I just want to mention that.
MRS. HUNT-I’d just like to clear up, now, the request for the front setback is 13.10?
MR. LAPPER-13.5, because it’s 30 feet, 16.5 plus 13.5 equals 30.
MRS. HUNT-And the front setback on Sherwood Drive is 23.23?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, everything’s a front on this house, unfortunately, and that’s the pre-
existing. You weren’t here last time, Joyce, but there’s also a.
MRS. HUNT-I was here.
MR. LAPPER-Were you? Okay. There’s also that hedge on that side.
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify that the description of the project, the first line on the
Staff Notes, should read 823.5 square feet, is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And not 891.5?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Any other questions? All right. If there are no
other questions, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 18-2007,
and would those wishing to be heard be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll recognize
you and ask you to come to the table. Do we have anyone in the public who would like
to address Area Variance No. 18-2007?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, then I will continue on. Before I ask members to
offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that comments offered by the members
are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by Board members to the
Chairman are not open to debate. May I respectfully remind the members that
precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically
stated. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review
criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and
Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the
record of the Board’s deliberations. Having said that, I will now ask a member to offer
their comments on Area Variance No. 18-2007. Do we have a volunteer?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll go.
MR. ABBATE-Well, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. This is such an unusual piece of property, I mean, it’s almost like they
can’t win, and putting the garage on the north side there in the lawn would, to me, be a
very undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think they’ve made an effort to scale
down the size of the garage, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, Mrs. Hunt. I think Mr. Bryant, I believe you’re next.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mrs. Hunt. I’m very pleased that the applicant went the extra
mile to re-design the project and bring it into a situation where we give the least amount
of relief necessary to complete the project. As far as the Sherwood Drive relief, that was
an existing condition that was addressed in 1990, and I would also go along with that.
So you’ve got my vote.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other volunteers? Mr. Garrand,
please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant here has made an effort to maintain the character of
the neighborhood. They’ve also come back with a proposal for almost 350 feet less of
relief they’re asking for. At this point I think they’ve gone the extra mile. I’d be in favor of
this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think last time we were concerned about the square footage
proposed, and since it’s under the 900 number, I think that we can all live with that, and I
think combining the doors and not having three bay doors still gives the appearance of a
two car garage.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, you wanted that. We did that in response to your comment.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think that that’s a plus also. So I’d be all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also convinced that the applicant has pursued other possibilities,
and this is definitely the most feasible. I don’t see any changes in the neighborhood or
any adverse physical or environmental effects. While the request seems substantial, I
think as Mr. Bryant pointed out, there is no change, basically, from what was requested
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
in 1990, and the difficulty is self-created only in the fact that they want some bigger
space, but I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I concur with my fellow Board members, every
comment that they made, and I’m going to take the next step here. This, I see, is a Type
II. Do we have any problems with that? Let’s see, we don’t have to refer that to anyone.
Okay, fine. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 18-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’d respectfully remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. While State law
spell out five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike a Use Variance test, this
Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather we
must merely take each one into account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance.
Please introduce your motion with clarity. The motion itself is not subject to debate. Any
member not favoring the motion may exercise their right to vote no and/or introduce their
own motion. I’m going to seek a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 18-2007.
Do I have one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it, but I have a question, first.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am.
MRS. HUNT-You mentioned some other relief?
MR. LAPPER-The Sherwood Avenue, 6.77 feet on the other front, which we’ll call the
rear of the house. That’s a revision of the 1990 variance.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Do you want to do the motion?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you move a motion, please, Mrs. Hunt.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2007 PETER & NANCY KUDAN,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
10 Pinewood Ave., Westland. Subd. Section 2. The applicants propose a garage
addition to an existing 528 square foot two bay new garage totaling 823.5 square feet,
three bay attached garage. The applicants request 13.5 feet of front setback relief from
the minimum 30 feet for the proposed addition. In addition, 23.23 feet of front to
Sherwood Drive front setback relief where the minimum 30 feet is requested. Note that
the latter relief is identified as rear setback in the applicant’s cover letter. Also, the
setback is 6.7 feet on Sherwood Avenue. The benefit to the applicant would be they
would be able to increase the size of their garage, their existing garage. I don’t believe
there are any feasible alternatives. I think putting it in any other place would be a
detriment to the neighborhood. While the relief is substantial in some cases, this is a
very unique piece of property, and they’re really constrained by the property effects. The
effects on the neighborhood will be moderate. They will not have any adverse physical
or environmental effects and whether it’s self-created, in the sense because they want to
increase their garage, but it’s also created by the piece of property. So I would move
that we pass Area Variance No. 18-2007.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. HUNT-Also 6.7 feet of relief from the Sherwood Avenue which was overlooked at
the last meeting.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not the relief, that’s the setback.
MRS. HUNT-Setback of 6.7 on Sherwood Avenue.
MR. BRYANT-I just want one clarification on the relief on Sherwood Avenue is 23.3 feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I just wanted to spell that out.
MR. URRICO-23.23.
MR. ABBATE-23.23.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 18-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 18-2007 is approved.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2007 SEQRA TYPE II CHARLES M. WEBSTER
OWNER(S) CHARLES M. WEBSTER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 290 CHESTNUT
RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,260 SQ. FT.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE (WETLANDS)
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-662 SFD WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007 LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-15
SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Chairman, I request that I be recused from this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you like to state why you would like to recuse yourself,
please.
MRS. JENKIN-I’m a neighbor right across the street.
MR. ABBATE-By all means. Thank you very much, Mrs. Jenkin.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2007, Charles M. Webster, Meeting Date: April
25, 2007 “Project Location: 290 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed
Project: Mr. Charles Webster wishes to build a 1260 sq. ft. single family residence on a
one acre plus (45,292 sq. ft.) parcel he owns on Chestnut Ridge Road.
Relief Required:
Mr. Webster requires one (1) area variance so that he can comply with the Town of
Queensbury sanitary sewer regulations to locate the proposed septic system and well
with the required separation distances. The house location was changed and Mr.
Webster now is only 38.5 feet from the edge of the wetland instead of the required 75
feet.
The setback requirements are as follows:
Required Proposed Variance Needed
Front 30 31.3’
Wetland Shoreline 75 38.5’* 36.5
Side Yard (1) 10 56.3’
Side Yard (2) 20 N/A
Rear Yard 20 99.3’
Height 40 31
Permeability 50 94.3’
* Variance required
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant will be able to build a new single family home on his property with a fully
compliant SSDS system and a new well. The applicant had initially requested a septic
variance from the Town Board, acting as the Health Department. It was determined that
the requested variance would have fewer impacts.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Several alternatives were explored but this alternative seems the most feasible, given
the recent change in drainage patterns in the watershed (most of which is located in
Washington County to the north).
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
The applicant is requesting about a 48% decrease in a buffer from the wetlands on the
property. However, other alternatives would create greater impacts.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Impacts on the neighborhood are not anticipated.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
According to the applicant, the impacts of water draining on the applicant’s property have
expanding the wetlands on the site since the applicant owned it. The applicant believes
that this is the result of the new residential development and the regarding of the land to
the north.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Pending Building Permit 2006-662 SSFD – needs requested variance to build.
Staff comments:
The property is located near the border between Washington and Warren
County.
The applicant has stated and included a supporting statement with this application
that the wetlands observed on the property is not a natural condition but has
resulting from the substantial regarding of the residential properties to the north.
According to the applicant the drainage patterns of the watershed to Halfway Brook have
changed with the increase in new construction in the area and the regarding that has
occurred as a result of this regarding. Ultimately, the stream flows into NYS DEC
Wetland HF-16 have also been impacted.
There is a year round spring delivering 5 to 8 cubic feet of water per minute near the tip
of the rift on the north slope of the property. The applicant alleges that the developer in
Washington County significantly changed drainage patterns in the area as previous
discussed above.
SEQR Status:
Type II
Staff Recommendation:
The Executive Director recommends favorable consideration of this variance by the
ZBA, since the conditions on the newest USGS map have been changed as the
applicant alleges.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
April 11, 2007 Project Name: Webster, Charles M. Owner: Charles M. Webster ID
Number: QBY-07-AV-25 County Project#: Apr07-48 Current Zoning: SR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a
1,260 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements.
Also, relief requested from shoreline (wetlands) setback requirements. Site Location:
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
290 Chestnut Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 290.00-1-15 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a two bedroom home with associated site
work. The home is to be located 60 ft. from the edge of the wetland where 75 ft. is
required. The plans show the location of the home, wetland edge, septic and well
location. The applicant has indicated the house basement will be built 10 ft. above the
stream, and the septic field will be 8 feet above and 90 ft. away from the stream. Staff
does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted.
Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation:
No County Impact” Signed by Paul Gollhofer Warren County Planning Board 4/12/07.
MR. ABBATE-And I see the petitioner is at the table. Would you be kind enough to
speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and place of residence,
please.
CHARLES WEBSTER
MR. WEBSTER-I’m Charles Webster, and what else? My place of residence?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. WEBSTER-Right now I’m at 7E Sparrow Way, one of Schermerhorn’s
developments on Meadowbrook Road.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and this gentleman?
MR. CENTER-Tom Center from Nace Engineering, the applicant’s agent.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you’re not represented by Counsel, I assume.
MR. CENTER-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You heard basically the rules, basically. During the course of the
hearing, since you’re not represented by Counsel, if there’s anything you don’t
understand, please stop us, raise your hands, and we’ll be more than happy to try to
answer any of your questions, and if at any time during the period of the hearing you feel
you may have forgotten to tell us something that will help your case, stop us again and
introduce it. You have flexibility, okay?
MR. CENTER-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-So are you ready to proceed?
MR. CENTER-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. CENTER-As stated before, the original application that was sent in with the 60 feet
of variance, or 60 feet of relief requested, was based on the hope for a septic variance
with the Town Board. After meeting with the Town Board, they directed us, we sat down
with them informally and they requested that we look at installing the septic system in
compliance, and maybe moving the house closer to the wetland. This is not a DEC
wetland. We have identified the edge. In order to meet the setback requirements, we
needed to move the house down the slope in order to make the slope work into the
house and locate the septic system 20 feet away from the house as required by New
York State and Town regulations, and then to the other side of it would be the septic tank
and the well. It requires a 50 foot setback from that side, and once we laid out the house
and to get maximum exposure for sunlight for Mr. Webster, this is the final plan that we
have in front of you today for 38 feet, 38 and a half feet of relief.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do any of the Board members have any
questions for the Area Variance of Mr. Webster, 25-2007?
MR. URRICO-I’m just curious if you observed any increase in the amount of wetness in
those wetlands recently, with the exceptional rain?
MR. WEBSTER-No. This has been a feature for about a year and a half. I’m still
pursuing to reduce the amount of water going through the property. It has been what
they call an intermittent stream, dry a good deal of the summer, and now it is running a
steady stream from the Spring all the time. I’m actually, the action is taking a lot of time.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
People are very slow, but I am meeting with a representative from the State DEC
tomorrow morning on the issue, and I have a complaint with the Corps of Engineers but
they, the quantity of water involved is so small that they put it very low, on a very low
priority on it, but I think it will be corrected, the amount of water, but it isn’t a swamp in
any sense. It’s a stream. It goes 50 feet, it drops 50 feet from the top of the rift to either
way, either Halfway Brook or the level of the airport, but it only drops five feet through my
lot, so it carries this level of water very poorly, and I hope to correct that. I really expect
to correct that, for everybody’s benefit, not only mine, but the other seven properties that
are, that border this area right now. This is the only vacant lot in Queensbury that
borders this area.
MR. URRICO-Has it run any higher this Spring than before?
MR. WEBSTER-No. Flood has never been a problem. It never rises up.
MR. URRICO-That answers my question.
MR. WEBSTER-The problem is continual wetness.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right, thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Bryant, please, I think you were.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I’ve just got a question. The Staff Notes that I have were transmitted
electronically. I didn’t receive a hard copy, and there’s an indication across the face that
says that this is a Draft. I’m just wondering if the final Staff Notes had any other change
that might not be reflected on this thing that’s marked Draft?
MR. URRICO-Actually the copy I got in the mail says Draft on it also.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, would you like to address that question, please.
MRS. BARDEN-I can only assume that these are final. They were not drafted by me.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Please, Mr. Garrand.
MR. GARRAND-Question for the representative of Nace Engineering. Roughly about
three weeks ago when the water was flowing through that area, I noticed that the water
was flowing from the area from about 20 to 30 feet off Chestnut Ridge Road, and it was
like flowing north through that area across one of the neighbors’ driveways. Is that going
to pose any kind of problem at all as far as the septic goes?
MR. CENTER-Which area?
MR. GARRAND-The property to the south. It was flowing about 30 feet.
MR. CENTER-The one where the house is closer to the road?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-It was flowing about 30 feet from Chestnut Ridge Road.
MR. CENTER-What are plan is, when we bring in the driveway, is to direct the
stormwater around the system. Anything that we would get coming down either the
driveway or from the road would be directed around the system and down into, around
the house, to maintain the natural flow of water as it is now, which if it goes down there
now, there is a stone wall that runs partially through there. It’s not shown on the drawing,
but that will be left in place as much as possible, assuming to help with that problem. We
will, like I said, we have a drainage swale designed around the low side of the driveway
to take the stormwater around the septic systems, around the house, and let it follow its
normal path.
MR. GARRAND-It will follow its, wherever it wants to, yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. CENTER-It will follow the path that it’s going, but we have made provisions to
protect the septic system and protect the house.
MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for Mr. Webster? All right. Seeing no hands moved,
I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 25-2007. Do we have
anyone in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 25-2007, please
raise your hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. I’m going to move on. Again, I ask members to
offer their comments, and I’ve already stated it earlier, the comments that members may
offer will be directed to the Chairman and not open to debate. I’ve already mentioned the
fact what our precedence mandates. I don’t believe I have to go over that again. I’ll now
ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 25-2007. Do I have
a volunteer?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the relief is reflective of the Town Board’s decision to move
the septic system, and I think that, you know, other than that, I think the house could
have been built in a compliant area, but I think it’s probably better that the septic system
operate properly, and I think that the drainage issues on the property are something that
he is pursuing on his own. It’s not really a Town issue for us. So, as far as the wetland
goes, it doesn’t really appear to be a wetland. As you said, it’s more of a sheet flow
that’s coming off, you know, and if that problem is resolved, it will probably go away, or at
least you can make a swale to contain that in the future if you so decide to do that, if it
doesn’t work out. So I’d be in favor of the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else?
MRS. HUNT-I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think they’ve made an effort to comply with
the Town Board, and I think this is a modest request, considering that this is not really an
official wetland, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I concur. We’re still talking about 40 feet distance. I think that’s
enough for what’s out there. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s see, Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-When I was looking at this, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to figure out if
there’d be any adverse physical or environmental impacts here, and at this point I can’t
see any. I think the relief they’re asking for is moderate. So I’d be in favor of this
application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got to say that I think that the relief
requested is substantial. However, as Mr. Underwood pointed out, it’s more important
that the septic system work properly, and that the wetlands does not really appear to be
critical at this point. So I’m going to be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I, too, am in favor. I agree with my fellow Board
members, and I have no problems with the request. I think it’s a reasonable request.
The public hearing is now going to be closed for Area Variance No. 25-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again, I respectfully remind the members of our task of balancing the
benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and I’ve already stated State law
dictating the five factors. I don’t believe I have to go through that again. Now I’m going
to ask a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 25-2007. Do I have one?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2007 CHARLES M. WEBSTER,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
290 Chestnut Ridge Road. Mr. Webster wishes to build a 1260 square foot single family
residence on a compliant one acre plus lot on the parcel that he owns on Chestnut Ridge
Road. The reason for this variance and for us granting it this evening is due to the fact
that the Town of Queensbury sewer regulations have caused him to have to move his
house from its original proposed location. The house location was changed and is now
only 38.5 feet from the edge of the wetland instead of the required 75 feet. Mr. Webster
has recognized the fact that he has to move the house, and in doing so I think that we’re
all basically comfortable with the fact that the wetland is really just a stream that may be
resolved, given due time. Different alternatives were explored, but this alternative seems
to be the most feasible one to follow, and the applicant is requesting specifically 48% of
the decrease in the buffer from the wetlands on the back side of the property. Impacts
on the neighborhood are not anticipated, and it’s hoped that he can resolve the water
issue with his neighbors to the north side there.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 25-2007 is six yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 25-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. WEBSTER-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO
OWNER(S): JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 2966 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PROPERTY INCLUDING A 326 SQ. FT. DECK/STAIRWAY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS
A 96 SQ. FT. DOCK ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY
LINE SETBACK AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM
IMPERMEABLE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-437; SPR ;
AV 34-2003; BP 2003-112; BP 2003-347 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11,
2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.20-1-7 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-050
JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s included a substantial letter here which I will read into the
record, and I think that basically gets through all the different steps that we’re going to go
through here. “Dear Zoning Board: Please review the following information as to the
reasons why the proposed setback variance is needed for the construction on my
property on Dunham’s Bay in Lake George. The response numbers below correspond to
the questions found on page thirteen (13) of the Area Variance application. STAIRS 1.
The existing stairs/path was very dangerous. Multiple guests had stumbled and even
fallen while attempting to access the waterfront. The steep, rocky dirt slope made
footing very unstable without steps or a railing. My father could not get down to the boat
to go fishing with my boys or myself. A rather large visitor could not get back up the hill
due to the nonnegotiable access. Imagine her embarrassment when I was forced to take
her by boat to the neighbor’s stairs to gain access to the road. The previous property
owner’s wife had not been able to access the waterfront in over ten (10) years. Seasonal
rainfall continuously caused erosion of the slope, deteriorating the footing. 2. As
previously mentioned, the installation of the stairway was done strictly for the safety of
family and guests while attempting to access the waterfront. The existing conditions
caused a serious safety/health risk to our guests and personal liability and were
aesthetically unpleasing. Most lakeside houses have a stairway to access their docks;
this simply fits the Lake décor, and fits the motif of my particular property (Please see
attached letters). 3. There are feasible alternatives to this variance, however would not
function as effectively or be as aesthetically pleasing. The existing concrete stair case
ends along the south edge of the property. To achieve continuity in the staircase, we
had them continue down the slope at a reasonable pitch. I had three different
contractors assess the project and all three came up with essentially the same layout.
We had discussed coming off the concrete stairs at a 90 degree angle (north) and
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
building the stairs straight down, however all agreed the incline was too steep and
‘wouldn’t look good’. The current layout, which the stairway exists, infringes on roughly
ten (10) parallel linear feet of the setback to the neighboring property. If the stairway had
been built, as mentioned, at a 90 degree angle toward the centerline of my property, then
down to the water, based on building code requirements for a 90 degree turn on a
stairway, roughly five (5) parallel linear feet would infringe on side property setbacks. 4.
