2007-07-25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2007
INDEX
Area Variance No. 42-2007 Morgan Vittengl 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-48
Area Variance No. 29-2007 Irish Bay Partner LLC 2.
c/o John Lefner
Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3
Area Variance No. 45-2007 Frederick E. Whitesel 18.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-44
Area Variance No. 47-2007 Brett R. & Pamela T. West 22.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17
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 07/25/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
CHARLES MC NULTY
ALLAN BRYANT
RICHARD GARRAND
ROY URRICO
BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE (FILLED IN FOR R. GARRAND WHO LEFT EARLY)
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 25 July 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. This 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. We will invite public comments 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 to this Board only.
All dialogues during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. I’m going
to request that the Secretary monitor the time, and Mr. Secretary, do we have any
correspondence that should be read into the record, if so, would you please read it into
the record.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2007 SEQRA TYPE II MORGAN VITTENGL OWNER(S):
MORGAN VITTENGL ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 155 BIRDSALL ROAD
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 168 SQ. FT. CONNECTION (ADDITION)
BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 97-247 GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-48 SECTION: 179-4-030
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have a letter received on 7/19/07, and that was regarding the
Morgan and Mary Vittengl property at 155 Birdsall Road, that was Area Variance No. 42-
th
2007, that’s a letter requesting a tabling until September 19 because of more
calculation that needs to be done from Stephanie Bitter, and the Chairman has
recommended that we make a motion to honor that request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. In order to honor that request, I’m going to move a motion to table
Area Variance No. 42-2007.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2007 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Tabled to the 19 September 2007 hearing date, this is based upon a request from their
Counsel.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero. Area Variance No. 42-2007 is tabled at their
request to the 19 September 2007 hearing.
OLD BUSINESS:
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 FOUR (4) PARCELS WITHIN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY RELIEF WOULD BE NEEDED FROM THE DOCK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CODE. 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, JOHN LEFNER, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2007, Irish Bay Partner LLC c/o John Lefner,
Meeting Date: July 25, 2007 Project Location: Bean Road Description of Proposed
Project: The Applicant proposes a residential subdivision 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 Ann). [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 4 lots in the Town of Queensbury—3 single
Family building lots and 1 non-building lot. The property straddles the Town of
Queensbury / Fort Ann boundary line (Warren and Washington Counties) and Matt
Fuller, Esq., our Town Counsel is counsel to both communities. Approval is also
required by the APA.
Relief Required: -
Lot numbers QB-1 QB-2 QB-3 QB-4
Proposed Shoreline 0 214 215 285
(min required 150 ft)
Proposed Road frontage 0 0* 0 0
(min required 40 ft)
?
While it appears as though QB-2 may have frontage on Bean Road it is unclear
as to whether that portion of Bean Road has been improved to Town standards.
In any event, the applicant is not proposing access from Bean Road and seeks
relief to access from Pilot Knob Road.
?
With the submission of this revised proposal and the desire to consider the dock
facilities along with the subdivision review several concerns have yet to be
addressed.
Per §179-6-060, C; minimum shoreline for contractual access needs to be
o
addressed by the applicant. If QB-1 is to have lake access through and
over QB-2 and QB-3 the easement should be shown on the plans. If all
lots are to have access to QB-4, then QB-4 needs to have 500 feet of
shoreline to meet the requirement of this section ( 100 ft minimum plus 25
ft per each lot above 4 lots: 100 + (16 x 25=400) = 500.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
?
With the creation of new parcel lines, setback violations are being created with
respect to property line setbacks for docks as well as violations relative to
allowable number docks per parcel and with regards to allowable dock
configurations.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
The proposal would allow the applicant to redevelop the existing commercial marina in to
a residential subdivision and create parcels for sale.
2.
Feasible alternatives:
With respect to the minimum road frontage requirements, the options appear to be
somewhat limited. Has the applicant explored the possibility of extending Bean Road to
Pilot Knob Road, thus making Bean Road a loop road? The existing Bean Road should
be mapped on SK-2 as well as all sheets for Board reference. With respect to the
shoreline access and dock setbacks it would appear as though further consideration to
alternative plans should be explored.
3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance:
The cumulative requests for relief, when coupled with the quantities of relief requested
from each regulation, the overall request may be interpreted as substantial when viewed
against the Town Zoning requirements.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Impacts related to the change from a commercial marina to a 20 lot residential
subdivision with a formal lake lot/beach house and a substantial marina for the
homeowners are expected.
5.
Is this difficulty self-created?
A portion of the difficulty can be interpreted as self created, however, given the location
of the Queensbury lands and the public highway, the necessity for road frontage relief
has not been created by the applicant.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Building Permits 95-053, 93-04 and 92-022 – Fischer’s Marina
Staff comments:
A comprehensive evaluation of the proposed dock/shoreline access issues has not been
performed by staff as not enough details regarding the same has been submitted.
Consideration should be given to withholding a decision until the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board has acknowledged their satisfaction with an acceptable proposal. The
applicant may and it is staffs suggestion that they do, resubmit a revised SKETCH PLAN
subdivision application to the Planning Board for review and comment while at the same
time make identical submissions to Fort Ann so that both Planning Boards are reviewing
identical information as they formulate their comments. Upon receipt of such comments
from the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals might be in a more informed
position prior to rendering a decision on the variance requests. Such review by the
Planning Board may result in yet further revisions thereby eliminating the need for some
of the relief requests currently sought by the applicant. The construction of a public road
(Bean Road extension) would eliminate all but one of the road frontage relief requests
and would provide an alternative emergency access route as well allow for easier
maintenance of Bean Road. The current proposal calls for the construction of nearly
2000 lf feet of public roads in Fort Ann. Additional information on the usage of QB-4
would be beneficial. Will the lot be used in conjunction with the “boat storage” planned
for lot FA-16? Will the ramp be maintained for boat launching? How will this be
monitored?
SEQR Status:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
As the Adirondack Park Agency has rendered a jurisdictional determination and
classified this project as a Class A Regional project, it becomes a SEQR Type II action
with the Town of Queensbury. As such, no SEQR finding is necessary. However, a
comprehensive environmental review is likely to be conducted by the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board in conjunction with or at least with input from the Town of
Fort Ann Planning Board.”
MR. ABBATE-Obviously, Counsel for the appellant is here this evening. Would you be
kind enough, please, sir, to identify yourself.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, project attorney. With me
is Kevin Frank, on my right, from the LA Group, and John Lefner, on behalf of the
applicant. I guess I’d like to start out saying that I received the Staff Notes this morning
from the Planning Staff, and we were shocked, only because we thought that we had a
really constructive meeting with the Board last time. We removed a request for
substantially all of the variances that we had, which was based upon our previous
meeting with the Planning Board where they didn’t recommend two of the variances for
the minimum lot width and side setbacks on the homes, and as a result of that, we took
away one of the lakefront lots, and we’ll go through this again on the Board, but moved it
away from the lake so we only have two lakefront lots in Queensbury, made the lots
conforming, and the only, the variances that we’re seeking for the lots are what we
considered minor and technical, because the idea of putting in a Town road when you
don’t need a Town road, all we have is a shared driveway, it’s much less pavement,
much less impervious surfaces. We’re not creating stormwater that has to be treated,
except for the small driveway area. A road would be much more significant, but we were
shocked that Staff could be suggesting the idea that Bean Road would be a feasible
alternative. I’m sure that you guys have all been out there, and I question whether Staff