Yes, however, the stairway had to reach the lower dock in a safe and reasonable
manner. This was the motive for the stairway itself. 5. The stairway will have no
adverse affect on the environment; however on the contrary will be beneficial to the
environment. Erosion is an increasing problem along the shores of Lake George as
development continues to increase. Underneath the stairway, 4-6” rip-rap has been laid
to prevent the previously detrimental erosion of the slope. The personal traffic and
rainfall contributed to the erosion and washout of the hillside of my property. The incline
of the stairs as well as the rip-rap placement alleviate these erosion problems and assist
in the overall goal of cutting down Lake-wide sedimentation. DECK 1. The pitch of the
property has made it difficult for flat-surface storage. This platform will assist in the
storage of deck chairs and other accessories. It has enabled us to make more efficient
use of the property. We had also encountered some shoreline stability issues with the
rock wall behind this platform upon purchase of the property. This has allowed immense
assistance in stabilization and maintenance of this wall. It has also allowed for
delocalization of ‘dock traffic’ when multiple guests are down at the waterfront. 2. This
deck has allowed guests to sit away from waterfront activities; without risking injury to
those passing by to ascend the stairway due to a crowded dock. 3. There may be,
however one that seem as practical or attractive are apparent.”, and that was referring to
feasible alternatives. “4. Yes, however, it has allowed for much more effective use of
the property without infringement on the neighbor’s property. The setback area of my
property to which the deck infringes has multiple large trees present at the waterline,
creating a natural visual and private barrier between the adjacent property. 5. This deck
has no adverse affect on the environment or community. It provides safe, attractive
storage and use of the property. It has and will continue to assist in reducing washout
and erosion, as well as assist in maintenance of said problems. It does not have footings
below water level, therefore has no adverse affect on possible aquatic vegetation or
fishery habitat. I appreciate your time and considering in the sanction of this variance. I
apologize for creating this situation, yet request your approval for the retention of these
attributes to my home. They are safe, efficient and attractive additions to the property
that coincide with the surrounding community. Thank you. Truly Yours, Joseph Didio”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2007, Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Meeting Date:
April 25, 2007 “Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a total 326 sq. ft. of wooden walkway and deck area. And, a
96 sq. ft. dock/platform addition.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests shoreline setback relief of 37.46-feet from the minimum 50-ft. for the
deck and walkway, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
In addition, 12.15-feet of side setback relief from the minimum 20-feet for the dock is
requested, per §179-5-050.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be permitted to maintain the improvements made to their property.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to removal or relocation of the structures.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 37.46-feet of relief from the shoreline setback for the deck and walkway
is substantial at 75%.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
The request for 12.15-feet of relief from the side setback for the dock addition may be
considered substantial at 62.5%.
In addition 9% of relief from the minimum permeability requirement of 65% is requested.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of
this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-437: Pending, Deck and dock.
BP 2003-347: Issued 6/4/03, 441 SQ FT LOWER DECK AND 184 SQ FT UPPER
DECK
BP 2003-112: Issued 5/22/03, 280 sq ft DOCK
Area Variance No. 34-2003: Approved 5/21/03, proposed construction of a 280 sq. ft.
straight dock. Relief requested from the side setback requirements.
Staff comments:
The individual requests for relief are substantial, as well as cumulatively substantial.
Impacts to the neighborhood or community may be a consideration.
The Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact for this project at
their April 11 meeting.
Site plan review is required for hard surfacing within 50-feet of the shoreline.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
April 11, 2007 Project Name: Didio, Joseph & Cynthia Owner: Joseph & Cynthia Didio
ID Number: QBY-07-AV-26 County Project#: Apr07-40 Current Zoning: WR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed
improvements to the property including a 326 sq. ft. deck/stairway structure as well as a
96 sq. ft. dock addition. Relief requested from minimum property line setback as well as
relief from the minimum shoreline setback requirement. Additionally, relief is requested
from the maximum impermeable percentage requirement. Site Location: 2966 State
Route 9L Tax Map Number(s): 239.20-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
requested approval of an already constructed decking and wood stairway. The applicant
has indicated these items were constructed to accommodate the safe access to the
shoreline. The wooden stairway and deck is located 3.94 ft. from the north property line
where 20 ft. is required. The applicant also includes an individual deck that is located
7.85 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. The applicant has indicated
the separate deck is utilized for the storage of deck chairs and has assisted with
maintain the embankment. The applicant had a previous building permit for decks
adjacent to the home and had constructed the separate deck and wooden stairway at
that time in 2003. The application included a neighbor letter supporting the work that
had been completed by the Didios to increase safety and minimize erosion. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact” Signed by Paul Gollhofer, Warren County Planning Board 4/12/07.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Gentlemen, ladies, I see you
are seated at the table. Would you be kind enough to identify yourself.
MR. DIDIO-Good evening. I’m Joe Didio. This is my wife, Cindy. We reside year round
at 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George.
MR. ABBATE-And you heard the procedures. Basically you have no attorney this
evening.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. DIDIO-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, we’re a little bit flexible with you folks. Anytime during the
hearing if there’s something you don’t understand, feel free to raise your hand and we’ll
answer your question. Anything you may have forgotten to tell us that would help your
case, interrupt us and let us know. So are you prepared to proceed?
MR. DIDIO-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. DIDIO-I’m not exactly sure how to start or where. We basically said it all in the
letter.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. DIDIO-We hired, actually, this happened a lot faster than I had anticipated or
actually wanted or actually could afford, but circumstances were such that it truly was,
and my wife actually kind of forced the issue, especially with that lady who couldn’t get
up the stairs. It just was, it was bad when we bought it. It continued to degrade. It was
an especially rainy season, and so that fall I spoke with three different contractors and
gave us a price, and ultimately ended up with a gentleman, and I’d been through the
process for my dock, and for my decks, as far as permits and variances and actually was
overwhelmed with it, quite honestly. I work in Albany. I’m up at five o’clock every day
and I go south and then I come back, and so I hired this gentleman and said, you do
what needs to be done, but we need to get whatever. So honestly I thought we had been
covered, quite honestly. It’s been there I think like three years now, and my apologies for
not getting prior approval, which, again, we’ve done all the way along, and basically all of
these men came up with the same thing. It is built to Code, I believe, and I think your
inspectors would find that. It is a reasonable and good structure. It fits in well with the
neighborhood. I have a number of letters. I don’t know if you received them all, from
neighbors that have said, stated so, and so I don’t know where else to go from there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Board members, do we have any
questions for Mr. and Mrs. Didio?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. So you hired a contractor, a licensed
general contractor?
MR. DIDIO-No, this particular one wasn’t. In fact, he was my brother-in-law. Ultimately I
wasn’t going to go, you know, I had two gentlemen who had helped me, assisted me in
the past. He was basically unemployed and said, you know, I can do it for X, and
consequently I ended up paying him twice that amount and we don’t, you know, never
hire family and never, you know, blah, blah, blah.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m wondering because I look at your, you bought the property in
2002?
MR. DIDIO-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then you had two building permit applications, one for your
dock and one for your deck.
MR. DIDIO-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-And you went through the Area Variance process for one of those things,
and you received your Area Variance then all of a sudden you come into 2006 and you
build this structure, no permits were applied for.
MR. DIDIO-Again, I left it to him and I was assured. I said, you know what, if you want
this job, I honestly, and again, the process is overwhelming to me, especially as far as
the, just time start. I left it to him, and I’m honestly not making any excuses here. I think
it would come to the same thing, other than you can see what it looks like now, and
comment based on that. You know how it’s built, how well it is built, what the options
may be, and again, I didn’t want anything to do with it, and to have him do it, it’s, you do
the entire thing because I don’t have the time. I really can’t even afford it, and I don’t
want to do it, but we were in a position, quite honestly, that she assisted me in being put
in that position, where it’s like we can’t live this way. Someone’s going to get hurt. We
had people go down. The people, the previous property owner, the woman had not been
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
down to the lake in 10 years. She just really could not get down that hill, Mrs. Bowen. It
was just not a great situation. I can go up and down. I’m okay. My father couldn’t. It
was just very dangerous. In fact, when I went for my dock variance, it may have been
Mrs. Hunt, or maybe the lady from the Lake George Park Commission, who said I don’t
even know how you get down there, and so it was that type of thing, and again, my
understanding from him was, you know, this concrete steps, this is the same footprint, so
it was my understanding this, everything should be fine here according to him, because
we’re following the same footprint. It’s not, you know, we’re not doing anything
differently. I did not even think about the setback, quite honestly, to the water, but if
you’re building steps to the water, you’ve got to build steps to the water, but I don’t think
along those terms, and again, you know.
MR. BRYANT-Another question for Staff, if I might, Mr. Chairman. Item Number Four,
you indicate that there are moderate effects to the neighborhood or community might be
anticipated, and then later on in Staff comments it says, the individual requests are
substantial and impacts to the neighborhood or community may be a consideration.
What are we talking about here? I mean, is it moderate or is it substantial, or what
exactly is the impact to the community? Just out of curiosity, besides the fact that it’s a
substantial request.
MRS. BARDEN-When I answered Number Four, I anticipated moderate effects, but in
Staff comments, I wanted to just keep it open ended for any public comments that might
come up.
MR. BRYANT-No, but I’m just saying, it’s not consistent, do you know, what I’m saying?
Between Number Four and Staff comments and it kind of threw me for a curve ball. I’m
very simple and when you say two different things, it becomes confusing to me, and
that’s the only reason I asked, because it is a substantial request. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. DIDIO-Question. A substantial request. I don’t understand.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you’re asking for two different setbacks, okay.
MR. DIDIO-I see.
MR. BRYANT-And one of them is 75% and the other one’s 62.5%. Individually, they’re
substantial. It’s a big request.
MR. DIDIO-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-When you add the two together, it’s really substantial. That’s why.
MR. DIDIO-I see.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The other one that you might want to consider is that they also, it’s
not listed on the form, but there’s nine percent relief from the permeability requirement
also.
MR. BRYANT-Is that the case? I didn’t pick that up.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it is. Yes, that’s on Staff Notes.
MR. DIDIO-Meaning the surface is non-permeable, or I exceed that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Essentially your construction is going to decrease the
permeability of the property, by hard surfacing.
MR. DIDIO-Well, again, that can probably be construed in two different ways. I mean,
there’s hard surface and there’s a wooden deck with rip-rap underneath, and honestly,
after every rainstorm I would have to go down and shovel off that shoreline deck, of
stone, gravel, sand, dirt. This has effectively stopped that as well as planting and
building stone walls and, you know, it’s really, the gentleman before me had tires buried
and guardrails buried, and, you know, I’ve ripped them up and built stone walls and filled
with dirt and tried to, you know, because again, I grew up in Warner Bay. I grew up on
this lake. I live here year round. I care about it, and so it’s, again, when you talk about
non-permeable surface, it’s a wooden deck with open slats, with brown and actually
more soil and rip-rap and rock and things underneath to absorb any runoff, and again, it
has effectively stopped the runoff, too, on the deck.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. URRICO-I just want to follow up a little bit on what Mr. Bryant was asking. You’ve
been through the Area Variance process before. You’ve been through the building
permit process before?
MR. DIDIO-Yes, sir.
MR. URRICO-You spent an awful lot of time on your notes. They’re very meticulous.
MR. DIDIO-Quite honestly, my son is an environmental scientist, and I drafted some
things, as far as what I know, but as well, you know, he helped me obviously.
MR. URRICO-My point is that you seem to take such great care in making sure
everything’s presented correctly. You said you grew up on the lake. Yet it never
occurred to you that this has to go through an approval process, a variance process?
MR. DIDIO-Honestly, I left that to him, and when I think of the lake, quite honestly, and
shame on me, I just, again, moved back to the Town of Queensbury. I grew up in Glens
Falls. Resided in Hudson Falls. My kids grew up, went to college. We moved to the
lake. Every time I thought about anything having to do with the lake I more thought of
the Lake George Park Commission, you know, and my understanding there, and wrongly
I’m sure, is if it doesn’t splash, you’re fine, you know, and so that is kind of just an old
thing that’s in my head. Wrong or right, I don’t know.
MR. URRICO-But to me that’s the real issue. Because I think quite frankly you’re asking
for a lot of relief, and if this was coming to us clean, with no dirty hands, then I probably
would not look favorably upon this as presented, and now that you’re coming now, after
the fact, kind of puts us in a different situation, but I still have a hard time overcoming that
understanding of how that happened here, because the explanation, quite frankly, is not
flying with me.
MR. DIDIO-Well, again, my apologies for that, and, coming from your side, I can
understand that point of view, and if you would look at my side, it’s a process that I just
don’t want to deal with, the general public, I basically said, and again, you know, and you
people deal differently. The general public will say, well, gee, why will you need
anything. You’re building a set of stairs. It’s going to be safe. It’s better, it’s better
looking. It’s this and that. It’s on the old footprint, why would you need it, and I basically
wanted to probably believe that, not probably, wanted to believe that.
MR. URRICO-So did you overlook it because you didn’t think it was necessary?
MR. DIDIO-Absolutely. No, I left it to him and questioned a number of times, quite
honestly, but all of the contractors that I spoke to, which was the guy who built my deck,
and another gentleman who just does it part time. He’s retired, said to me, no, you
should be fine.
MR. URRICO-You didn’t think about calling the Town and asking them or checking with
the Town? That would have been the best call.
MR. DIDIO-Isn’t that kind of, and the way I always think of that is asking your father if you
can, you know, make out in the back seat or something. I don’t know, it’s a question that
you don’t ask I think, is the way it’s perceived by the general public, and honestly, I
appreciate what you, having grown up on the lake, living here, I appreciate what you
people do on a daily basis. I could not do it. I just could not do it. It would drive me
crazy.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for
Area Variance No. 26-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. DIDIO-May I give you these letters? I don’t know if you’ve received?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have copies.
MR. DIDIO-Of all of them?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if I have all of them, but I’ll look.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address
the issue? Good evening, gentlemen. Would you be kind enough to take a seat and
speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your relationship, please.
JOHN SVARE
MR. SVARE-Good evening. John Svare, with Gary Banta.
GARY BANTA
MR. BANTA-I’m Gary Banta, a neighbor next to the Didio’s, and we’ve been severely
eroded, due to their building.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you know the routine. Proceed.
MR. SVARE-Yes. I’ve got to do the basic introductions first. I’m an Attorney with
Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and I have the honor of being here this evening.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, as the Didio’s explained, this project was built
nearly three years ago on Lake George, no approvals, no requests for approvals, and
now we’re here, nearly three years later, seeking a variance. Mr. Chairman, this is a 326
square foot project, a 96 square foot project, and it’s going to severely impact Mr.
Banta’s property. Mr. Banta resides at, he owns property at 2969 Route 9L. It’s a vacant
property. When you walk down the property, the construction on the Didio’s lot is literally
right next to the property line, inches away, in clear violation of the setback requirements.
Now, it’s not addressed in any of the notes that I’ve been able to review, but it should be
noted as well that there is a hot tub inches away from our client’s property. Again, this
hasn’t been brought to the Board, hasn’t been reviewed, hasn’t been requested for any
type of a variance. With respect to the permeability issue, this should be considered
thoroughly by the Board. The proximity to Lake George, the environmental impact, with
no approvals and the erosion has significantly impacted the community, but at the end of
the day, to come back here and to say that you relied on a third party to get the required
approvals, I just don’t accept that, and I think we should move forward in denying the
application. With respect to the deck, Mr. Banta’s property has been significantly
interfered with because of the deck, and if the Board would like to hear from him,
perhaps he could explain that certainly better than I can, but the Didio’s deck and the
boats and the rafts that they’re now putting there has significantly impacted Mr. Banta’s
access to the lake. So, Mr. Chairman, in summary, this is a drastic request here, and it’s
been brought for your consideration, you know, nearly three years since it was built, with
no consideration at all, and so we would respectfully ask that you deny the requested
relief, because of the significant environmental impacts, and the significant violations of
the setback requirements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any questions?
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got a question. You say that this deck and stairs and so forth have
significantly impacted your client’s property. Do you have any photographs or any
documentation or anything that you could present to substantiate that?
MR. SVARE-I don’t have any photographs or documentation to submit. I’d be happy to
submit that at a later time. If the Board would like to hear from Mr. Banta directly, I would
certainly welcome that.
MR. BRYANT-I’d like to know specifically what are we referring to when you say it’s
impacted your property. In what respect? You have no more white owls or, you know,
you’ve got to be specific.
MR. BANTA-I will. First of all, they brought all the materials to build all the decking over
my property without my permission, and that caused erosion. It made my path that had
been there all my life, it destroyed it, with their trucks and building materials being moved
over that surface eroded it. It created our path down to the water, which was very
accessible, to become un-accessible.
MR. BRYANT-That has nothing to do with the existing structure. I just want to know how
the structure is impacting your property now.
MR. BANTA-Well, having a hot tub right along the property line, where we go down to
the water, certainly is a deficit. I mean, it’s a deterrent to be able to get down there
safely.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. SVARE-If I could just follow up, when you walk down Mr. Banta’s property, this
enormous structure, this stairway, this hot tub is inches away from the property line.
Now, it’s not 10 feet back. It’s not 20 feet back, 30 feet back. This is right on top of you,
okay, in clear violation of the setback requirements. The dock that was built in violation of
the setback requirements is also infringing on Mr. Banta’s use and access of his dock,
because of the limitations and the space that he has on the lake. He can’t fit a boat in
there now.
MR. BRYANT-I think the dock is what he got an Area Variance for in 2003.
MR. SVARE-There’s another additional deck that they’re seeking a variance for as well.
My apologies if I wasn’t clear.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but the dock is not an issue, though.
MR. SVARE-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. I, also, would like, you talk about erosion. Do you see
something happening down at the shoreline now? Do you see more erosion? Do you
see more sand, gravel, everything falling down because of, is it falling from his property
onto your property, or is it your property that is eroding now?
MR. BANTA-It’s my property eroding from the water flowing from his property. It begins
up at the road. He paved the, along the road, he put a driveway in that didn’t exist
previously, had been a grassy area.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. BANTA-And now that’s paved and it slopes toward my land.
MRS. JENKIN-So the water is coming from up on top and running down through your
property down to the lake.
MR. BANTA-Correct.
MR. SVARE-Mr. Chairman, if I could just say, very quickly. This is a property with very
little vegetation at all. Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-Which one?
MR. SVARE-The Didio’s property. Hardly any vegetation.
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Banta doesn’t either.
MR. SVARE-Right, but, well, it’s a vacant lot. Mr. Banta’s property is a vacant lot, but in
any event, they’ve now constructed this wooden structure, with the runoff issues and the
proximity to Lake George, that alone should be thoroughly considered by the Board, and
the permeability issues should be thoroughly considered.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions? All right. Anyone else in the
public? Have you concluded?
MR. SVARE-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much for your testimony, appreciate that. We have
another gentleman. I will give you an opportunity to rebut or address anything. The
gentleman in the back. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and
identify yourself, sir, please.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Be glad to. I’m John Salvador. I do live in the neighborhood, have for
the last 35 years. I’m very familiar with this property. With regard to cross references, I
think there’s some information missing here. I know years ago, and prior to 2003, a
building permit was issued, or should have been issued, for modifications to the
wastewater system. That should be here, because I think that’s going to be important for
the site plan review. Also we’re missing the fact that this is in a Critical Environmental
Area. I thought we had this clarified, the definition of a Critical Environmental Area
around Lake George, and yet these projects come out framed, and it’s not in here. This
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
is in a Critical Environmental Area. The Zoning Ordinance speaks to, in Section 179-6-
060, shoreline and wetland regulations, and the purpose of these regulations is to
promote, you know, the public health, safety and welfare, all that kind of stuff. In addition
to that, we have Paragraph D talks about miscellaneous provisions, miscellaneous
provisions. By the way, this shoreline and wetland regulations is very simply an overlay
zone. It’s an overlay zone along the shoreline, and we don’t treat it that way. The
miscellaneous provisions, paragraph D, subparagraph one, Sewage facilities shall
comply with Chapter 136 Sewage and Sewage Disposal. That’s basic for this zone for
this Critical Environmental Area. I don’t think that any of these previous building permits,
Area Variances and all in 2003 were granted recognizing that this is in a CEA. I’d have
to check the record, but I doubt very much. This is a very small lot, a very small lot, and
you can see the way this Code and our Town administers the Code and the building.
You can see how confusing it is to people. Now, with regard to hard surfacing within 50
feet of the lake, a business neighbor of mine, 600 feet away, has placed shoulder stone,
three, four inches thick, over a very large parking area. This is considered hard
surfacing. I brought this to Mr. Brown’s attention. The work wasn’t stopped. The work is
done. I don’t know that any permits have been gotten for that, and I mean that’s a big
operation, a big area. Shoulder stone, when it packs, you know what it is. It’s hard
surfacing, and yet we’re here talking about hard surfacing for a couple of stairs. It’s
getting ridiculous. The other thing is that I believe this should be a SEQRA Type I, for
the following reason. I have SEQRA law here, and I’ll quote from it. Defines different
types of actions, and it speaks to the following actions are not subject to review under
this part, this part being Type II actions. This is billed as a Type II action. I submit that
this project is not reviewable as a Type II action, for the following reasons. The following
actions are not subject to review under this part. The construction or expansion of a
single family or two family or three family residence on an approved lot. This is one acre
zoning. This is one acre zoning. This is not, this is a substandard lot, okay, and it has, it
doesn’t have municipal utilities. So it’s not reviewable as a Type II. It should be a Type
I.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your time is up, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-I have one more paragraph I’d like to read.
MR. ABBATE-You have 30 seconds to do it.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. As regards to CEA, following designation of a CEA, the
potential impact of any Type I or Unlisted action on the environmental characteristics of a
CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated in determination
of significance prepared in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law here.
In any case, site plan review is required, and I think maybe some of your issues might be
deferred until that’s taken care of.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador, I appreciate that.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 26-2007? Would you folks like to address any of the issues that were
raised?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have three letters. I should probably read those in.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, prior to doing that, the Secretary will read into the record
several pieces of correspondence, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-These are all addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. “I have
received your notice of public hearing to review the request ‘variance’ for the
improvements the Didios have made to their recently purchased property at 2966 State
Route 9L, Dunham’s Bay. I am surprised to see this item on an agenda at this late date,
as this issue has been under consideration for some time. I have written to the Zoning
Administrator last October about my approval and thoughts about the Didio endeavor. A
Copy of my letter is attached for your information, in case the previous correspondence
has been misplaced. Our lakeside properties on Dunham’s Bay are very small, the
terrain steep, making access to the waterfront rather hazardous. The installation of a
stairway and a landing area has significantly improved the safety in this area. If approval
of his actions is required, it should be given. I am proud to have the Didios as next-door
neighbors. The work they have done has been skillful and tasteful, in addition to the
improvement in safety. It is also very compatible with other nearby residences in
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Dunham’s Bay. Your approval is highly recommended. Allen W. Strack” The previous
letter that was sent in was addressed to Mr. Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator. “Dear
Mr. Brown: I understand that there have been some concerned expressed about
improvements which the Didio’s have made to their recently purchased home at 2966
State Route 9L. I am a next-door neighbor of the Didios, and have been very impressed
with the work they have done to improve the safety and security of their property. The
access to their waterfront had been extremely hazardous, involving a rather steep
incline, no stairs, railings or other accessibility features that we all take for granted. They
solved this problem very nicely, with a well constructed stairway, with safety rails, and a
secure landing at Lake’s edge. When you invest in waterfront property, access to the
water is of obvious importance, and they have done the job well! I can’t imagine any kind
of problem with the work performed here. We have lived here for over thirty years, and
are delighted to have the Didio’s as neighbors. They are a great asset to the Dunham’s
Bay community, and their interest and enthusiasm in maintaining the property is obvious.
If there is anything else needed to help speed whatever ‘approvals’ that may be required
here, I would certainly be willing to help. Sincerely, Allen W. Strack” And one other one
from Allen Strack “Per phone, I’m still having some trouble getting this sent, but
hopefully this will do it. I’m attaching the letter to Zoning Board of Appeals, along with a
copy of the letter I sent last October on the same subject – Joseph and Cynthia Dido
request for variance – which is on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. I may not be able to
get to the meeting tonight, so I wanted to be sure my enthusiastic input of support was
part of the record. Thanks, Allen Strack”
MR. DIDIO-There was one from a neighbor next to Allen Strack.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that in the packet you gave me?
MR. DIDIO-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got it. I found it. “Dear Mr. Brown: It is my understanding that
the improvements that the Didio’s have made to their property 2966 State Route 9L have
come into question. As a neighbor of the Didio’s (we own the property two lots up the
bay), I would like to comment on the additions and improvements. Mr. Didio has done a
fine job of making upgrades to the property since he moved in a couple of years ago. All
of the work is professional grade and looks extremely nice. In addition, the deck work
and dock work has added to the safety and security of the property and enhanced that
portion of Dunham’s Bay. As close neighbors of the Didio’s, we have no problem
whatsoever with his property or any of the improvements. In fact, we are very grateful to
have the Didio’s as good neighbors and they are definitely an asset to the community. I
wish we had more like them. I would be happy to comment further and answer any
questions you or anyone else might have concerning the Didio’s or their property. Thank
you for your time and consideration. Richard Cadena”
MR. ABBATE-All right. Go ahead. Would you like to address any of the issues that were
raised?
MR. DIDIO-Just some of the points of Mr. Banta. For one, the hot tub is on a totally
permeable surface, and was considered temporary. Craig Brown said that that is not an
issue, something that they’ve addressed, the hot tub that I have on my property, but Mr.
Brown didn’t think it was an issue, and I didn’t have to even address that. So I don’t
know why that was even considered. Mr. Banta, as far as construction materials being
brought down his property, when I had my dock built that I got the permit for and the
variance for, I was at work. They came one day, dropped a load of material on his
property and carried it down. I found that out and told the gentlemen, that is not my
property. You cannot use it. They, from that time forward, did not use it. Mr. Banta
probably, I don’t know if you know the Banta’s property, but it’s a vacant lot of sorts that
is next to me that is adjacent to me, that has four docks, two docks, right, and he has
been using all four sides. Actually the point of the one dock to the north is right on my
property, if you were to draw a line out, but I don’t know where I was going with that,
other than their path literally comes up to the same, at the same point that my stairway
does, what was my path where they continued, the closest point is at this concrete
stairway that was, has been there for I don’t know how many years. So basically his
access to the lake and stairs that they built is as close as mine is, my stairway is to his
property. Also, none of the construction materials for these stairs was carried anywhere
near his property. Mr. Banta, I want to go back. When they dropped that load of
materials there and carried it down, about mid-summer, which was the first time I ever
saw Mr. Banta on his property, came and showed me an indentation that he felt was
done by my contractors. I brought in topsoil, planted grass seed, and repaired that. I
think two years later his father came and told me I was responsible for the erosion of
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
their path down to the dock, and basically it was the first time I’d seen the man in three
years. I think he’s been up there probably twice in the four or five years I’ve lived there.
It is just truly an absentee landlord situation. They rent those things out. Any erosion
that comes from that property has been happening over the past 20 years. All of his
tenants would, in essence, testify or write a letter to that, and at no point in time is there
any runoff from my property to his, in that area, nowhere, and he alluded to that, and that
is just totally wrong. Also, I don’t think Counsel has ever been there. He’s saying access
to the lake was somehow hindered by boats or something that we have, which is just
totally wrong. I have photos which I think you folks have, but anyway, just some of those
bothered me, but the erosion has come from nothing ever having been done to that
property in the last 20 years. That’s where the erosion comes from. The road is like
that, hits their property and continues down.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have anyone else in the public who would like to address
Area Variance No. 26-2007? Okay. Then I’ll continue.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-I want to understand the timeline here. I know that you applied for
applications, building permit and variances, in the summer of 2003 for your dock and
deck, and some time during that summer you built these items, according to your
applications.
MR. DIDIO-Right.
MR. BRYANT-How soon after the completion of the dock and the deck was this stairway
built?
MR. DIDIO-I think it was started in like late September, or early October.
MR. BRYANT-So, getting back to my original question, and I think Mr. Urrico’s question,
here we are two months away from a period, because based on the timeline that the
other counselor, the counselor provided as to when you started construction of this thing,
it’s been up three years, we’re two months away from, or a month away from completion
of the dock and deck, and we start another project, and we don’t have a building permit.
It doesn’t ring a bell with me.
MR. DIDIO-Honestly, it seemed like a lifetime away. I don’t know if it was, was it that far
after this? Honestly, sir, I can’t say it was that September. It may have, in fact it was
absolutely the September, it was a year after that.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying it was done in 2004?
MR. DIDIO-I believe so. Again, I think we’ve had it for three years. It was definitely a
year away from that point.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their
comments. I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are
directed to the Chairman and comments expressed by the Board members to the
Chairman are not open to debate. Why don’t we just start right out down the line. Mrs.
Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think that, from the appearance of the walkway, and the docks
down below, the variances are for the docks, and the walkway. You have definitely done
a lot to alleviate erosion. You’ve made your property much safer, as far as getting down
to it. What you’ve done as far as landscaping, and taking care of the areas under the
decks and the docks and everything seems to, it really does help and protect the
lakeshore. So, I was quite impressed with what your building was, and I thought that you
had done a nice job, and you had improved your property, from the letters. The problem
that I have is the lack of permits and your attitude that, well, if you didn’t do it then
perhaps it wouldn’t be noticed or, if you didn’t ask. If you didn’t address the fact then
perhaps it would just not happen. I agree that it’s a Critical Environmental Area, and I
think that you’ve improved it, and, going along with that, even if you didn’t get the
permits, I think I would approve this.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to disagree on this with Mrs. Jenkin. I
think this does cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood. It is a substantial
request, and part of the natural eco system of the lake is you do have a certain amount of
erosion. Things wash into the lake naturally, and that’s part of the lake. Species have to
exist along the shores of the lake, and to stop that natural process by building decking all
the way along it inhibits that process. Basically, the permeability, nine percent over the
allowable permeability in this area, that also, to me, seems substantial. Also, the fact
that this is .17 acres, there’s a lot that can be done with this property. It just seems to me
as though too much has been tried to be done with this property. They’re trying to build
too much on too little of a piece of property. If they wanted this much stuff on the
lakefront I think that the applicants could have bought a larger piece of property. So I’d
be against this application.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before the meeting starts, in the very
beginning, the Chairman goes through an entire dissertation about, you know, what the
public should expect and so forth and so on, and some of the instructions that he gives to
the Board, are very specific, that we don’t vote on projects because they’re pretty or we
like them or we dislike them. We vote on projects based on the five criteria that are
provided by the State, and we do a balancing test. In cases like this where, and I think
Mr. Urrico said it earlier. In cases like this, where a project’s been completed, without
permits, I view the project as if you were coming here for the very first time and the first
nail was not hammered through the wood, and we’ve got a set of plans and we’re looking
at the project fresh. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t have a permit, but that’s how I view
the project, and frankly, Item Three, relative to whether or not the relief is substantial, is
the item that throws me over the edge in the balancing test. We’re not talking about one
substantial relief. We’re talking about three separate reliefs that are required that are all
three in themselves monumental. So I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Garrand on this
one. I’m opposed to the project.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In reviewing the project, I think we have to balance the benefit to the
applicant with the possible detrimental effects on the neighborhood and especially the
Critical Environmental Area of Lake George, and in looking at this one here, your access,
your concrete walkway, which is on the south side of the property there, has been there
for many, many years prior to your purchasing the property. It’s essentially the same as
what the Stracks have up to the north side, and your neighbor, the Bantas, I think that
their access is also right parallel with yours coming down at the same time. I don’t buy
the fact that your, you know, your construction project, that it had any effect on the
Banta’s property, per se, but I will say this. You did have to go through the relief process
with the Town prior to this, building your dock down there, and I think that had you come
in for us and asked us for relief to put a reasonable walkway down, which I think you
have done, I think that we probably would grant that, based upon the health and safety,
as you have substantiated. Nonetheless, I think that the addition of the deck at the base
of the stairs was excessive. I think that the deck/dock down on the shoreline there that
was added was also substantial and not necessary for your enjoyment of your property.
So I’m going to recommend that I can go along with the wooden walkway because I think
that’s a safety related issue, but I think that I would ask for the removal of the deck. You
could change the stairs and make another corner down there to access your wooden
dock. I think I would also ask for the removal of extra dock, the deck that was done on
the shoreline down there, and I also have concerns about the Jacuzzi, all right. It’s not a
circus that you just get to add ad infinitum as many things as you want, and because
you’re way over the permeability on this site, I think that that is a concern. I think if the
wood walkway does remain, I would like to see more substantial plantings done on there
with native species, and I think that the Planning Board is going to review this,
irregardless, because you’re hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lakeshore, all this new
construction that you’ve done, on top of what we’ve granted you before. So I’m not for
the variance. I think that there should be some modification on your part, and so if it
goes down to defeat, I think we should leave it up to the Planning Board, essentially.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Good. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, and Mr.
Bryant. If this came to us before the fact, I think we would have sent it back and asked
for some modifications. I think it’s excessive with the two extra docks. I agree with Mr.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Underwood that the walkway is needed, but I think they just went over the top, and I
would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I believe I had my say earlier, and I really haven’t varied off those
comments. I believe, had this project come to us with clean hands, that, in looking at the
balancing test, we would have had the opportunity to see if the benefit to the applicant
could have been achieved by other means feasible. I think there are other feasible
means, but not given that opportunity, it’s kind of hard to look back. I don’t think there’ll
be a change to the neighborhood character or to any nearby properties based on what I
can see and what was there before, but the request is definitely substantial, and that’s
the issue that I think overwhelms everything else, in my estimation, because when it
comes to the lake, we’re pretty careful about what we approve there. We want us to
have the opportunity to see if there are better places to put things. As far as physical or
environmental effects, again, I’m not sure. It looks like there might be and there might
not be, but I’m not sure, but again, the Code talks about that. As was pointed out earlier,
there are some areas where they talk about activity and vegetation and what should be
disturbed and what shouldn’t be disturbed, and those are the kinds of things that we
might have looked at, and still will look at, and definitely this difficulty is self-created.
Just going back on the environmental effects, I understand the point of the stairs, and I
agree with Mr. Underwood there that it does create a better situation, and we have
approved steps, stairs in similar situations in other parts of the lake, but we’re always
careful about where it ends up. So given all these facts, I would be against it at this
point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico.
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Chairman, after listening to Mr. Underwood and the fact that with
some modifications that are very valid, I would go with that vote also. I’ll go with the no
vote, unless the modifications were made.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. From what I’ve heard, it’s obvious that the
Board feels that your request is really not justified and there were a number of reasons
why. A number of the individuals on the Board felt that the request is substantial,
particularly when you take into account that we’re talking about .17 acres. We’re also
discussing nine percent permeability. There’s also a lot of concern about the possible
environmental impact on this thing, and the possibility that there may very well be an
undesirable change, and I also concur, which is unusual, with Mr. Bryant this evening,
when he put right back in my face the five criteria that I demand that the Board members
take into consideration prior to reviewing and making a decision on whether or not to
grant a variance, and he’s absolutely correct. Based upon that, I, too, would not favor
the application. Now, I’m going to give you an opportunity to make a statement. I
understand you probably want to say something? All right, please do.
MR. DIDIO-I guess what I want, I am open to certainly a change here. I’m wondering,
can that be done now and obtain a variance like the additional deck to the side? Would
that remove the additional permeable, non-permeable surface, or whatever that, you
know, that was.
MR. ABBATE-Let me say this to you. It’s obvious that we find your arguments for a
variance without merit. That’s quite clear. However, we do believe in due process, and I
think we’re a very fair Board. If you wish to request a tabling, and if you feel that you can
perhaps make sufficient modifications which will meet the requirements of this Board, I
will give you that opportunity. Now you have several ways of which you may do this.
You may request to table your appeal for the next available date, and I will consider that,
but I have to caution you that unless there are substantial changes, and you certainly
have heard, and you will have access to the minutes of the meeting this evening, and if
you decide to request a tabling, that’s up to you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we query the Board to give him some actual direction?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Jim, why don’t we do that. I think that’s fair. I think that’s a fair
process.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that some of us were amenable to the keeping the
stairway because of a safety issue, that that was reasonable to assume, and if it was
reviewed by the Planning Board, if we passed this on to the Planning Board for their
purview, that we would go along with the stairs, but all those other things that were
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
created after the last variance would be removed. I think that that’s something that, you
know, I could live with.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Underwood.
MR. ABBATE-You would agree.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. The stairs, I think, are needed, but the rest of it I think needs to go.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I’m reluctant to get into a conversation about what would be better.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Certainly the stairs, I think, need to remain or at least in some
situation, but I really don’t want to get into it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
MRS. HUNT-Excuse me. Could I add? I would like to see a plan before I make up my
mind.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I’m going to agree with Mr. Urrico. I would like to see, because we haven’t
really discussed placement of the stairs. There might be a feasible alternative to mitigate
some of the setback requirements. We haven’t discussed that. We haven’t looked at
that. That hasn’t been an option. So I, too, would like to see something, and also re-visit
the calculations of the permeability and the setbacks and the whole ball of wax before I
make a final determination.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. Garrand?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to see it more compliant, more amenable to the
neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Mrs. Jenkin, please?