has, but Bean Road is about one and a half car lengths wide. It has a dangerous left turn
in it, and it’s 10 feet from a house that’s right shown on our map in dotted lines. So the
idea that you’d want to have all this, the traffic from Bean Road come through this
property and anybody here go through Bean Road, it’s not built to Town standards. It’s
10 feet from this poor woman’s house, and it’s not wide enough, and there’s no right of
way to make it wide enough. So I just, I can’t imagine where anyone’s coming from. I
mean, we went through this before, and I think the Board was very comfortable, the idea,
these roads, these homes don’t have frontage on a Town road because of the cut off
between the Town of Fort Ann and the Town of Queensbury. They are near Pilot Knob
Road. So we’re proposing to get to them with a driveway, which is just a very simple
way to access these. In terms of QB-4, the Homeowners Association lot, that is going to
be connected with FA-4, Fort Ann Lot 4. So it’s all going to be one lot. It’s just that
technically it’s two tax map parcels because it’s in the two counties. It’s on two maps,
but that’s a non-building lot. There’s certainly no significance at all. You get to it by
driving in from Pilot Knob Road into the parking lot on FA-4, and this’ll be combined. So I
don’t understand where Staff is coming from on those variances, but I guess to get back
to where we were at the end of the meeting last time, after, again, what I consider a very
constructive and positive discussion, the Board asked us to submit three pieces of
information, which we did, a week after the meeting, as we were required to. The
wetland calculation was placed on the map which showed that when you take the total
land minus the wetland area, we have the right to do four building lots, and we’re
proposing three building lots in Queensbury, and that’s right at the top right of the map
that was submitted. The revised subdivision plat was what we had explained to you last
time, and again, what was requested of us by the Planning Board. So we went to the
Planning Board already. They made their suggestion, and we changed the plan to
request less relief. I guess I’d just like Kevin to go up and just point out, what we have
on the board is the pink buildings, which shows all the commercial activity, which exists
right now, the boat sales, service, fuel service, all the storage, and that was our original
plan, beneath the pink building, which are the three lake lots, which were the narrow lake
lots that the Planning Board and this Board weren’t in favor of. Kevin, could you just turn
th
that over to the new plan. This is what we submitted after out last meeting on June 27.
th
The submission date was June 27. It shows the three building lots, only two of which
are lakefront. So when Jim read the Staff Notes and it said proposed shoreline minimum
150, QB-1 it says zero, that should be not applicable because it’s not a shoreline lot. So
there is no shore. It’s not that we’re asking to have zero. It’s that it doesn’t have any
shoreline. So we’ve now got three building lots, only two of which are shoreline lots, and
as you can see, they meet the minimum area of one acre. They meet the minimum
width. So there’s no variances required, other than the fact that they’re on a driveway
rather than a road, and the other issue that came up was the dock configuration, and
what we elected to do, after we put our heads together, after the last meeting, was just to
go back to the original, the existing, the pre-existing docks that are there right now. The
marina, we’re not proposing to change that configuration at all, and that’s what’s right
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
there now which is grandfathered, and it can be used until the end of time, staying as
that dock configuration, even though the rest of the marina operations are going to be
removed, obviously, and all the buildings. Staff went on to ask about the boat launch,
and we had mentioned that at previous meetings, that that’s not going to be part of the
project. It’s just that the Fort Ann, the Volunteer Fire Department asked us to keep that
there so that they can have a boat launch to get into the water if they need to fight fires
from the water, but it’s not going to be used for launching boats, and the homeowners
aren’t going to be able to use it. They would have to go to a marina if they want to
launch their boats, not this one, and the other question was whether there would be any
boat storage on Lot Four, and the answer is no, that’s not going to be used for boat
storage. The boat storage is off the lake. I think that pretty much addresses the Staff
Notes and the tabling resolution. Kevin, is there anything you’d like to add at this point?
MR. FRANK-No.
MR. ABBATE-I do have one question for the record, Counselor. When did you receive
these Staff Notes?
MR. LAPPER-This morning.
MR. ABBATE-Is that sufficient time for you to address all these concerns?