MRS. JENKIN-I’ll agree.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now we have two options, ladies and gentlemen on the Board this
evening. If the appellant wishes to request from the Chairman a tabling to meet the
requirements that you’ve heard this evening, that’s perfectly okay. The other is that a
Board member may very well decide to move a motion. So, unless there’s someone on
the Board who’s strong on that position, they want to move a motion, is there anyone on
the Board who’d like to move a motion at this time? Okay. Then I would suggest to you
that you formally request from the Chairman that your application be tabled so that you
could address the issues discussed here this evening?
MR. DIDIO-I do. I would like to have it tabled, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2007 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
2966 State Route 9L. Tabled to a June 2007 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 26-2007 is seven yes, zero no. The
motion is carried. Area Variance No. 26-2007 is tabled for the month of June 2007
hearing, and I would strongly recommend that you pay particular attention to the
comments made by the Board this evening, and I would strongly suggest that you seek a
copy, which you’re entitled to, of the minutes of this meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also mention the fact that you should get together with Staff
and see what the permeability increases are if you remove the shoreline deck, the lower
deck at the base of the stairs, and the hot tub. I don’t think the hot tub was in the
quotient, though. Was it?
MRS. BARDEN-It was for the permeability, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It was. Okay. So those three items removed. Then you come back
with just the stairs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’ve got it? Understood?
MR. DIDIO-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Good.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II WALTER BOHLMAN OWNER(S):
WALTER BOHLMAN ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 50 CAROLINE STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 520 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
CROSS REF.: BP 2006-539 RES. ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL
11, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 309.15-1-46 SECTION: 179-4-030
WALTER BOHLMAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2007, Walter Bohlman, Meeting Date: April 25,
2007 “Project Location: 50 Caroline Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicants
propose a 520 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 1,056 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicants request side setback relief of 9.7-feet, from the minimum sum of 30-feet
required, per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be able to construct the proposed residential addition in the desired
location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
A feasible alternative may be consideration of a second-story addition. This would
maintain the sum of 22.5-feet.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for sum of side setback relief of 9.7-feet from the required 30-feet may be
deemed moderate at 32%.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
st
BP 2006-539: Pending, 520 sq. ft. 1 floor residential addition.
Staff comments:
Although the request is moderate, feasible alternatives to the proposed siting of the
addition could be explored that may not increase the existing nonconformity of the
structure.
The Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact for this project at
their April 11 meeting.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
April 11, 2007 Project Name: Bohlman, Walter Owner: Walter Bohlman ID Number:
QBY-07-AV-27 County Project#: Apr07-39 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 520 sq. ft.
residential addition and seeks relief from the minimum setback requirements and relief
for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 50 Caroline Street Tax
Map Number(s): 309.15-1-46 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to
construct a 400 sq. ft. addition to an existing home for an additional bedroom and
bathroom. The addition is located 16 ft. from the side property line where a sum of 30 ft.
total is required and the north side is 4 ft. from the side property line. The information
submitted indicates the addition would require an area variance no matter where it was
constructed. The plans show the location of the addition and the construction details.
Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information
submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Paul Gollhofer Warren County
Planning Board 4/12/07.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that the petitioner is at the table. Would you be kind enough,
sir, to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are.
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes. My name is Walt Bohlman. I reside at 50 Caroline Street,
Queensbury. I’m looking to add, actually there’s a correction to that. I’m looking to add
a 380 square foot addition, not a 520 square foot addition.
MR. ABBATE-Wait a second. Let’s clear this up for the record. Now what are you
doing?
MR. BOHLMAN-I’m looking to add on 380 square feet as opposed to 520 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-You’re looking to add on 380 square feet?
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And it’s compared to, how was it described?
MR. UNDERWOOD-520 is what’s on there. So it’s less.
MR. ABBATE-So we’re okay there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re okay.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, just out of curiosity, how did we come up with 550?
MR. BOHLMAN-That’s actually because my first application was for 520.
MR. ABBATE-You’re not Staff.
MRS. BARDEN-He can probably explain it better than I can.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BOHLMAN-Permission to speak.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. BOHLMAN-My original application was for 520, but as I was going through the
process to get my land surveyed and so on an so forth, I came up with an alternative.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine, we cleared that up. All right. You know what you have to do.
MR. BOHLMAN-Well, that’s pretty much it. I’m looking to put on 380 square feet, so I
can have a bedroom for my daughter.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BOHLMAN-The present condition is that the house is a one bedroom ranch. I think
it was built that way. We purchased it in 2002, and at that point we didn’t have our
daughter. So now we have a need for extra room.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, you’re not accompanied by counsel. You may or may not
have heard what I said earlier. You have some flexibility. If there’s anything, during the
proceedings, you don’t understand, just stop us and we’ll try to explain it, or, if there’s
something else that perhaps you think of that may help your case, stop us again and
introduce it. Okay? Fair enough? All right. Do we have any Board members who would
like to ask questions? Yes, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-The original survey that you provided shows a proposed addition, and my
eyes are failing me. I think it’s 20 by 28, right?
MR. BOHLMAN-Not on that one that you have there, no. It shouldn’t be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty-six, I think.
MR. BOHLMAN-The original proposal was 20 by 26, but I’ve never had it surveyed.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s how you came up with 550.
MR. BOHLMAN-520.
MR. BRYANT-Whatever, 520.
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So now, but I’m not quite understanding. Your proposed addition is really,
all it is is the master bedroom and bedroom?
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-But on your floor plan you show 20 by 20, which is 400 square feet. So
what is it?
MR. BOHLMAN-It’s 380. I can only go 19 feet over from the edge. Otherwise I eliminate
the natural light through the kitchen window.
MR. BRYANT-So 19 feet, what are we talking about? The reason I’m asking is because
you could mitigate some of the setback by simply not bringing the addition to the end of
the building. If you could save two feet, and it appears that you did in the dimensions of
the bedroom, and then we’re only looking at the same setback that exists with the
original footprint. So it’s really, it’s a no-brainer, and that’s why I’m asking you that.
MR. BOHLMAN-Well, if I move it over two feet, then it’s going to be in front of the kitchen
window.
MR. BRYANT-Well, no, because you’ve reduced the size of the unit, haven’t you?
MR. BOHLMAN-I have reduced the size of the unit, but that was so that I could keep the
natural light in the kitchen.
MR. BRYANT-Well, since you don’t have any elevations, I can’t, of consequence that I
can really tell, unless you want to describe. You’ve got a back elevation, but it doesn’t
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
really show it. I mean, I’m, my position, one of the criteria is a feasible alternative, okay,
and in my mind, a feasible alternative is to reduce that 20 feet to 18 feet, and therefore,
you know, kind of eliminate some of the setback that’s required. That’s all.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, I believe you wanted to say something.
MRS. HUNT-Also, yes, we would need a different setback. That’s why I would like to
know where the addition would be now? Where would it be placed?
MR. BOHLMAN-The addition would still be coming off the south corner of the house.
MRS. HUNT-Right, but the dimensions would be what?
MR. BOHLMAN-The dimension would be 19 feet, south to north, and 20 feet west to
east.
MRS. HUNT-Nineteen feet. All right. So that would affect the 16 feet that you’re from
the property line?
MR. BOHLMAN-The 16 feet from the property line on the south side would remain the
same.
MR. URRICO-I guess I have the same question that Mrs. Hunt has, is that we’re talking
about 19 feet running north to south?
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Doesn’t that move that edge of the building further away from the
property line and the side setback, from the side? So therefore you have another foot?
MR. BOHLMAN-From the north side or the south side?
MR. URRICO-Well, right now you’re requesting 16 feet from the property line.
MR. BOHLMAN-That’s from the south property line.
MR. URRICO-Right. So there’s going to be more space between the bilco door and the
addition?
MR. BOHLMAN-That’s correct.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do any other Board members have any questions for Area
Variance No. 27-2007?
MRS. JENKIN-I have a little question. There’s a steep drop at the edge of that property.
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes, there is.
MRS. JENKIN-And is there any consideration, if you’re going to build on your building, a
basement with that?
MR. BOHLMAN-Yes, I am.
MRS. JENKIN-Will that change the strength and the property itself by building so close
without the setback that’s necessary?
MR. BOHLMAN-It shouldn’t affect it, because the setback that’s there right now is only
another foot away from that steep drop. The existing building is now 18 feet away, and
we’re talking about 16’ 7”, by the time we get to the end of the addition, because of the
way that the property comes, is set up is cut out. It actually narrows as it goes back.
MRS. JENKIN-Is 18. Yes, so it’s reduced to 16 feet. I’m just wondering how stable the
property’s going to be if you’re putting in an extra basement and another floor on top of
that, whether that embankment will be as stable as it should be.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BOHLMAN-Somewhere along the line, somebody had planted trees all along that
property line along that embankment to hold that embankment together, and those trees
will not be affected at all.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and there’s no erosion now? You don’t notice any drainage or
anything?
MR. BOHLMAN-No, there isn’t. I’ve been there since 2002, and we haven’t noticed any
erosion since then.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other Board members have any questions at this time? Yes,
please, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-The corner of the building, the addition is going to be 16 feet from the
property line?
MR. BOHLMAN-I believe it comes up to 16’ 7”, doesn’t it?
MR. BRYANT-Sixteen it shows on the survey.
MR. BOHLMAN-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-And the minimum is 30. That’s more than 9.7 feet relief.
MR. BOHLMAN-It’s actually, it’s 27 from the other side, 27 plus.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to add both sides together.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BOHLMAN-But the way it was presented to me was that the existing setback on the
north side is non-compliant because it’s five feet off the property line, four feet according
to the survey.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. BOHLMAN-And then it becomes one structure.
MR. ABBATE-Satisfied?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great.
MR. BRYANT-One more question. Since you’re going to build a basement and so forth
and so on, you show on the survey, you show your septic line running right through the
proposed addition. I mean, what are you going to do with that?
MR. BOHLMAN-It’s going to penetrate the basement wall, the same as it does now.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. BOHLMAN-It’s going to penetrate the new basement wall.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but are you going to have pipe running through the basement?
What’s going to happen? I mean, is it below the bottom of the basement?
MR. BOHLMAN-No, it’s about four feet off the ceiling.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to have this pipe running through the middle of your
basement?
MR. BOHLMAN-No, I’ll change that. I’m going to have to put new plumbing in to put a
new bathroom in.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MRS. JENKIN-How will you change it?
MR. BOHLMAN-I’ll bring it up through the ceiling and make it drop at the wall.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments? None? All right. Then we’re going to
proceed. All right. The public hearing will be opened for Area Variance No. 27-2007,
and do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No.
27-2007? If you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to move on. Again, I’m going to ask members to offer
their comments and once more, the information, the comments offered by the members
are made to the Chairman and they are not subject to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of
the Board, I’ve already indicated to you what precedence mandates our duties and
responsibilities. I don’t think I have to go through that again. Now, having said that, do
we have a volunteer who’d like to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 27-2007?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll go.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think this is a modest house and it’s a modest addition. You’ve
reduced the size of the addition from what you had originally asked for, and while you
probably could put a second floor in, this certainly is a lot easier than raising the roof, so I
don’t think the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to you. I don’t think
there’ll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character or properties. I don’t
think it’s a substantial request, and I don’t think it’ll have any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and it’s self-created only in the fact that you want to enlarge your
house. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please?
MR. BRYANT-In the Staff Notes, they talk about building a second story addition as a
feasible alternative. I think you could say it would be easier to save the two feet by
moving the building north two feet. You’re already giving up a foot, and I don’t see why
we couldn’t give up two feet and just move it north two feet and then you’d have the
same setback that you’ve got now with the south corner of the building at 18.2, and so I
think that even though it isn’t substantial, there is a feasible alternative and we should
grant the least amount of relief necessary, and in any case that we can, no relief at all,
and I think this is an opportunity to at least make it as close to what the existing condition
is as possible. So I’d be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-You’d be opposed. Very well. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The lot width here is only 75 feet. So I think it would be difficult to
add on anywhere without intruding into it based upon what the applicant is proposing
here. I think it’s reasonable. To have somebody put a second story addition on, it’s a
pain. You’re not going to be able to live in your house while you’re doing that. I think the
extra foot, it’s actually almost two feet that we’re going to be closer to the property line, is
not unreasonable. I don’t think anyone’s going to notice it with that steep bank. He
doesn’t have any effect on the neighbors, and I don’t think there’d be any environmental
effects on the neighborhood either.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I basically agree with Mr. Underwood. We’re talking about 2.2 feet
further into the setback than they currently have. Given the size of the property and the
modest addition, I think this is reasonable. I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, in keeping with the configuration of the
home, I think this is a logical choice as far as placement of the addition. I don’t think
moving it any other way is really going to maintain the aesthetic nature of this house. As
far as the second story addition, I’d say that would pretty much be cost prohibitive and
not a real feasible alternative. So at this point I’d be in favor of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MRS. JENKIN-I also agree. There really isn’t a feasible alternative than the area that it’s
in. The size of the property, you’re going to have setbacks anyhow. You need the
space. So it’s self-created, but it’s because you have the family now. I think it’s not a
substantial request. There’s definitely not going to be any change in the neighborhood
or to the neighbors or anything, especially with that bank down below, no one’s going to
notice. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I, too, would echo the sentiments of the majority of
the individuals, and I would also support the application. This is, Mr. Secretary, a Type
II. So we’re okay. All right. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No.
27-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and while State law
sets forth five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike a Use Variance test, this
Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather, we
merely take each one into consideration in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance.
Now I’m going to request that I have a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No.
27-2007. Is there a volunteer?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2007 WALTER BOHLMAN,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
50 Caroline Street. The applicant proposes a 380 square foot residential addition to an
existing 1,056 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant requests side setback
relief of 9.7 feet from the minimum sum of 30 feet required per Section 179-4-030 for the
Suburban Residential One Acre zone. Can benefits be achieved by any other means
feasible? At this point, it would probably be cost prohibitive to build a second story on
this house for one room. Will this result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood or
character to other properties? No, it will not. The request isn’t substantial, or rather it’s
moderate. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental affects? No, not that
we can see at this point. Is the difficulty self-created? Just by the fact that he’s coming
before us with an application, I’d say, yes, it is self-created.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 27-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance
No. 27-2007 is approved.
MR. BOHLMAN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN GREENE OWNER(S):
STEVEN GREENE ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 1 KNOLLS ROAD NORTH
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
GARAGE WHICH CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE AND FROM THE MAXIMUM
SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR GARAGES. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-392 POLE BARN; BP
2005-369 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-25 SECTION:
179-4-030; 179-5-020
STEVEN GREENE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2007, Steven Greene, Meeting Date: April 25,
2007 “Project Location: 1 Knolls Road North Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. pole barn.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for an oversized garage on the property of 300 sq. ft. (in
excess of 900 sq. ft. in floor area in a residential district).
And, relief from the maximum of one garage per lot is requested.
In addition, rear setback relief of 15-feet from the minimum 30-feet for the R-3 zone,
Ridge Knolls subdivision, (for accessory structures greater than 120 sq. ft.).
All requests for relief per §179-5-020 for the R-3 zone (Ridge Knolls subdivision).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the desired location on
the property.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to a smaller structure (under 900 sq. ft.) a
smaller structure will result in less setback relief required.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 300 sq. ft. of relief over the maximum 900 sq. ft. is considered moderate
at 33%.
The relief for a second garage on the property where one is allowed is substantial at
100%.
The request for 15-feet of rear setback relief from the minimum 30-feet is considered
moderate at 50%.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of
this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-392: Pending, 960 sq. ft. (24 x 40) pole barn.
Staff comments:
Any additional length in driveway or secondary access to the proposed should be
provided.
Cumulatively, the request is substantial. Any potential feasible alternatives could be
discussed with the applicant.
The Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact for this project at
their April 11 meeting.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
April 11, 2007 Project Name: Greene, Steven Owner: Steven Greene ID Number:
QBY-07-AV-28 County Project#: Apr07-41 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,200 sq. ft.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
freestanding garage which constitutes a second garage on the property. Relief
requested for a second garage and from the maximum square footage for garages. Site
Location: 1 Knolls Road North Tax Map Number(s): 253.3-1-25 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. pole barn. The structure
exceeds the allowable 500 sq. ft. size for an accessory structure and is considered a
second garage on the site. the information submitted shows the location of the structure
on the site with the existing home. The applicant has indicated the pole barn is to be
used for storage. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Paul Gollhofer, Warren County
Planning Board 4/12/07.
MR. ABBATE-I see that the appellant has taken a seat at the table. Would you be kind
enough, sir, to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you reside,
please.
MR. GREENE-Yes. My name is Steven Greene. I reside at 1 Knolls Road North,
Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you’ve heard the procedures this evening. Were you here
earlier?
MR. GREENE-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then are you ready to proceed?
MR. GREENE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. GREENE-I’d like to propose a 1200 square foot garage for an addition to my
property. This is my first variance. Pretty much everything’s been said.
MR. ABBATE-Take your time. Well, this is what we’d like to hear from you. What we’d
like you to tell us is why you feel that we should approve your variance. It’s as simple as
that, tell us why.
MR. GREENE-Okay. I’d like to have a safe, secure area to lock my possessions up in
the garage. I live on a corner piece of property, and there’s other people walking around
on the street and things.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and during the course of the hearing, if there’s something you don’t
understand, stop us and we’ll explain it, and if you can think of anything else, during the
course of the hearing, that you may have forgotten to tell us which will help your case,
stop us and introduce it, okay? Fair enough?
MR. GREENE-I put up a temporary carport, 18 by 26, and I don’t like the appearance of
it, and I don’t think it adds to the community. So I talked to the neighbors and showed
them the plans, came up with an idea, and that’s what I’m presenting today.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we
have any questions for Mr. Greene?
MR. BRYANT-A couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-The carport is what they’re considering the second garage?
MR. GREENE-No, I purchased it. It’s a temporary carport.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So how big is your regular garage?
MR. GREENE-Actually, I don’t have the numbers on me.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s a two car garage.
MR. GREENE-It’s a two car garage.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-Well, the reason I ask is because you know you’re only allowed one
garage, okay, and there is a solution. There are, a lot of homeowners have a lot of lawn
equipment and the like that, or snow blowers or shovels or whatever they have, and they
like to have the added storage, okay, or they might have a canoe, or, you know, toys,
whatever, and so we allow a 900 square foot garage and then we allow a 500 square
foot accessory structure, 500 square feet, right?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now if your original garage is, it really is not shown on the survey,
and you only provided floor plans for your pole barn. If the original garage is less than
500 square feet, then maybe what you ought to think about is turning that into a storage
area and then building a 900 square foot garage, and we can all go home. It’s as simple
as that, and that was my question. So it would be nice to know how big the garage
actually is.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to respond?