MR. LAPPER-Well, if they were the Staff Notes I expected, it would have been okay, but
I mean, I had to call to get them faxed to me this morning, and it would have been,
obviously, more convenient if I had them last week so we would have had more time to
talk about it and prepare.
MR. ABBATE-You had to ask them to fax these notes to you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Anybody on the Board have any questions concerning?
MR. BRYANT-I have a couple.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. BRYANT-You just made a statement, relative, I think it’s to Lot Number One, it has
no shoreline, therefore it has no lake access. Is it going to have lake access in Lot
Number Four?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-What is your take on the Staff Notes relative to the additional shoreline
that you need to compensate for that?
MR. LAPPER-My answer to that this is a pre-existing marina. So that this can be
continued to be rented out as marina space and used as a marina until the end of time.
So that we’re not changing it at all, that that use is permitted, and we’re not changing that
use, and I know that we’ve had that discussion with Craig Brown previously, although it’s
not reflected in the Staff Notes.
MR. BRYANT-I’ll address that in a second. I just want to clarify that you’re not going to
do anything to the docks. They’re going to stay exactly the way they are?
MR. LAPPER-The only, the two docks that are on Queensbury Lot Two are the docks for
Lots Queensbury Two and Queensbury Three, and those are new docks, which are
conforming. There’s nothing new on the marina docks, which is everything else. Is that
correct, Kevin, that those docks are new right there?
MR. FRANK-These docks exist.
MR. LAPPER-They do exist as well. Then I’m wrong.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, because they show on the GIS.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. LAPPER-Okay. You’re right. They’re exactly the same.
MR. BRYANT-So, you just made a statement about the existing use, for it to be a
marina, and I understand that, but maybe Staff can clarify it. I mean, once they
subdivide the property, I mean, the whole property is used as a marina now. Once they
subdivide the property, all bets are off, right?
MR. B. FRANK-I’m not sure about that. As you know, the Zoning Administrator is the
one that reviewed this application and processed these notes, and as Mr. Lapper has
stated, he hasn’t commented on that, and if he’s stating that they had some kind of
agreement that that use can continue, I would believe it would be able to continue. I
don’t know what would prevent it from being continued. That wasn’t addressed in
previous meetings? Was it commented on during the previous meetings?
MR. BRYANT-No. The marina was mentioned in a previous meeting, but it wasn’t, in
order words, we weren’t hanging our hat on the fact that it’s a pre-existing marina. Now
we are, relative to the docks.
MR. B. FRANK-To the best of my knowledge, when the Zoning Administrator was going
on his vacation, which started Friday, I had a meeting with him on Thursday and I wanted
him to enlighten me on everything on this application, and he told me everything that was
in the Staff Notes would address everything, and if it’s not in there, I believe it’s not an
issue.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Any other members of the Board have any questions
concerning Area Variance No. 29-2007? I’ve got a couple of questions here. What is
relatively new is Staff comments, frankly. There’s an issue here. It says a
comprehensive evaluation of the proposed dock/shoreline access issues has not been
performed by Staff as not enough details regarding the same has been submitted. I’m
not going to ask Bruce any questions. I think it’s really unfair to ask him any kind of
questions concerning this, but I address the question to you, Counselor.
MR. LAPPER-Our answer is that that dock configuration exists. We submitted this plan
seven days after the last meeting because that’s what you asked us to do and obviously
got the stuff this morning, but our position is that what we have on the plan is exactly the
docks that exist now, that you can verify by looking at the aerial photography.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What is the Park Commission’s opinion on the docks, though? I
mean, have they issued any formal? I just wondered if there was any kind of a formal
determination made by the Park Commission. I mean, that’s ultimately the.
MR. FRANK-Kevin Frank, for the applicant. Both Mr. Lefner and I have met with the
Park Commission on two occasions, I believe. They are comfortable with the
preservation of the dock configuration, and its current configuration, and being able to
serve the project that’s currently proposed. Obviously they said it has to go before their
Board for a formal presentation, but during the two meetings that we had with Mike White
and Molly certainly, Jon, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but there were no red flags that
went up in either one of those two meetings as to the perseverance of this docking
facility in its current configuration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I’m just thinking back to, I remember when Top of the World,
they wanted to do kind of their commercial dock operation. I know that was kind of
controversial over in that area, and, I mean, we haven’t had any commentary from the
neighbors to the effect.
MR. LEFNER-John Lefner, and, I mean, all of our property touches the docks and Top of
the World, obviously, they’d have to travel quite a bit to get near the water.
MR. GARRAND-One question for Staff. Has the Planning Board considered this as
commercial dock? Have they taken this current dock configuration into consideration at
all?
MR. B. FRANK-I’m not sure, has the Planning Board even reviewed this application yet?
MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board, we went to them, conceptually, for Sketch Plan, and
also for them to recommend the variances, and the docks were on the map, and the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
only, if you’ll recall what they recommended was just to, that they were not in favor of the
variances for the houses that we’ve now changed. So they didn’t raise anything saying
that they had any problems with it, and again, we have to go to Site Plan Review after,
hopefully, we get our variances.
MR. ABBATE-I think Mr. McNulty had a question.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, or a comment, I guess, to put out now, so it can be thought about
later, but this dock situation’s got me wondering, you know, on the one hand, if this is
going to be continued to be operated as a marina, possibly serving exclusively the
homeowners, then it would be a continuing use, perhaps. If this dock configuration is
now going to be a part of the Homeowners Association, run by the homeowners, and
each lot gets some kind of a right to a dock, then maybe it’s not a marina, and maybe the
use isn’t continued, and I don’t know, and I’m not looking for an answer or an argument
back necessarily from the applicant tonight, but I think that’s a question that maybe
should go to our Staff and/or Planning Board or someone else to find out what happens
when.
MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent question, Mr. McNulty.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, could I just say something for the record? I’m kind of
disappointed that, you know, we made some recommendations at the last meeting, and
the applicant went and responded to those suggestions, and now we’re dealing with
whole different issues than we did last time, per the Staff Notes.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-I mean, we weren’t advised until we got the Staff Notes either that we
were looking at something different.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-I’m really disappointed at how we’ve gotten to this point, and I don’t know
how we fix it.
MR. ABBATE-Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Urrico, I’m more than disappointed. I
don’t like the idea that the appellant received this at a very late notice and he had, the
appellant had to go to Staff to request that a copies of the Staff Notes be sent to them via
fax. I’m concerned with that. I’m concerned with the fact that many of the issues in Staff
comments, quite frankly, are new and have never been addressed to us before. So I
have a number of problems this evening with Staff comments and Notes, but anyway.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, do we have anymore questions at this point?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I waited patiently.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you have, and thank you so much, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-I want to think out loud with reference to Mr. Frank’s comments. I don’t
know that the marina issue has ever been addressed, and the reason I make that
statement, and again, I’m just thinking out loud, is this paragraph that was added to the
Staff Notes relative to additional shoreline requirement for Lot Number Three, okay, if
they were going to have access to that area, okay. So, do you follow my chain of
thought?
MR. B. FRANK-Yes. I see what you’re saying. Why did he not comment on this. I
assumed that it was commented on before, and not having previous knowledge of this,
I’m sorry to plead ignorant to it, but I only know what’s been shared with me. I have not
had anything to do with this application.
MR. BRYANT-The point is it hasn’t been commented on before because this is a new
paragraph added to the Staff Notes, and as the Chairman said, you know, there are a lot
of new issues, and this is the one that kind of sticks in my craw.
MR. B. FRANK-Was this based on a new submittal by the applicant?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-Yes. These are the brand new Staff Notes which are different, not
necessarily in the five criteria, but in analysis, they’re different. They raise additional
issues.