MR. GREENE-I don’t know the numbers of, the footage of the garage right now.
MR. BRYANT-Do you think it’s less than 500 square feet?
MR. GREENE-I would presume it is, because one bay is, it’s really small. It’s not a full
size on one side.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other members of the Board who have any
questions for Mr. Greene?
MR. UNDERWOOD-How many vehicles do you have right now?
MR. GREENE-I own personally three.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Can you just explain why you need the extra space? What do you have
that requires?
MR. GREENE-I have recreational, motorcycles, snowmobiles and stuff, and I’m leaving
the stuff outside. It’s in the weather. It’s an eyesore. So I put the stuff under the
temporary carport, and I’d like to build something that matches the house, architecturally,
and that way the neighbors and everybody doesn’t have to look at everything.
MR. URRICO-Do you have yard equipment that you keep in the garage as well?
MR. GREENE-Yes, lawnmower, motorcycle.
MR. URRICO-In the garage. Would a shed or an accessory structure solve part of your
problem?
MR. GREENE-There’s a shed on the property now.
MR. URRICO-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Have you considered adding to your existing garage?
MR. GREENE-There’s an upstairs, and that would be very costly. There’s an upstairs.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, but you could put an addition onto your garage and add more
parking space.
MR. GREENE-With the architecture of the house, or the rooflines, it would be very hard
to extend it and make sure the house looks right.
MR. BRYANT-When Mr. Urrico asked you how many cars you had, you said you had
three personal. Does that mean you have business vehicles on the property?
MR. GREENE-I own one truck, this is my personal vehicle.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-What kind of truck is it?
MR. GREENE-It’s a GMC.
MR. BRYANT-A pickup truck?
MR. GREENE-Yes, and I own a ’93 New Yorker, and my wife owns an SUV.
MR. BRYANT-So those are the three vehicles?
MR. GREENE-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now you’re going to have a three car garage and then you’re
going to have a two car garage. So you have room for five vehicles.
MR. GREENE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Because, getting back to what Mr. Urrico said, a storage, a good size
storage shed would, you could put your motorcycle in there. You could put your snow
blower in there. You could put your lawnmower in there, and you could put all the good
things in there and still have your garage.
MR. GREENE-I do store my lawnmower and stuff like that.
MR. BRYANT-Maybe you need a bigger storage shed, not another garage. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Are you satisfied with the answer that you’ve given?
MR. GREENE-No. I don’t think it’s viable.
MR. ABBATE-Take your time. Nobody’s going to put any pressure on you.
MR. GREENE-I’d like, the storage area, I’d like to remove the temporary carport, and I’d
like to build something that would coincide with the neighborhood.
MRS. HUNT-What would you put in this new garage, your cars, the three cars?
MR. GREENE-No, I have a boat I’d like to store, and I’d just like to put personal things in
there and that way it’s not an eyesore.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you consider making it a little bit smaller, a little more
compliant than what you want?
MR. GREENE-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Greene? All right.
Then I’ll continue on. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 28-
2007, and do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 28-2007? If so, would you raise your hand, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to move on, and again I’m going to ask
the members to offer their comments.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got two letters.
MR. ABBATE-All right, Mr. Secretary. Would you be kind enough to read those into the
record, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It says, “RE: Steven Greene Variance 28-2007 It has come to my
attention that Mr. Greene has filed for a variance to put a 1,200 sq. ft. garage on his
property. Since a standard garage is around 500 to 600 sq. ft. I must object to this being
approved since he has a 2 car garage now and I think his intention is he will start
operating his landscaping business out of this 1200 sq. ft. building. This is a residential
area and I feel this will affect the value of my home. Concerned Homeowner” And the
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
second letter, “Please accept this letter in response to the notice that I received with
respect to the area variance application of Mr. Steven Greene, your application number
28-2007. I am the owner of nearby property on the East side of Ridge Road and I wish
to comment favorably for this application. The public notice regarding the basis of the
request for the area variance application states that the applicant seeks an area variance
relief for a ‘second garage’ with further relief for a 1200 sq. ft. garage where the
maximum permitted by code requirement is limited to 900 sq. ft. I believe that the Zoning
Board would be well advised to carefully review the requirements of the Code insofar as
it is suggested that there is a Code limitation to only ‘one garage’ on a parcel. The Town
of Queensbury Code does not specifically prohibit a ‘second garage’ and more
importantly the Code definitions of ‘Accessory Use’ and “Garage, Private Parking’
(section 179-2-010) do not specify that only ‘one’ garage may be built ‘per lot’. Further if
you read Article Four of the Code (specifically sections 179-4-010 C 5 and 6) it should be
noted that the zoning requirement does indeed limit an existing parcel regardless of size
to ‘one’ principal building (i.e., the primary residence) while there is no similar limitation
for the construction of a ‘second’ accessory structure on a single parcel. In short, this
applicant should not be required to present any proof to support his plan to construct a
‘second garage’ as in the absence of a specific zoning code prohibition he may do so ‘as
of right’. I do hope that the ZBA will abide by the requirements of the Code in not
creating an artificial zoning requirement where none is expressed nor should one be
implied. With respect to the matter of size, the ZBA should consider the basis of the
current code provision which limits the maximum size of a private parking garage to 900
sq. ft. in its proper local historical context. In the 1980’s Mr. Keith Harris built a huge
structure next to his single family home on Pickle Hill so that he could store logging
trucks, heavy road grading equipment and construction materials next to his small home.
When the Town of Queensbury challenged Mr. Harris on his theory that this was merely
a personal garage, the court properly sided with the homeowner as Queensbury then
had no Code limitation concerning the size of a residential garage. In the 1980’s the
Town ‘over-reacted’ in an effort to prevent what had occurred in Mr. Harris’ case from
ever re-occurring. The Code was re-written to ‘cap’ a private garage at 900 sq. feet in
size. From that day forward, any homeowner who simply desires to keep their multiple
automobiles, bicycles, snow blowers, lawn and garden tools and such ‘under cover’ has
been made to present their reasons for an area variance from a requirement of 900 sq.
ft. which in my opinion is too stringent and ill advised. I am confident that Mr. Greene’s
proposal will serve the positive interests of the neighborhood in allowing him to build a
tasteful garage to protect his property and to keep his personal property out of sight and
under cover. His application is appropriate to the neighborhood and worthy of approval.
Thank you. Linda Muller”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You understand what was said? It’s a correspondence that came
in to us suggesting we approve your variance, your request. Okay?
MR. GREENE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. All right. I’m going to ask, again, members to offer their
comments to the Chairman regarding Area Variance No. 28-2007, and do we have a
volunteer?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can understand sometime the need for an
oversized garage, when you have a lot of stuff, vehicles and so forth and so on, and I
understand that need, and applications have come before us, have been successful in
that regard. The problem that I have with the application lies in the fact that you want a
second garage, which is 100% relief. One hundred percent is substantial in anybody’s
book. The argument could be made that, well, you know, we already have the garage
there. We can’t do anything with it, and therefore it’s got to stay and so forth and so on.
I’m suggesting that maybe there is a feasible alternative and some kind of mix to
possibly replace your existing storage shed with a larger shed, or maybe converting the
existing garage into storage space, or living space, and then build your 900 or 1,000
square foot garage. I think those are feasible alternatives, but to suggest that I would
vote in favor of an application requesting 100% relief, I couldn’t do it. So I’d be opposed
to it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mrs. Hunt, please.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Bryant. I think it’s an excessive
request. I think I might go along with a smaller garage, but not a 1200 square foot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s room for some compromise here on your part. I think
you could maybe come back to us with something a little less substantial than what you
have there, and I agree with Mr. Bryant’s comments. I think that, you know, you could
convert the present garage, you know, maybe you could have one bay there, one big bay
over on that other accessory structure on the property there we might consider that, and
it would allow you to have room for all the other extra items that you want to store inside
which I agree need to be stored inside. I would like to see you think about what you
might do as far as compromise on this. I realize it would be difficult to build onto the side
of the house there and getting rid of your temporary structure there is a plus. Those
things don’t last and they’re a pain when it snows and everything else.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I just have a question for Staff. Are we talking about a storage shed that
won’t exceed 200 square feet rather than 500 square feet? Because this is SFR.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s SR.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-So SFR is the only.
MR. URRICO-Is the only one that’s 200 square feet.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I basically agree. I’m looking for some sort of compromise here.
The second garage is a deal breaker for me. I’d like to see maybe a bigger accessory
structure, rather than a second garage, and see if we can work with that, or work within
that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to agree with some of the other Board
members. Twelve hundred square feet is larger than a lot of the houses we see come in
here, and to have a house sized barn in addition to this house just seems like overkill on
the property. A smaller structure might also serve to need less relief as far as the 50%
side setback he’s seeking. So at this point I wouldn’t be in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-I feel the request is excessive. I feel that the difficulty is definitely self-
created. I would be in favor of coming back with modifications, but I’m not in favor of the
application right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Greene, I support the comments of the other Board members.
So it appears at this particular juncture that your arguments for an approval, the Board
finds them without merit. So I’ve got a couple of alternatives for you, if you’d like to hear
them. One is you could write down a list or two, or get a copy of the notes for this
evening, and request that your variance be tabled, and take into consideration what was
said this evening. Grab a copy of the notes, the minutes of the meeting this evening,
look them over and come back to us at another time. Now, in order to do this, if you
wish. Of course you can reject this without prejudice. I don’t have a problem with that at
all, but I suspect right now it might be in your best interest to ask me to table your
application so that you could take into consideration what was said this evening and then
come back with us at another time.
MR. GREENE-Yes, I would like to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to do that? So you’re asking me to table your application?
MR. GREENE-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d be more than happy to, I’ll honor that. That’s not a problem.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 STEVEN GREENE, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
1 Knolls Road North. Tabled to a hearing in June 2007.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 28-2007 is tabled for the month
of June 2007 hearing. Now, do you have any questions before you leave that you’d like
to get cleared up?
MR. GREENE-Would it be a viable size, smaller?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would go in and talk to Staff, you know, or talk to neighbors. See
what they think is reasonable, in the context of, like it’s a one acre lot, and usually if we
allow something more substantial it’s a much bigger lot. So keeping it closer to the
house might make it more amenable to people, too.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to ask before you leave?
MR. GREENE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Are you sure? All right. Thank you very much and we’ll see you in June.
Thank you.
MR. GREENE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II IRISH BAY PARTNER LLC c/o
JOHN LEFNER AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ./LA GROUP OWNER(S):
H.W. FISCHER INC. c/o HOWARD W. FISCHER, JR. ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION:
BEAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 20-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION STRADDLING THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY/TOWN OF FORT ANN
LINE WITH 6 PARCELS WITHIN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND MINIMUM ROAD
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: IRISH BAY PARTNERS, LLC
SUBDIVISION BP 95-053; BP 93-034; BP 92-022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
APRIL 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 9 ACRES +/- TAX
MAP NO. 27.10-1-1, 2, 3 SECTION: 179-5-050; 179-4-090; 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & KEVIN FRANK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff Notes, do you want me to go through them all?
MR. LAPPER-I would rather you didn’t. If we could just, the Staff Notes are very
voluminous and kind of complicated. I think we could simplify it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would simplify just from the fact that, you know, the variance as
you’re requesting here is essentially for lot width requirements and setback
requirements, in regards to the Queensbury lots, but one thing that should be noted is
that, in your request, is that the lot width requirements are just average lot width
requirements. Those lots taper and there was some concern, I think, on a lot of our parts
whether or not that was proper to, you know, ask us for the relief based upon an
average.
MR. LAPPER-I think that’s how it works in Queensbury. That the requirement is average
lot width.
MR. FRANK-That is correct. There is a standard within the Ordinance for average lot
width. Granted, there’s no standard protocol for calculating that lot width, but Staff did
provide us with direction as to how to come up with a value for that average lot width,
and that information is reflected in the application.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-I hate to interrupt, but unless I follow procedures, I really get confused.
Would you tell us, who are you anyway?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, for the record Jon Lapper and Kevin Frank from the LA Group.
The Staff Notes are so many pages long and go into so many issues that are more
complicated, and I guess my sense from Staff Notes is that you’re probably looking to
hear the application, here our presentation and seek additional information or additional
input tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have a couple of notes I’d like to make before we proceed any
further.
MR. URRICO-Am I missing something here, or are we just jumping to the end?
MR. ABBATE-No, we’re not jumping to the end. We’re going to do what Chuck does
best. We’re going to dot the I’s and cross the T’s, and we’re going to go right to the
procedures, but I do have two announcements I’d like to make.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that, you know, we should read in at least the general gist of
what the Staff Notes are.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that at all.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a problem with that either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I just think it addresses the whole project in totality, which is
important.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. I think that’s correct, Jim. Would you do that, please? Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2007, Irish Bay Partner LLC c/o John Lefner,
Meeting Date: April 25, 2007 Project Location: Bean Road Description of Proposed
Project: The Applicant proposes a development, Irish Bay Community, consisting of 20
residential lots, some of which will contain docks with a total acreage of 97.7 acres (in
both Towns - Queensbury and Fort Anne). [The site was previously used by Fischer’s
Marina.} The property in the Town of Queensbury is subject to the zoning requirements
of WR-1A District.
The Applicant is requesting a subdivision of 6 lots in the Town of Queensbury—3 single
Family building lots and 3 non-building lots. The property straddles the Town of
Queensbury / Fort Ann boundary line (Warren and Washington Counties) and Mark
Fuller, Esq., our Town Counsel for Planning and Zoning Work is representing for both
communities. Mr. Fuller has stated that the Town of Fort Anne Planning Board proposes
to be the Lead Agency for the entire project. To date, the Town of Queensbury has
received no official communications from the Fort Anne. The Applicant is requesting 6
new lots in the Town of Queensbury which will require a number of area variance for lot
area, lot width, set back requirements and minimum road frontage on a public highway.
(See below – Town of Queensbury Code Impacted -Section 179-5-050 - Docks and
Mooring; 179-4-090 – Frontage on public streets; and 179-4-030 – Area and Bulk
Requirements.) It is not clear from the attached drawings if the sea walls are existing or
proposed.
Approval is also required by the APA.
Relief Required: - Table Should be Clarified by the Applicant
The setback requirements in the WR-1A Zoning District in the Town of Queensbury are
as follows:
Required Proposed Lots
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Building Lot Building Lot
Building Lot Non Building
QB-1 QB-2
QB-3 QB-4 5 6
Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 1.52 1.0
1.287 NA
Lot Width 150 105* 87*
160 NA
Depth ---
Shoreline 150 183 160
281 NA
Front – at road 30/40*** * *
* * * *
Front at shoreline 50
Side Yard (1) 25, 29,15, 12 **
Side Yard (2) 25, 29,15, 12 **
Rear Yard 25, 29,15, 12 **
Permeability 65%
FAR 0.22
* Variance required
** Varies with lot width
***Section 179-4-090-A – “The required frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet
and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built
upon, for purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles, such as fire
trucks and/or ambulances. NONE OF THE QUEENSBURY LOTS APPEAR TO BE ON
[OR WITH ACCESS TO] A TOWN ROAD. THEREFORE, A MINIMUM OF 6 AREA
VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
LOT QB-5 APPEARS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DOCKS AND WILL BE OWNED BY
THE PROPOSED HOA. LOT QB-6 IS FOR THE QUEENSBURY PORTION OF THE
PROPOSED ROAD. A HAMMERHEAD IS PROVIDED – THIS WILL REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE TOWN CONSULTING ENGINEER AND FIRE MARSHALL. IT IS
UNCLEAR WHAT THE FUNCTION OF QB-4 IS – IT IS A NON-BUILDING LOT; STAFF
RECOMMENDS THAT IT BE ADDED TO LOT FA-1 [IN FORT ANNE].
Section 179-4-070 – Shoreline Setbacks – “The minimum setback from the mean high-
water mark of all principal buildings and accessory structures, other than docks or
boathouses, shall be 50 feet or the average setback of the houses on the two adjoining
lots, whichever is greater, in the WR-1A Zone…” - Not relevant for this case.
Prior to the April meeting, the Applicant is requested to submit a list of the variances
requested by lot, the Zoning Board of Appeals should have to ferret out this information.
The chart below can be augmented as required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
The proposed creation of 20 lots – many of the proposed lots in the Town of Queensbury
are very irregularly shaped and do not conform to the zoning.
2. Feasible alternatives:
In the opinion of staff, the applicant should seek a less dense subdivision with fewer lots
so that fewer variances will be required and more regular lots can be created.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance:
The applicant is requesting several area variances; some lots need as many as three
variances. Again a less dense subdivision would eliminate the need for so many
variances.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
Impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The Applicant is trying to maximize the number of lots on the property. A smaller
subdivision will create less hardship and is more in keeping with the carrying capacity of
the land. The land has a number of environmental constraints that have not been
adequately addressed by the Applicant team.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Building Permits 95-053, 93-04 and 92-022 – Irish Bay Partners, LLC Subdivision.
Staff comments:
In reviewing this application for the ZBA, I have reviewed the following drawings that
were submitted as part of the Applicant’s package:
?
Short Form EAF – should be replaced with a Long Form EAF and attached
explaining in detail all of issues raised below.
?
Drawing EX-1 – Survey finalized, signed and sealed and dated August 16, 2006
prepared by Dennis Dickerson, NYS L.S. – Number 49362 of D. L. Dickerson
Associates, Surveyors/Engineers Lake George NY 12845. [In the future, it would
facilitate staff’s review if the seal was not upside down.]
?
Cover Sheet dated March 13, 2007 – listing the project team who prepared the
plans as:
The LA Group – Landscape Architecture and Engineering P.C.
Delaware Engineering, P.C. -Water and Wastewater
Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP - Traffic Engineer – (no traffic report
received)
D. L. Dickerson Associates – Surveyors
?
Drawing EX-2 – based on the Survey 2/08/06 – scale unable to be read
?
Drawing SK-1 – dated 3/13/07 – scale 1 inch = 100 feet
?
Drawing SK-2 – Sketch Plan Town of Queensbury, dated 3/13/07 – scale 1 inch =
60 feet – This plan contains density calculations and a Lot Key
?
Drawing W-1 – dated 3/13/07 – scale – 1 inch = 60 feet.
?
Drawing W-2 – dated 3/13/07 – scale – 1 inch = 60 feet
?
The Applicants’ attorneys are Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq. and Stefanie DiLallo
Bitter, Esq. – of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C.
All drawings should be revised based on the latest survey. The total amount of
wetlands on the site (the Town of Queensbury lots) will need to be verified by the Town’s
own wetland expert at the Applicant’s expense. The proposed amount of wetland buffer
proposed for each lot should be added to the next set of drawings. A slope distribution
chart by Town should also be added. The ZBA should not be required to use a scale on
each drawing; the data on each drawing should be summarized so that the ZBA can
easily understand the data presented.
Although the proposed parking lot for the docks is located in the Town of Fort Anne –
more detail should be provided as how the wetlands and Lake will be protected from all
types of discharge. What mitigation measures will be used to ensure that no gas, oil or
other pollutant will not enter the Lake? There should also be information on the stream
and how it will be protected from pollutants. What buffer from the stream will be
provided? Staff believes that it is not a good practice to locate this parking lot in such
close proximity to the 2 wells providing the drinking water supply for the project.
An alternative subdivision plan with shared driveways for Lots QB-2 and 3 would
significantly decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site and should be
presented in sketch format. Additional information should be provided on the
archeological sensitive area marked “to be avoided”. It is not clear how the Applicant
has determined that is the only portion of the site that is impacted. It has been my past
experience that any indigenous people living on the site would have used the streams
and/or the lake for food and water. However, no other part of the site is marked.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
The property is located near the border between Fort Anne and the Town of Queensbury
and located on Lake George, a critical environmental area. I would re-classify this
action as a Type I Action because of its location in the Lake George Watershed.
The Applicant is proposing 2 wells for a community water system and a community
SSDS system both of which are located in the Town of Fort Anne. It appears that the
sewerage will be piped from each lot; some of the lots are served by a gravity system
while other lots require a force main. What is the well yield of each well – how has it
been determined that only 2 wells in close proximity are needed for the community water
supply?
Given that the previous use was a marina, has the site been investigated for any type of
pollutants? Please provide a Phase I study of the site.
Comments for ZBA:
The Zoning Board may open the scheduled pubic hearing but it would be staff’s
suggestion that the application be forwarded to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
for its review and report for a minimum time period of 60 days. There are a number of
questions raised about the proposed subdivision lots and whether they are in keeping
with the established neighborhood. The site is also constrained by wetland lands and
steep slopes - areas that the Planning Board addresses on a regular basis. I think the
Zoning Board could benefit from the comments of the Planning Board before it takes any
action. It is also important to give the Zoning Board and Planning Board in the Town of
Fort Anne time to comments since most of the development is proposed in Fort Anne.
No actions can be taken by either Town of Queensbury Board until the Fort Anne has
completed its SEQRA Review and issued a Negative or Positive Declaration. When
Fort Anne has completed its Negative Declaration or issued a Findings Statement, then
the Public Hearing can be reopened and the Zoning Board can address the merits of the
variance request.
It is recommended that the application be adjourned to an uncertain date and the
Applicant be requested to re-notice the next public hearing until after Fort Anne has
completed the SEQRA Review Process and the Town of Queensbury ZBA has had the
benefits of comments from our Planning Board.
General Comments:
It is poor planning practice for the septic lot to be deeded to a HOA – it should be
included as part of the Road System so that the HOA will continue to pay taxes on the
lot. In this way, if taxes are not paid on the septic discharge lot – it will be part of the
road system and access to the project can be constrained by the Town of Fort Anne.
Usually no public entity wants to assume the liability for an SSDS discharge lot –
however, this is an issue for the Town of Fort Anne decision-makers.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted [It is unclear which staff member or applicant classified the action as Unlisted.]
[It should be noted that the Public Hearing Notice – classified the Action as Type II.]
I would say that the development of this site in the Lake George Watershed should be re-
classified as a Type I Action, requiring a Long Form EAF and/or an EIS at a minimum.
The Town of Fort Anne can reclassify the site or not as it desires.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
April 11, 2007 Project Name: Irish Bay Partner LLC c/o John Lefner Owner: H.W.
Fischer Inc. c/o Howard W. Fischer, Jr. ID Number: QBY-07-AV-29 County Project#:
Apr07-43 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes development of a 20-lot residential subdivision straddling the Town
of Queensbury/Fort Ann line with 6 parcels within the Town of Queensbury. Relief
requested from the minimum lot size, lot width, and minimum road frontage
requirements. Site Location: Bean Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.10-1-1 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to subdivide 97.7 acres of land into 20 lots. The
property is located in the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Fort Ann. The portion in
Queensbury is 4.5 acre with 0.137 acre of wetland. The applicant proposes 3 single
family building lots and 3 non building lots in the Town of Queensbury where the non
building lots abut building lots in the Town of Fort Ann. The information submitted
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
shows the lot configuration where the applicant requests relief from creating a private
drive where the lots do not front on a public road. The applicant requests additional
variances from each of the lots for sizes, setback, or lot width. The proposed
development includes the removal of fishers marina with the construction of a community
center and boat slips for the subdivision. Staff does not identify an impact on county
resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning
Board 4/12/07.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I believe that Staff left out that it’s also going to require permits
from the Park Commission for the docks that are proposed there also.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Two comments, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, for your
information, the Executive Director noted that Mr. Fuller indicated that the Town of Fort
Ann Planning Board would be the Lead Agency under SEQRA. That has not yet been
determined, Number One. Number Two, in the interest of fairness, Mrs. Barden was not
the author of Staff Notes for 29-2007, and I respectfully recommend should not be
subject to questioning on any of these Staff Notes.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Okay. Having said that, Counselor, would you like to
proceed?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I’d like to just give a general overview, and then Kevin will walk you
through the proposed subdivision and talk about the variances, but I guess in general I
think that, you know, Blanche was jumping into this thing at the last minute when she
came back from the conference, and I think that she kind of missed the overall concept
of what we were doing here in terms of the benefit to the lake when she’s talking about
too many variances on some of these lots. I just think we just need to take a step back
and explain to you what’s proposed. Right now, as the cover letter indicated, we have a
commercial marina with a public launch and gasoline sales, and metal buildings on the
lake, a whole lot of commercial activity, which can stay there ‘til the end of time, as a pre-
existing, nonconforming use, but not what is conforming to the Ordinance, and what we
are proposing is to remove all of that activity and to make this an 18 lot residential
subdivision with no public access, significantly diminished traffic impact on Pilot Knob
Road which is a pretty busy road, because right now you’ve got people parking and
crossing to get to their boats, and a whole lot of activity, and all we’re proposing in the
Town of Queensbury is three residential building lots that we tried to design in
accordance with the topography and the lake to be as close to conforming as we could.
The other three lots in Queensbury I don’t think should really be considered lots for the
sake of variances, but Craig asked us to approach it this way in terms of the application.
One of the lots is just the homeowners association road, and that is a small roadway.
The fact that it’s a homeowners association means that it’ll be maintained by the
homeowners, obviously, but not be a burden on the Queensbury taxpayers. It’s
designed as a hammerhead, because that’s what the Adirondack Park Agency
suggested because it takes a lot less room, you don’t have a lot of impact on that.
There’s not a lot of people using it, not a lot of people turning around, and a hammer
head is a lot less grading and a lot less impact near the lake. So they suggested that
and we were happy to do that, and the other two lots which are labeled as Queensbury-5
and Queensbury-4, are not building lots. They’re just attached to the lots where the
houses will be located in the Town of Fort Ann. Obviously the County boundary is just
arbitrary as it relates to the topography and the lake. So those are not separate lots. It’s
just that because it’s in a separate County, it has to have a separate tax map
designation, but of course they’ll be hooked together. No one’s ever going to be able to
sell QB-5 or QB-4 or build anything on it. It’s just a non-buildable yard. So to treat that
as, in the Staff Notes, to say that somehow that’s so nonconforming that you need to do
something different, I mean, those are throw away. Those are, they’re non-building.
We’re not asking for any rights, so there’s no rights that anybody has to worry about
there. They’re just yards for the houses in Fort Ann. On the whole, the project was
designed with the traffic access, the roadways located to maximize sight distance on
Pilot Knob Road. The fact that the sewage is going to be pumped off of the lake into the
Fort Ann property is a real positive, in terms of potential impact on the lake, public water
system, and there were some comments about how all that’s going to work, in the Staff
Notes. These have to be owned by a transportation corporation which would be the
same owners as the homeowners association, but it’s something that has to be approved
by the two Town Boards as to how to handle the sewer and water. So everything is
being designed to minimize the impact on the lake to minimize the impact on Pilot Knob
Road, and I guess our argument here is that compared to the intense commercial use
that happens now with boat sales, service, gasoline service, launching, parking, that
having three lots in Queensbury and 15 lots in Fort Ann away from the lake and away
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
from the road, is a pretty soft use compared to keeping this as a commercial use. Yes, it
sounds like there’s a lot of variances because the limited land in Queensbury, but in
general we’re only asking for three houses to replace everything that’s there now. So
with that in mind we think that the variance request is very minimal in terms of the impact
on the Town and on the lake. It’s a positive benefit. That’s my general overview. Let me
ask Kevin to give you some of the details.
MR. FRANK-Total lot size, as was mentioned before, is about 97 acres. Of that,
approximately 4.5 acres is in Queensbury, which is seen here as the Town and County
boundary. The three yellow houses are those three that are proposed within
Queensbury. The existing conditions are up on the map up there, but just to give you an
idea of where they are on the site in relation to what’s being proposed to be constructed,
again, the Town and County line running here. Boat storage building, gas pumps, boat
storage here, part of the workshop, part of the office, all the docks and the existing sea
walls. There was a question from Staff whether the sea walls are existing or not. They
are existing, are located within Queensbury. Again, we’re looking at an 18 lot
subdivision, total, 18 single family homes, three of which would be located within the
Town of Queensbury. Again, these three lots. The other lots, as Jon mentioned, being
at the recommendation of Staff, breaking those non building lots out that are part of a
building lot in Fort Ann, Queensbury-4, which is just the back side of Fort Ann-1, and
Queensbury-5, which is an HOA lot, which has the parking and the shared access to the
dock.
MR. ABBATE-Do me a favor, would you, please, run your finger down that map and
show me where that boundary is.
MR. FRANK-Right down here, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, all the way down.
MR. FRANK-Right down through here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FRANK-The lots in Queensbury themselves, they all meet the minimum, the
building lots in Queensbury all meet the minimum one acre size. They meet the road
frontage requirements if this were to be a public road, but again, this is proposed to be a
private road, one of the complicating factors being that we are located in two towns,
maintenance issues, but it’s the preference of the project sponsor to have these be
private roads and HOA maintained. We do have all the required lake frontage on the
building lots. We do meet the lake setback requirements on all the building lots. As Jon
mentioned, a number of the variances are caused somewhat by the creation of these
non-building lots, Queensbury-4, Queensbury-5, and also by the fact that this lot,
Queensbury-6, which contains the private road, obviously the three building lots do not
have the required frontage on a public road, hence the need for the variance for the three
building lots.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me a second. Let me go back to something here. You indicated
that none of the lots in Queensbury required a variance, did I hear you right?
MR. FRANK-Area Variance?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-The building lots, no, sir, they don’t. The building lots are sized at 1.52
acres, 1 acre plus a little bit, and 1.3 acres. So they all exceed the minimum one acre
size requirements.
MR. BRYANT-But they have no road frontage.
MR. FRANK-Correct, sir.
MR. BRYANT-So basically that’s the variance on each one of the lots.
MR. FRANK-Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-And there’s no other variances relative to those lots?
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. FRANK-We are seeking a side yard setback variance because of the narrow
configuration of these lots. We’re basically at the minimum requirement of the 12 feet
setback requirement that’s in the Code, but again, the area of the lots, the lake frontage,
the lake setback, frontage, albeit on a private road, if this were a public road, would meet
those frontage requirements.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you a question, please. How do you respond to something like
this? The proposed creation of 20 lots, many of the proposed lots in the Town of
Queensbury, are very irregularly shaped and do not conform to the zoning?
MR. LAPPER-I can answer that. I don’t think that’s really a relevant comment, with all
due respect. Because the three lots that are building lots, which are the lots that you
should be concerned with, are pretty close to being conforming, and the three that aren’t
conforming aren’t building lots. One is a road. One is a back yard of a house that’s
going to be built in Fort Ann, and the other one is just part of the Homeowners
Association common property.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Pretty close to being conforming? What does pretty close to being
conforming mean?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s what Kevin just said. They have the minimum lot size, which
is certainly the most significant. They have frontage on a road, but it’s a private road that
we’re going to maintain, but there’s no detriment. The Town requires frontage on a
public road. We have frontage on a private road. There’s plenty of private roads in
Queensbury, especially when you have a Homeowners Association. So that is, that’s
something that requires a variance, but I don’t think that’s a significant variance, because
they have frontage on a private road, which is a close distance to a County road.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Some of them require a variance, but you don’t believe they’re a
significant variance, but you do acknowledge the fact they do require a variance?
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But the comment, Mr. Chairman, the comment that she made was that
some of them are irregular. The ones that she’s talking about are not the three building
lots. The ones that are so irregular are these little lots that aren’t real lots. They’re not
building lots. They’re just a piece of something else, and that’s the comment that she
made, and I don’t think that that’s relevant because we’re not trying to make those
building lots. If we were, she’d be right. If we’re trying to make a building lot that’s a little
postage stamp, that would be a problem, but it’s not a building lot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-And I really just think that Blanche, I know she was at a conference last
week. She came back, she jumped on this, and we didn’t get to sit down with her and
explain this, and she just jumped into a large project and was trying to figure it out at the
last minute. So I don’t fault her for it. I just felt that we needed to come in tonight and
explain it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Anything else before we proceed?
MR. FRANK-Just to address some of the key points that Mr. Underwood read from the
Staff comments, as far as stormwater from the parking area. On the current plan, we
haven’t advanced the plans far enough because we’re not going in for site plan
application yet, to show the actual stormwater controls, but we have located footprints in
the area of the parking lot where we do show room where we control stormwater from
that. There was the issue of the proximity of the parking area to the proposed wells.
Obviously this will require Department of Health, DEC approval. We’ve had pre-
application meetings with both agencies, and they’re well aware of what we’re proposing
to do. We’ll continue to work with them as the process with the municipalities moves
forward. Shared driveway between Lots Two and Three, that’s certainly a valid comment
and something that could be looked at. As far as the Type I action, I don’t know if the
Board’s aware, but this is a Class A Regional project with the Adirondack Park Agency,
and as such they will be reviewing it as a Class A project, pretty much taking the place of
the local SEQRA review. The suitability of just two wells to serve the development. We
have scheduled well development and well pump testing for that. Again, that will be
under review of DOH and DEC, as far as permitting, and the sanitary waste disposal
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
area, located well away from the lakeshore on this dedicated lot that would be owned by
the transportation corporation, again, ongoing permitting discussions with DEC, DOH
and the APA.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s downhill between there and the lake?
MR. FRANK-What’s downhill?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t show the details on that.
MR. FRANK-You’ve got Pilot Knob Road, and then you’ve got some residents in this
area here. We do meet the required setbacks from the those.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because one of the concerns I had was if you’re going to do your
septic leach field at that point there, you know, with 20 dwellings pumping into one area,
you know, there are times of the year when the water table, like when you get big rain
events where everything sheet flows and everything else goes. So if you’re in an Elgin
type system there, whether that’s going to be.
MR. FRANK-Yes, if you’re familiar with this area, this is the open field area, once you’ve
passed the marina buildings. Very course materials in there. One of the problems that
we’re having with the Park Agency saying it’s perking too fast. We’ve got some
additional test pit and percolation tests that will be scheduled for the very near future with
the Park Agency and DEC and DOH.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do those dwellings have wells, or are they drawing from the lake?
Because I would assume at some point in the future everybody’s going to have to go to a
well instead of surface water from the lake.
MR. FRANK-They are on wells, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. FRANK-And we have located those, and we’ve made sure that we have enough
distance between our disposal field and those wells to meet regulatory agency
requirements.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you comment on the neighborhood, because Lakewood is up
there. I know people that live in Lakewood. Everybody in Lakewood is on a group septic
system also, which has worked successfully, but at the same time, everybody has their
own well up there. There’ve always been problems with water. A lot of people have had
to go back and re-fracture wells to get substantial flow enough to supply an ordinary
household, like when you do extra loads of wash and things like that. How is it that you
are going to presume that two wells are going to adequately provide water for 20
dwellings, if the neighborhood in general has had a problem in the past?
MR. FRANK-That’s a very good question. We, the LA Group, we’re not design utilities.
Delaware Engineering, down in Albany and Oneonta are. Based upon the information
they’ve reviewed to date, and based upon the conditions, surface and subsurface, they
feel pretty confident that they’ll be able to get the amount of water that’s necessary for
the primary source and the back up source to meet DOH and DEC requirements. Again,
that testing is scheduled for the very near future. Should that testing prove out that
there’s not ample water supply, then we’d have to go with Plan B.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because the other question I have is, you know, with those
wetlands coming off the Fort Ann side, through right adjacent to where the wells are
there, you set yourself up for, you know, if your perk is real high up there on your leach
field, I think you’re going to run into problems maybe once in a while where it overflows
into the wetland or, you know, I don’t know which way the water flows up there.
MR. FRANK-This is our wastewater disposal area here, and you’re concerned with
making it down into here and then down towards.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just saying if it goes laterally this way to the wetland to the
east. That wetland extends along the boundaries there.
MR. LAPPER-That goes uphill, right.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. FRANK-Right. The grade works its way down, yes. Everything is working its way
from the top of the hill here down to grade and then down to the (lost word).
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Question. The side setbacks are due to the sizes of the houses
proposed?
MR. FRANK-Yes, and the configuration of the lots.
MR. URRICO-Is there any chance that the houses could be reduced so there’s no side
setback?
MR. FRANK-There is a possibility. We don’t have final architectural drawings for those
buildings, but there is potential that those footprints could be adjusted somewhat to
increase the amount of side yard setback that we have on those. Right now we’re
dealing with the total square footage in number and a general footprint that would
encompass the whole building, including decks, porches, etc., and that’s what was
located on those lots.
MR. URRICO-So there’s a possibility that they can be reduced so you can eliminate the
side setback?
MR. FRANK-It’s feasible.
MR. URRICO-And as far as the private road, what’s the width that’s proposed?
MR. FRANK-Those are designed to meet Town standards. I don’t have the number off
the top of my head. It wasn’t worked out on the design, but they do incorporate Town
road standards.
MR. URRICO-Now, are the utilities going to be above ground? Is there going to be, are
there going to be power lines through there? How will that work?