MR. B. FRANK-Are the Staff Notes different because they’re based on a new submittal
by the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And also they added new points that were never addressed, and actually
should have been carried forward, and I know we had two different authors of the Staff
Notes, and that could be the issue here at hand, okay, but I just want to point out that this
paragraph relative to the additional shoreline requirement wasn’t part of the first
submittal of the first Staff Notes, even though that requirement would have still existed,
and therefore I don’t know that there has been an agreement or discussion about
carrying forth the marina condition, you know, in this particular layout.
MR. B. FRANK-One of two things must have happened then. Either it’s not an issue,
Number One, or, Number Two, it wasn’t recognized by the Zoning Administrator. I find it
real hard to believe that it wasn’t recognized by the Zoning Administrator. Again, I can’t
answer for him because I can’t get in his mind. He did not share that information with me
on Thursday. I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have a procedural concern. There is a criteria, I’m going to
address this to Counsel. There is a criteria that the Zoning Board of Appeals uses as to
whether an application is complete or defective, etc., etc., and Number One on that
criteria is what’s called a pre-conference hearing. Did you have a pre-conference
hearing with Staff?
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. ABBATE-You did. Were any of these issues raised at that pre-conference hearing?
MR. LAPPER-When we discussed the issue of the existing dock configuration, it was our
position that it was a pre-existing dock and my understanding is that Craig acknowledged
that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. On the Staff comments, any of the concerns, were they raised at
the pre-conference hearing?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. ABBATE-They were not.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. FRANK-No, sir. We had a meeting, our initial meeting with Staff was in March of
2007. The issue of Bean Road was totally new to us since March. That was never
raised before. That jumps out to me in particular. Obviously, we have made some
adjustments to the plan to satisfy Planning Board requirements, but that’s been part of
our ongoing discussions in front of both the Planning Board and this Board. It has not
materially changed the makeup of the project, but to reiterate, the only new issue, the
biggest new issue that’s been raised, never been raised before since March, is the whole
issue of utilizing Bean Road.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from members at
this time? I do believe I kept the public hearing open. Any other questions at this point
in time? Okay. I’m going to ask the members to offer their comments concerning Area
Variance No. 29-2007, and again, I’m going to inform the public that the comments that
are going to be offered by the members are going to be directed to the Chairman.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to have the public hearing?
MR. ABBATE-That’s right, too. I did keep the public hearing open. Yes, excuse me,
you’re absolutely correct. The public hearing is open, and I’m going to request that any
of those in the public who wish to be heard concerning Area Variance No. 29-2007, if
you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you and
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
ask you to come forward. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address
Area Variance No. 29-2007?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
LARRY FISCHER
MR. FISCHER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I’m Larry Fischer. I have a couple
of concerns. First I would like to answer the gentleman’s question on the end about the
dock system. According to the Park Commission, that would be a Class A Marina,
whether it’s private or commercial, by the number of docks. If you read the Park
Commission’s, you know, I have to live by these laws. This past weekend, and I’m trying
to do the right thing for the community, making these houses, we launched 115 boats
through that Marina this weekend. I wrote a check, today, to the Park Commission for
$1,000 for 62 permits. What really concerns me is every time I come to one of these
meetings I feel like the dog chasing his tail, and I agree with you. You come and you see
these Staff Notes. This is not the stuff we were talking about 30 days ago. It’s all new
stuff. I’m confused. I’ve been in business for 38 years, you know, people come in, they
have a problem, we deal with it. I don’t want to say what gives you the right or who,
whatever, but how do things change this much? We have a nice conversation. You
people have been very cordial. You’ve made recommendations. We’ve tried to do the
right thing, change it. Then you walk in and you get this handed to you. Sir, I’m just
confused, I’m very confused and I know my neighbor’s confused sitting back here
reading this. On a final note, the Marina will be sold. We are trying, my brother and I are
trying to do the right thing for the community. I am not leaving the community. We have