MR. FRANK-I believe we had talked, Jon, about being underground.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They have to be underground.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why is it that we, you know, like with the CEA and Lake George
being the grand prize that everybody wants a piece of up there, why is it that we
shouldn’t consider that Fort Ann’s property on the west side of the road there be
considered as part of Queensbury, in much the same light as when you were
representing Bob Wall up on Antigua Road there. We were dealing with the same
aspect of forefront, back front. If you look at the camps along the lake there, the layout
as you proposed it to me, seems a little odd ball, because it doesn’t really, it really
doesn’t follow the way that most properties are on the lake, in other words, the roads
come down from the lake, from the highway down towards the lake. I think that then
your lots would be lined up, you know, kind of cookie cutter pattern as all the other
adjacent lots are along the shoreline there.
MR. LAPPER-What’s interesting here is that the area of shoreline is just a little piece
where the docks are, and of course the map doesn’t show it, but there are houses on the
other side that are cookie cutter, like you’re saying, along the lake. So these three
houses, in a sense, are perpendicular to the lake. So based upon the lake frontage on
this piece, it’s really kind of normal. It’s just that the lake intersects the road. It doesn’t,
because there’s land, but the lake is going one way and the road is going the other way,
cause it’s a bay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But you get a sense that you’re kind of clustering down there, you
know, with the Fort Ann and Queensbury together.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the simplest and most complete answer, Jim, is to say that the
cost of taking out a big commercial piece of property requires that there be some
lakefront homes to justify it, but not a lot of this property has lakefront, but these three
lakefront homes are crucial to the economics of being able to take out a commercial
marina. Otherwise you couldn’t afford to do that and it’ll just stay as a commercial
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
marina. With that said, most of the project is on the other side of the road. There’s really
not a lot going on here, and so we didn’t try to get 10 houses on the lake and come back
and say, hey, you want us to take out a commercial marina, we’ve got to do 10 houses.
We’re only doing three in the Town of Queensbury, on one acre lots.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the Park Commission going to be amenable to the amount of
docks that you have proposed though? I mean, I think that’s a pretty high number for,
you know, I mean, if you’re looking at, strictly from the Queensbury viewpoint, you know,
in other words, Lakewood’s the model to follow, which is just up the way there. I mean,
they have their lakefront with dockage, and I’m just wondering, is the Park Commission
going to give you the full number that you’re asking for?
MR. FRANK-We met with Mike White and Molly Gallagher last week and the indication
we got from them is they are comfortable with the number of slips we’re proposing now
as kind of a replacement of the pre-existing, nonconforming use that is there, and
realizing that the quick launch will be gone. There’ll be no boat launching. This will be
strictly, the docks will be there for the residents and their guests. So in terms of traffic,
etc., there’s going to be a serious reduction in the amount of boat traffic that’s going to be
experienced in this area.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I have two questions, and I just want to tag on to the back of Mr.
Underwood, you know, you don’t see these hammerheads very often, and I don’t, you
know, you came somewhat in explaining, you know, the purpose of the lakefront and all
three lots and so forth and so on, but in the Staff Notes there’s a comment that maybe
what we ought to do is not think in terms of 20 lots. Maybe we ought to think in terms of
a smaller number of lots, decrease the density and re-configure that a little bit. What is
your response to that?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s a hard comment to swallow, because compared to what’s
there now, 20 lots on 97 acres is not a very dense development, and the traffic impact is
greatly reduced from what’s there now, which we’ve gone through in terms of the
commercial use. The Queensbury lots, as we stated, are one acre or more. So it’s not
like we’re trying to jam houses on small lots in the Town of Queensbury. They’re
conforming size wise, and most of this is really back from the road, on the hill, in the
Town of Fort Ann, and the Fort Ann Planning Board, which we went to for Sketch Plan
approval, was very supportive of the project at our first meeting. So, you know, we think,
in terms of intensity of use of this site, this is much less intense, and that justifies the 20
lots.
MR. FRANK-In terms of the hammerhead, we have reviewed that with the local fire
department. They’ve looked at this plan, and they did not have a problem with that
consideration.
MR. BRYANT-The Queensbury Fire Department?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-At Fort Ann?
MR. FRANK-No, we met with the Queensbury.
MR. BRYANT-Do you have any documentation relative to that?
MR. FRANK-No, sir, we haven’t obtained that yet. We met with them probably back I
think it was in February. We met with the representatives of the fire department from
Queensbury, North Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-So let’s make a little note of that. We’re going to need something from the
fire department as well in writing. Go ahead, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Anything that, well, I’ve lost my train of thought. I’m sorry. You’ll have to
come back to me.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Garrand, would you like to proceed?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I’ve just got a couple of questions. Is this going to be operating as
like a Class B Marina or just an association similar to other areas as far as the dock
goes?
MR. FRANK-We envision it as an association, yes.
MR. LAPPER-No commercial, if you have a house, you get two slips, and there’ll be
some visitors docks, a few, but they’re not going to be rented out.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why would you assume you’re going to get two slips per house? I
mean, Lakewood only has one slip per house. So I don’t understand why you would get
two? I think that’s.
MR. LAPPER-One for a visitor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, but you’ve got to meet the requirements for
Queensbury and, you know, our requirements, there’s nothing in our Code book that
specifies that much dock space down there. I don’t see anything that even remotely.
MR. LAPPER-I guess one answer is because there’s already a lot of docks there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Do you know what I mean?
You’re trying to become more compliant.
MR. LAPPER-No. These are going to be high end houses, and so we’re trying to
provide them with one dock for the owner and one dock for a visitor.
MR. ABBATE-They’re going to be what kind of houses, tiny houses?
MR. LAPPER-No, high end, you know, expensive homes, not inexpensive. So we’re
going to try to provide them with nice amenities.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you’re going to have to get a variance for your docks,
then, from Town of Queensbury, along with whatever the Park Commission offers you at
some point.
MR. LAPPER-That may be required. There may be a variance, but Craig asked us to,
it’s not on a separate lot, so he asked us to handle the lots first and then to come back. I
mean, the dock configuration hasn’t been actually determined, and one thing that Kevin
mentioned, we have to go through a full APA process, and they are going to have a lot of
conditions as well. So, you know, it’s going to change.
MR. GARRAND-Archeologically sensitive area, is it like an old Indian burial ground or
something? What’s behind that?
MR. FRANK-We’ve been in discussions with the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, including a meeting we had with them in February. Where we are on that
issue, the Phase I-B study has been completed. It’s been determined that there was
some transient use of the site, and the area that’s identified on the site plan as being
potentially sensitive, right now there’s a Stage II data recovery study going on. As a
matter of fact, the archeologists were out there today doing additional pits and units in
that area, as directed, well, as agreed to by Parks and Rec as to what additional testing
needed to take place out there.
MR. ABBATE-Have you talked to the Town Historian about this?
MR. FRANK-I would have to check, sir, with the archeological consultant to see what
level of discussions have occurred with the Town Historian.
MR. LAPPER-I would suspect that happened. I haven’t seen the report yet, but they
would always check with the Town Historian when they do an archeological study.
MRS. JENKIN-Is this being done where the marina is now?
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. FRANK-The area that’s being tested, it’s probably difficult to read, up in here, but
you can see on the plans that you have, the area that’s identified as potentially sensitive
is surrounded by a dashed line, and that is right next to the existing single family home
that sits approximately in the middle of the site, off of Pilot Knob Road. It’s actually just
to the south of that single home.
MR. BRYANT-That’s in Fort Ann now, right?
MR. FRANK-Yes, sir, it is.
MR. BRYANT-There’s nothing in Queensbury that we should be concerned about,
relative to historical or archeological?
MR. FRANK-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions, ladies and gentlemen of the Board?
MRS. JENKIN-The three building lots, you’ve developed them to meet the requirements
of the one acre, but they’re so narrow. Had you thought of different configurations so
that they weren’t so narrow and long?
MR. FRANK-Yes. In general answer to your question, like Jon pointed out, we’re in an
unusual situation, whereas most of the times you’ll see the main road access paralleling
the lakefront. So it makes sense to load your lots perpendicular to the road, hence
perpendicular to the lake. The configuration of Irish Bay, on a broader scale, and more n
a smaller scale, with the way our particular lakefront is configured, makes it very difficult
to capture even three lots within the Town, and still be able to meet the area
requirements and the setback requirements. Yes, we, back in the office, probably have
five or six different iterations of trying to lay this thing out differently, and to get the
number of lots that the client deems are needed to make for a successful project, and it’s
not for a lack of trying, but this is the way, the best way we could come up with to fit
those three building lots in the Town.
MRS. JENKIN-So it’s for the economic feasibility of it, rather than?
MR. FRANK-There’s no secret that the value of those three lots with lakefront is a fairly
good component of the overall project. All the other lots will have access to the lake,
through the shared HOA docks, but that’s quite different from having your own private
lakefront and your own private dock.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for the Board at this particular time?
MR. BRYANT-I just thought of my question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant, please. All right, go right ahead.
MR. BRYANT-The grade as it shows, it appears that everything is going to kind of dump
into the Queensbury Lot Number One, that’s the way the grade is. It either goes towards
One, because you don’t really mark the grade.
MR. FRANK-Grade is all working in a down slope direction from the back of these lots
toward the front.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not what your lines show.
MR. FRANK-Well, topographically, your contours are running up the lots.
MR. BRYANT-It’s around the place where the house is, that’s where the grade actually
starts to go towards the dock.
MR. FRANK-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So primarily the grade is coming off the mountain, and you don’t list your
grade at the top very often. You do on the bottom, but primarily it looks like it’s down
sloping towards that one and I’m just wondering, you’ve got wetlands. I know the
Planning Board is going to cover this issue in depth. I just want to make sure we’re not
creating a situation that is going to, do you follow what I’m saying, the way the grade
runs, into that One.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. FRANK-Right. In looking at the topographic mapping on two foot contours, that
Dickenson Surveying produced, you have grades from this driveway down to this house
and then over for all of this running this direction. From here over, basically the edge of
this house, east, you have grades that drain to the east. So the vast majority of the
water, or the grades, are running from north to south, starting on this driveway, widening
out to here, and running down this way. It’s only this portion of the property within Lot
One that’s draining from east to west.
MR. JENKIN-And that drains to properties next to it?
MR. FRANK-Correct, and again, we had mentioned schematically showing stormwater
controls for the parking lot indicated by the dashed lines with the “P’s” inside those, you’ll
see for this building footprint driveway as well, we have stormwater control located on
the downhill side of the house and the driveway to treat that and to slow it down prior to
reaching the property line.
MRS. JENKIN-I have one more question with this wastewater disposal area. Is that
bedrock? How close to the surface is bedrock?
MR. FRANK-We went down six, eight, in some instances ten feet in that area and never
hit bedrock, not in this area. We have test pits throughout the project site. We were
examining the possibility of individual on site systems, but for the very reason that you
raise, in some instances on some of these lots you do have shallow bedrock. So, that’s
one of the reasons why we went with the alternative of the community system.
MR. GARRAND-Quick question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-When were the test pits done?
MR. FRANK-The test pits were done, late Fall of last year, and the additional work was
going to take place, it’s probably going to be within the next four weeks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s supposed to be in the Spring, right?
MR. FRANK-That’s why we’re going to do some additional testing in the Spring. The
initial testing was more for sizing of the field, design purposes. The additional work that’s
going to be done this Spring is more for the final permitting application that we’ve put
together.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I’m just wondering, you know, it depends on when you
do the test pits, of course it’ll give you an idea of surface, subsurface water and all that.
MR. FRANK-There’s no indication on any of the test pits of any mottling within the profile
that would indicate any prolonged seasonal high water table in any of those. Again, it’s
very course material in that area. In some cases I’d say the perks are almost marginally
too fast in that area.
MRS. JENKIN-Now, there’s a creek that runs the south of Lot Five, QB-5.
MR. FRANK-There’s a drainage that runs, starts off of the property, in this location here,
and runs down through the site between Lots FA-6 & 7. There’s an area where that’ll be
bridged, runs underneath Pilot Knob Road, through this wetland area, under an existing
culvert and into this part of the lake.
MRS. JENKIN-What happens in the Spring?
MR. FRANK-What happens in the Spring?
MRS. JENKIN-With the runoff. Does that become a considerable spring or closed
stream, creek?
MR. FRANK-That flows quite well. It flows even quite well in the Fall here. In dry years it
may not run in the middle of the summer, but it’s at least an intermittent stream.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have anymore questions from members of the Board at
this particular time? All right, none? Then what I’m going to do is open up the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 29-2007, and would those members of the public who
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
wish to be heard please raise your hand and I will acknowledge you and ask you to come
to the table. I’m going to recognize this young lady in the back of the room. Would you
be kind enough to come up the table, have a seat, speak into the microphone, tell us
your name and where you reside, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I
prefer to present my comments to the members of the Board and the applicant before
the meeting, but I missed the deadline. So I’d like to read it to you right now, if that’s
okay.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, yes.
MS. BOZONY-Okay. “Difficulty in this application is the fact that land for this 18 lot
subdivision project occurs both in the Town of Queensbury (4.5 acres) and the Town of
Fort Ann (93.2 acres). Although this is fact, Lake George is one watershed and
decisions for planning such a project should not be segregated between two
municipalities. Queensbury lots 1, 2, and 3 (referred to as Q1, Q2 and Q3) are small
sliver lots with insufficient lot widths. Large homes are proposed on these lots each with
a 4,000 sq. ft. footprint (8000+ total sq. ft. homes). Even though the acreage of the 3 lots
satisfies Queensbury zoning (minimum 1 acre per single family dwelling (SFD)) the total
of the 3 lot widths added together would be only enough land for 2 building sites. These
narrow lots (105, 87 and 106 ft wide respectively) are not adequate for the proposed
development, regardless of acreage. In addition to the 3 propose buildable lots there are
3 non-buildable lots that will be combined with Fort Ann property to become building
sites or a road. Adding the non-buildable Queensbury lot Q4 to Fort Ann lot FA1, the
new combined SFD site totals only 0.344 acres (1 acre minimum) and lot Q5 added to lot
FA4 (shoreline property that includes a community center, pool, 24 space parking lot and
wetlands) is only 1.69 acres. #9 on the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEQR)
states that the land is presently used as a non-conforming Marina, therefore commercial.
Discussing only the Town of Queensbury development, this is true, but looking at the
entire project, the majority of the land to be disturbed is forested/open space with slopes
in excess of 15% and roads crossing streams and wetlands. The lot line adjustments for
Queensbury and this subdivision have been drawn to maximize the number of building
sites, not to fit the existing available land. The density for the entire subdivision needs to
be reevaluated. Segmentation of the project within the 2 towns does not correctly
portray the environmental impact of development site, including the sensitivity of the
upland hillside and wetlands on the parcel. The cumulative impact of continuously
maximizing density on the shoreline and upland slopes of Lake George has negative
consequences on the water quality. The Lake George Association would request that
variances are not granted for this project and that the applicant mitigate the intensity of
development on this environmentally fragile hillside. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathleen S.
Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator”
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to introduce that into the record, please.
MS. BOZONY-Yes, I would, and I’ve got copies.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, would you kindly give it to our Secretary.
MS. BOZONY-Just one copy is good?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I suspect that would be fine.
MS. BOZONY-And I just wanted to make a comment. Q3, the lot, is utilizing that little
sliver of lakefront, I guess as its shoreline. Shoreline is 150 foot per property. I was
down on the site. I looked at it. I guess it’s lake, but it really looks like the tributary
coming out of, you know, that’s been dug out or something. Is anybody familiar? So it’s
being used, I believe, as part of the calculation to make sure that Q3 has enough
shoreline frontage in order to be a shoreline lot, but I don’t know, it’s a little bit
questionable to me.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much.
MS. BOZONY-Thank you.
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like
to address?
SUSAN WEBER
MS. WEBER-My name is Susan Weber. I’m a neighboring property owner on the lake,
and the reason I didn’t want to sit was I wanted to look at the schematic because I
haven’t had a chance.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like them to turn it sideways?
MS. WEBER-May I?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. BRYANT-There’s one on the table, isn’t there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right in front of you.
MS. WEBER-I think I’ll just confine my comments to generalizations here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MS. WEBER-The first thing I want to say, contrary to the allusions made by Mr. Lapper,
Fischer’s Marina is a wonderful neighbor. Thank you, guys, you’re wonderful. They’re a
wonderful neighbor, and I’m concerned with the increase in density on the property that
would be beyond its carrying capacity and which would perhaps, I don’t know, be
inconsistent with the rather modest scale of the other properties in the area. I’ve heard
comments that the footprint of these homes would be 4,000 square feet, two or three
stories. Three stories is extreme for this area. If you’re talking about narrow lots with
McMansions upon them, this would certainly be a risk for degradation of the area. Now,
I’m just hoping that this entire project be looked at as a whole, and not three building lots
in Queensbury, separate from the entire project, which is quite big. Okay. The other
thing I’d like to say is that some of my neighbors are summer residents, and a couple of
them phoned me to express a concern, and I can’t tell from, I’ll describe the concern and
then perhaps the project could respond to it. There is a naturally vegetated area that
goes along the property line of this project, I believe, behind the houses on Bean Road,
and that naturally vegetated area contains a stream. It’s an area of runoff. Right now
that area of runoff is running like crazy. It goes under Bean Road, and then it goes down
my property line and into the lake, and right now it’s running so well that it’s spreading
over my property somewhat, and that’s obviously the way it is at this time of year. We
are hoping that that area of vegetation not be disturbed when this project is developed,
because it would just increase the runoff and make it much more difficult for, it would
make it harmful for the lake, unfiltered water going in there. Right now we’ve got lots of
vegetation, so it filters the water, and those are the concerns that my neighbors asked
me to express.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much for your input. We appreciate it. Have a nice
evening.
MS. WEBER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen, do we have anyone else in the audience?
HOWARD FISCHER
MR. FISCHER-Hi. My name’s Howard Fischer. I’m one of the property owners there
with my family. Concern about the docks. The Lake George Park Commission says you
can have two boats per household. Okay. So the docks that they were talking about,
they’re allowed to have them for how many houses they have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s for waterfront property owners.
MR. FISCHER-That’s right, and I don’t know. I’m looking at, and I’m going to go back,
where you’ve got your boundary lines there, the boundary lines actually on that map
there are wrong, because I went to Fort Ann, when I got my taxes, I looked at that, and
Fort Ann boundary lines don’t conform with what you’ve got. You have a GPS system
that you did, and the old system was with the surveyor, and they said that what you’ve
done by GPS is fine, but you don’t have the right numbers. So you’ve actually taken a
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
big part of our storage building and the rest of that property away from Fort Ann. I’d just
mention that to you. I’m not trying to beat anybody up.
MR. ABBATE-That’s quite all right.
MR. BRYANT-Before you go on, can I just ask a question? Does that GIS map coincide
with his survey?
MRS. BARDEN-Probably not. No. I mean, this is not, too many layers, not accurate. I
certainly wouldn’t go by this.
MR. BRYANT-That GIS is not accurate.
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MR. FISCHER-I just wanted to make you aware of that. I’m not trying to beat you up, I
just wanted to make you aware of that. All right. I think, as a property owner, of what
they’re trying to do, for their houses, we’d like to put up on the Queensbury side and put
their private road in, that takes a lot of driveways off the Pilot Knob Road and puts it into
one area. So you don’t have, you know, everybody’s driveway coming in off Pilot Knob
Road, which makes one private road which would be much better, I think, for a driveway
system than having six driveways or three driveways and all that. All right. I can’t say
too much. This is my first trip with this here. So I don’t have anything else to say.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, if you think of anything else to say, let us know. Thank you
very much for your testimony.
MR. ABBATE-Would you have a seat, sir, and speak into the microphone and tell us who
you are, please.
LARRY FISCHER
MR. FISCHER-I’m Larry Fischer, 1223 Pilot Knob Road, and I would like to thank you for
coming up today.
MRS. JENKIN-You’re welcome.
MR. FISCHER-You’re the first person I’ve seen from the Town to oversee this project.
Since we have this up here, let’s talk about a couple of different things. I’d just like to
clarify a couple of things here, and like I said, I’d like to thank the lady that came up to
speak to me today. First of all, as we know, this whole line is wrong. We had that
discussion today. When you’re talking a septic system, you’re talking up here. This is
my house. This is the septic system, and this is the lake. That’s how far the distance is.
The stream that was just talked about is right here, and what I have back here, this used
to be a cow farm here. There’s a natural stream right here, and I have a pump in my
back yard, and that’s what feeds that stream, and the more it rains, the more my pump
pumps. That’s where the cows used to get water. Okay. A couple of other comments.
One about density, and I don’t know what to say about this, because I ride up and down
the Cleverdale Road a lot, and I see people building places where I couldn’t even think
you could build a house. I go on Assembly Point. I see places built where I didn’t even
think you could build a place. They built three houses on 4.5 acres, take a ride up and
down Cleverdale Road, or Assembly Point Road. Lakewood, that was brought up. I
should have bought a lot in there for $31,000. That was an old project. It’s a good
project, it’s a model. You see how well it works. That’s what these people want to do.
They want to do a quality act just like Lakewood. Okay. These people are trying to do a
quality project. Howie an I could keep the marina operating, and we’re not existing. We
could work 24 hours a day, increase the size of it, the business and everything else.
Eighteen homes on 100 acres is not bad. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have
anyone else?
JEFF CHRISTOPHER
MR. CHRISTOPHER-I’ll make it short and sweet.
MR. ABBATE-Well, tell us who you are, first.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. CHRISTOPHER-My name is Jeff Christopher. I live on Bean Road. I’ve lived there
for probably 27 years.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CHRISTOPHER-I have, it’s in the early stages of this project, I understand, and the
amount of homes and everything in here, and they do want to do a quality job. It’s just
my concern, I think it’s like Sue said it best, Sue Weber, that there is a buffer zone
between the people that live on Bean Road and this project to make sure that we have
that buffer zone between the two of us, and as far as the stream’s concerned, Larry, he
addressed that. I’ve known the Fischers for as long as probably anybody else has, but
like I say, it’s just in the early stages, the runoff of the water to make sure it’s not going to
go into the lake. Larry was pointing out on the picture where the septic system’s going to
go for the project, which is further north, which is, there is residents that live there, is to
make sure that that septic system is going to stay there. That’s my concerns, and
basically that’s all I have to say.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. Do we have any other folks in
the audience? Would you tell us who you are, please.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Many
of the comments I have are very general, but I’d go to Mr. Bryant’s concerns, that things
that you might do would make it difficult for the Planning Board at a later time. So you
should be concerned about that. I take issue with Mr. Lapper’s comment that this
conversion will have less of an environmental impact on the land. Certainly a marina
operator, marina customers do not bring washing machines and dishwashers and
Jacuzzis and that sort of thing. They have very, very small wastewater discharge,
marina customers. That’s what’s going on on the lot now. You put 20 mega homes on
that property and you are going to have wastewater discharge like you’ve never seen
before, and it will negatively impact the lake. I’m glad to hear that there is a business
plan for homeowners association. With regard to the water wells, before they can file the
homeowners association document, that is called the offering plan with the Attorney
General’s office, these wells must be proven. They must be proven. They’ve got to be
drilled. They’ve got to be test pumped. The water’s got to be tested, and all of that is
part of the offering plan, a water report. I have experience with this sort of thing, where
the DEC, the DEC encumbered that permit with the condition that the developer and the
homeowners association subsequently be responsible for the diminution in the supply of
neighboring water wells. That’s almost a showstopper, but that is in the water report.
The other thing that the DEC requires is water meters on each of the individual homes.
So I’ve seen that before. I’ve seen it in the water reports, but the important thing is the
wells have got to be proven, or you have no project. A homeowner with two docks,
renting one of them out, is operating a Class B Marina. That’s a commercial operation.
Usually homeowners, members of homeowners associations are not allowed, by the
conditions of their offering plan, to conduct commercial business on the property. So I
don’t know how this is going to work. Speaking of the three non-buildable lots, it seems
to me one of them is a road, and two of them are contiguous to the road. Is that your
understanding? No?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think that’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-It’s my understanding that those two are basically the back yards for the
Fort Ann houses. That’s the way I understand it. One is for the road, and then the other
two are the back yards for the Fort Ann properties.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Why can’t all of this be common land, and in the name of the
homeowners association? I mean, what you do is you dedicate this 90 some acres of
land to the homeowners association, and the sponsor retains the title to each of these
lots that’s left over from the great big. The rest of it remains in the name of the
homeowners association, and it’s their responsibility. That’s where their water system is.
That’s where their septic system is. That’s where their roads are, lighting, whatever have
you. The other thing, there was mention about the fire department approving the access
or something. I think you’ve been through this before. It’s the Town Fire Marshal that is
the enforcement officer for fire protection, the Fire Marshal. This is a Planning Board
issue also, but I think there should be an encumbrance on this development to no further
subdivision, no further subdivision of the lots. If a mound system is going to be put in for
this septic system, I believe our Code requires it to be 1,000 feet from the lake, and I
don’t know what that distance is, but that should be. There are some notes here I’m
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
reading through. The applicant should seek a less dense subdivision. That’s been
mentioned and talked about and I second that motion. The property is located near the
border between Fort Ann and the Town of Queensbury and located on Lake George, a
Critical Environmental Area. That should underlie everything you do, the Critical
Environmental Area. That has to be respected, and the re-classification of the action to
Type I is paramount. That is paramount. Some kind of a coordinated review has got to
be conducted between the Town of Fort Ann and the Town of Queensbury on this thing.
You can’t get into a situation like Lakewood. I could write a book on that project, but in
any case, maybe it’s the APA that does this. They have jurisdiction in both communities.
Maybe that is the Lead Agency for this whole thing, don’t know.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You have one minute, Mr. Salvador, please.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, good. There’s mention here that please provide a Phase I study
of the site. That’s an environmental study. A Phase I study is very simple and casual.
It’s kind of a walk through to determine whether or not a Phase II should be undertaken.
Now in a site where you’ve had gasoline handling, gasoline storage, lubricants stored, as
well as wastewater handling, a Phase II is going to be necessary, and I think that should
be required. Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, one more thing. I don’t know how this density thing works,
but I refer you to Section 179-6-060, Paragraph C, with regard to lakeshore frontages.
Let me read the paragraph. “minimum shore frontages for contractual access” This is
the funneling effect. “The following minimal frontages shall be required for deeded or
contractual access to all such lakes, ponds, rivers or streams for two or more lots,
parcels or sites or multiple-family dwelling units not having separate and distinct
ownership of shore frontage”. If you’re going to allow these people up on the other side
in the Town of Fort Ann to access the lake, then “Where two to four lots, parcels or sites
or multiple-family dwelling units are involved, a total of not less than 100 linear feet of
shoreline”, and then, “25 feet of additional shoreline for each lot, parcel, or site or
multiple-family dwelling unit thereafter.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your time is up, Mr. Salvador. We’ve given you more than five
minutes. Do we have anyone else in the public who’d like to address this issue? If not,
would the applicants like to respond to any of the comments that were made?
MR. FRANK-Realizing that it’s getting late, I’d like to just hit a few of the key issues that I
made note of. There was mention of hillside development of this project. Again, I’d just
like to remind the Board this is an almost 100 acre site that extends well up the hillside
towards Pilot Knob. Again, all the development is located on the lower slopes, within
500 to 750 feet of Pilot Knob Road. There is no hillside development. No one’s going to
be renting a dock as part of this development, second point. There will be no mound
system. Mr. Salvador mentioned, frankly the APA does not allow them within the
Adirondack Park. The last point is there has been a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment performed for the property. If those results had not been favorable and if
there were widespread contamination on this property, Irish Bay Partners would not be
moving forward with this proposed re-development of these lands, and I could certainly
provide that report to either the ZBA or the Planning Board or whoever at the local level
would like to see that Phase I report.
MR. LAPPER-And I just want to simply point out that the, we’ve already stated it, but it
was raised. The homeowners association will own the sewer and water systems and all
the land that they’re located on.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any
comments that you’d like to offer?
MR. URRICO-Are we sitting back waiting for somebody to step forward to be the Lead
Agency, or can we direct?
MR. LAPPER-Let me address that. This is not really subject to SEQRA because if it’s an
APA Class A or Class B Regional project, it’s exempt from SEQRA, which doesn’t mean
there’s no environmental review. It means that the APA is going to review all of these
environmental issues as part of its permitting process, and the APA looks at Fort Ann
and Queensbury together as one project.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MR. URRICO-I’ll repeat my question, because it seems to me in the notes that, it says,
we have received no official communications from Fort Ann.
MR. ABBATE-I said that, that’s correct. That’s absolutely accurate.
MR. URRICO-All right, but are we just waiting for a phone call, or can we make a phone
call, I mean, what’s needed to make it coordinated? Because this is a big enough
project. It needs the input of both towns. So what has to be done to do that?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to say something, you know, in that regard, in the comments
that the Staff Notes reflect as far as Matt Fuller’s belief that Fort Ann should be the Lead
Agency, I’ve got to tell you, these lots, even though we only have three building lots in
the Town of Queensbury, they’re on the lake. All the other property, all the other
wetlands, everything else is draining towards those properties on the lake. All this
development is going to affect, in my view, we’re the affected parties here. So I don’t
agree with Matt Fuller. I think we ought to be the Lead Agency, or us in conjunction with
our Planning Board, or something of that nature. As far as Fort Ann is concerned,
they’re not the affected parties.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s too many if’s, ands or buts, and ors on this project for
us to act on it this evening. I do agree fully with Mr. Bryant that Queensbury should be
the local agents on this project. It has nothing to do with Fort Ann, and I think that, as the
affected party, as the Critical Environmental Area exists within the Town of Queensbury,
and no access is going to occur to this lake without passing through our community, we
are the gateway for whatever happens here. Like it or not whether Fort Ann wants to
deal with us, that’s their problem, because I think that Queensbury’s expertise in the
matter would probably be much greater than Fort Ann’s would be, based upon their track
record, and I also would agree that, you know, there are too many outstanding issues
here. I think this should be referred to the Planning Board in its initial form. I don’t think
what we we’re going to end up with is going to be anything like we’re seeing here tonight,
and I think it would be very premature for us to act on this or to offer any kind of advice.
They’ve listened to our comments. There should be a public hearing on this because it’s
a substantial project, and whether it’s a Regional Class A project and it’s going to the
APA eventually, it’s still our community. So we get a say in the matter, too. So I think
that we should send it to the Planning Board, let them look at it. They’re going to offer
suggestions, and I think that the amount of development that’s proposed here is way
over the top for what the capacity is up there. You’re talking steep slopes, and I think
that the Queensbury regulations should apply, not only to our area of the community
that’s in the project, but also the Fort Ann part, so there’s continuity.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I actually, I’ve got to agree with Mr. Underwood in that regard.
There are a lot of questions. I know that the applicant has made the argument that the
density is not really that intense and so forth and so on, but how much thought has been
put into possibly downsizing the project a little bit, as far as the number of building lots.
Some other questions that came up, the actual relief requested for the building lots. I
know Mr. Lapper touched on that, and clarified some of the items that are in the Staff
Notes, but I think I’d like to have it totally spelled out. The effects of the wetlands, the
wetlands should be verified by an expert, because you do have wetlands in the Town of
Queensbury, and then of course what is the affect of all the, there’s a lot of wetland area
in the Town of Fort Ann that’s going to be draining into Queensbury, which is draining
now, but, you know, how is the new development going to affect it. They talk about the
parking lot, for example, what action is taken to protect the lake from all these cars. A
point that Underwood made relative to the dock. I mean, in reality, you’ve got three
building lots. You really should have six docks, I mean, you know, I mean, I can
understand that you want all the lots to have access to the lake. That’s a unique
circumstance. What are we going to do to assure that the three non-buildable lots are
going to stay non-buildable forever? The point that was brought up about the two wells, I
don’t remember who brought that point up, but I mean, I think we should have some
testing in that regard. I mean, are the wells going to be valid? I mean, this is a big
project.
MR. LAPPER-No complaints for us.
MR. BRYANT-We talked about Phase I, Phase II study on the pollutants and so forth and
so on, and it’s okay to say that, well, we wouldn’t be involved in the project if there were
any pollutants, but, you know, we have to see the report. We’ve got to see that there are
no pollutants. I mean, the subject that you brought up relative to the sewage and so forth
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
and so on, that’s on the homeowner’s property. I mean, that’s uncommon. I’m just
wondering, you know, what is the outcome? If that fails, you have 20 families, you know,
I mean, there are a lot of questions, and Mr. Underwood, I think, said it best. Probably
should go to the Planning Board and like to put some kind of timeframe on it, though,
because I don’t want it running six years. We should say 60 days or something, and see
what kind of, that’s the way I feel.
MR. GARRAND-I’d also agree with Mr. Underwood. I think we should defer to the
Planning Board for a review and recommendation on this one. I also would like to see
the Phase I environmental before we make any decisions. I also believe that what we
see down the road might not be exactly what we’re looking at here, after the Planning
Board looks at it. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with them reviewing it before we ever
see it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-My feeling is the way it has been presented, and with the variances, if we
were to vote on the variances, I myself would be against this, just because of the
crowded appearance and the excessive density and everything. So I think it should go to
the Planning Board, maybe changes will be made and then it might come back looking
different.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MRS. HUNT-I have a lot of questions, and I really would feel much more comfortable
with the Planning Board looking at it and coming back to us. There’s no point in giving
variances now if the Planning Board hasn’t looked at it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you so very much.
MR. URRICO-I don’t think I even gave my comment. I asked a question. I don’t want
that to be misinterpreted, but I agree with what the majority of the Board has said. I also
think at this point the variances that are presented are not something I would ever
consider. I think it is too dense for that area, and there’s going to have to be some
mitigation, whether it comes from the Planning Board or it comes from the applicant,
there’s going to have to be some consideration. Also, I don’t want to sound like that I
was suggesting Fort Ann take the lead on it. I’m saying if we’re going to take the lead,
let’s do it. Let’s not wait for somebody else to make the call. Let’s do it, because I think
there’s a lot at stake here, and there’s other considerations as well, which the Planning
Board will consider, and that is it’s very easy, in a project of this size, to say, well, we
have like 100 acres, but when you start taking out all the buildable parts of the land,
there really isn’t that much left, and that’s something they’ve been dealing with, you
know, dealing with steep slopes and wetlands and such that are not buildable, and it’s
one of the things the Town has been talking about in their Comprehensive Land Use
Plan is trying to fix that so that it’s not something that is used to mitigate what is an
enormous project squeezed into a small area. So my stand is that we send it to the
Planning Board as well, with those understandings.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, could I just make a procedural comment, right now? And
this is probably a real bad idea on my part, but I’m going to go with Mr. Lapper’s
comments and against the recommendation of the Executive Director, in the sense that
this is a Type II SEQRA action for both our Boards and for the Town of Fort Ann. So
there is no coordinated review. There’s no SEQRA review. It’s a Regional, it’s a Class A
project. So APA does their own SEQRA-like review. So I guess I would suggest go
ahead and send it to the Planning Board for review, but they’ll just give you a
recommendation. They won’t give you a SEQRA determination.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your comments. I’m going to move a motion.
MOTION TO FORWARD AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 IRISH BAY PARTNER LLC
c/o JOHN LEFNER, TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH A RETURN DATE OF 60 DAYS FROM THIS DATE,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
That a copy of the minutes of the ZBA meeting accompany that. With a recommendation
from the Zoning Board of Appeals that this be classified as a Class I action. The return
date to the Zoning Board of Appeals will be 60 days from this date.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to forward to the Planning Board for review and recommendation
with a return of 60 days, with a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of the
meeting as well as the recommendation that this classification be changed to a Type I
action is seven yes, zero no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I also add an addendum to that?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you may.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would like copies of our minutes provided to all the members of the
Planning Board that they will read before they have their meeting.
MR. ABBATE-I said that. Yes, I already said that in there. The vote is seven yes, zero
no. The Area Variance No. 29-2007 will be forwarded to the Planning Board with the
comments made in my motion. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-I just want to say that we understand that the project, that there’s going to
be a coordinated review, even though it’s not a “SEQRA” review, there’ll be a
coordinated review with Fort Ann, Queensbury and the APA, and that’s appropriate and
we knew that coming in here. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’re most welcome. Staff, would you also ensure, please, that
the minutes of this meeting go to the Planning Board. Now, I have several other things
to do, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, please. One of the first things I have to do this
evening, I sent out e-mails to all of you folks, and I would like you to be kind enough to
adopt my motion to revise the Area Variance application dated April 24, 2007.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. The only question I had was on Page Five, there was a
lot of stuff that doesn’t pertain to the, I mean, is that necessary?
MR. ABBATE-Staff thinks it’s necessary.
MR. BRYANT-Because it doesn’t pertain to an Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-What we’re going to do is trying to make applications apply to everybody,
basically.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to move a motion.
MOTION TO ADOPT THE REVISED AREA VARIANCE THAT CHARLES ABBATE
COMPLETED, THE APPLICATION FORM DATED APRIL 24, 2007, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The motion to adopt the Area Variance application form dated April 24,
2007 is seven yes, zero no. The application form revised, dated April 24, 2007, is duly
adopted. Thank you very much. One other thing, we’re not done yet, ladies and
gentlemen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 21, 2007
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/25/07)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes to approve the minutes for March 21, 2007.
March 28, 2007
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six yes, zero no. The minutes of the meeting for March 28,
2007 are approved. Ladies and gentlemen, I really appreciate what we’ve done this
evening. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
64