several different offers. It’s costing Mr. Lefner a lot of money each day to keep Howie
and I interested. I think this is a good project. I think if you keep beating the dog, you’re
going to see a big commercial project in there. Thank you for your time.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your input. Let me move over now to my left
side. This gentleman had his hand up, please. Would you be kind enough to come to
the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself, sir, please.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’ll take credit for the Bean
Road issue. I brought it up at your last meeting that it wasn’t on the Site Plan. The Site
Plan did not show that one of those lots fronted 77 feet on Bean Road, and therefore
didn’t need a variance. Now Mr. Brown has raised the issue of whether or not the road is
up to standard. If not, why not? That’s a Town responsibility. That aside, I read in the
minutes where our Town Attorney, Mr. Fuller, is representing both the Town of Fort Ann
and the Town of Queensbury in this matter, and I submit that I think that’s a conflict of
interest. There’s no question that the community of Fort Ann and all the property owners
in Fort Ann would be extremely desirous of having a project that created additional
building lots, and that would tend to broaden the tax base, reduce their tax rates. I can
understand this. On the other hand, this project is going to put a serious environmental
burden on the land that’s in the Town of Queensbury, and to that end, I think there’s a lot
of talk going on in Town now about Critical Environmental Area, and I brought up the
fact, the last time, that this is, the land in the Town of Queensbury is in a Critical
Environmental Area. In fact, the waters of Lake George are in the same Critical
Environmental Area. We shouldn’t forget that. The dockage is in a Critical
Environmental Area, as well as 500 feet back from the shoreline. Now I gave you all a
copy of this last time. That’s a matter of fact. The density issue I don’t think is being
properly evaluated by the Zoning Administrator. I think you have to consider the fact that
these lots that are outside of the Town of Queensbury are going to be given deeded aces
across the same shoreline, and there’s a limitation on how many lots you can have for
that length of shoreline, and that has to be, the Fort Ann lots have to be considered. I
pointed out, last time, that this project is, in fact, in three Towns, and I showed you a
copy of the tax map that shows that the waters of Lake George are in the Town of Bolton.
If I could digress a minute. You read in the paper this morning where the concept of a
village in North Queensbury and in Fort Ann has been rejected by the Town for reasons
that the petition is defective. They did not, they did not challenge the accuracy of the
map, and the map we prepared reflects what’s on this tax map, that that is the Town of
Bolton and not the Town of Queensbury. So the Town Board agrees with that concept.
As far as the commercial marina and the Homeowners Association, it’s my
understanding that a Homeowners Association functions as a not for profit corporation.
They’re not to do commercial business. They can buy and sell and do things within their
community, but they don’t do business as a marina does. The dock configuration is one
thing. The dock use is another, and that’s what I think you have to be concerned with is
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
how these docks are going to be use, that they’re there and they exist and they’re going
to be permitted. That’s no question, but the use is something you should be concerned
with. That’s all I have.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Salvador.
HOWARD FISCHER
MR. FISCHER-Thank you. My name’s Howard Fischer. Mr. Salvador mentioned about
wastewater runoff and everything else on the Queensbury side. Well, if you reduce the
size of the buildings that are there now, it would reduce the amount of wastewater runoff.
The dockage that’s there, and my brother just mentioned to you about how many people
were in and out of the Marina this weekend. That would cut that way back to the
homeowners, to their boats. I don’t think they’re going to be using the place as a quick
launching place. So, I think Mr. Salvador ought to, and the Board here, re-look at what
they just said, because you’re not going to have that kind of waste runoff of water from
the building because you already reduced the size of the building, a 30,000 square foot
building, down to a couple of houses, for their water runoff. So I don’t think you’re really
going to be hurting the lake. Probably improve the areas around there, not counting the
other houses that are being built in other parts of Rockhurst, Cleverdale, etc., the size of
the houses that are being built there. Where does their water runoff? You could answer
that, too. My personal feeling, Mr. John Lefner’s project, Irish Bay, is a good project, for
the neighborhood. I think the neighbors will like it. We’re going to have less traffic on the
lake of boats and so on. So I think you better take a good look at the project, please.
Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
DOUG SMITH
MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name is Doug Smith. I’m a property owner on Bean
Road, and I’d like to go on record that I am vehemently opposed to the extension of
Bean Road and the reasons that I will give you have pretty much been echoed already
tonight, but I’d like to just summarize. Bean Road is a very, very narrow road. It has a
90 degree turn in it that the snow plows cannot even maneuver without taking my
neighbor’s fence down, and in order to bring that road up to standard would cost the
Town a great deal of money, intrude upon other people’s property. It would come very
close, within 10 feet, of the McCaffey residence. The expense of widening the road
would be burdened by the Town, and the extension and the maintenance of that road.
Mr. Lefner’s proposal is for a simple driveway from Pilot Knob which would be burdened
by the project, as well as the maintenance, and in my opinion it’s a no-brainer that we
shouldn’t be spending Town monies on a Town road that isn’t wanted, isn’t needed, and
doesn’t make good sense. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I think I saw a hand in back. Yes, madam, please.
Would you be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone, and tell us
your name, please.
SUSAN WEBER
MS. WEBER-Hi. My name is Susan Weber. I am the neighbor whose fence gets taken
down so the plow can go through, just so you know, and I would like to say that that
Bean Road evolved into a paved road. When I was a kid on this road, it was a dirt road,
and it is, if you make this a conforming road, you’re going to have to widen it significantly,
and you’re probably going to have to take down the 70 year old Norway Spruces that my
grandfather planted there when he built my house in 1937, and I certainly hope you do
not do it. Bean Road can’t handle a whole lot of traffic, as Doug Smith said, and others
before me. There’s no reason to do this big a deal, to harm Bean Road, and all of our
properties, in order to access one house, and if you make it go all the way through to
Pilot Knob Road, that’ll be a true disaster. That’ll be a true disaster. All right. That’s all I
have to say. I think this is really quite a nice project. I hope you let it go forward so that it
can get the kind of proper review it needs, all the way through, okay. Thank you very
much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other members of the public
who’d like to address this issue, Area Variance No. 29-2007? I see no other hands.
Counselor, would you like to address any of the comments that were made, please.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Kevin Frank from the LA Group
again. One of the issues that was raised is the issue of the Critical Environmental Area
of Lake George, which member Underwood brought to our attention very early as one of
the Board’s concerns. Under the current plan, well, the current plan as compared to the
existing conditions represents a very significant reduction in impervious area on the
lands in the Town of Queensbury. You’ll recall on the opposite side of that board there
are the pink building outlines of what is there now. Currently, because those buildings
were erected and the site was developed, long before the formal stormwater regulations
were in effect, that we’re subject to now, there is a significant lack of formal stormwater
controls on the project site. As part of the re-development of the project site as
proposed, including the lands, and most of those lands closest to the lake, we’re required
by New York State DEC, as well as Lake George Park Commission, to develop a very
stringent stormwater management control plan that will be part of the application that will
be reviewed by not only the Lake George Park Commission, New York DEC, but it would
also be part of our Adirondack Park Agency program and their independent engineers
will review that as well. So, from the standpoint of protecting the water quality of this
Critical Environmental Area, I see this project as a step up as to what exists at this point
now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are there any other comments you’d like to address before I
proceed?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That would be fine. Then I’m going to ask members to offer their
comments on Area Variance No. 29-2007, and again, I’d like to remind and inform the
public that the comments that are going to be offered by the Board members are going to
be directed to the Chairman and they are not going to be open to debate. So, having
said that, yes, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Lapper, Mr. Salvador made a comment relative to the possibility that
the properties in Fort Ann would have deeded access to the docks. Is that an accurate
statement?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and how do you view, then, the additional shoreline that would be
required to accommodate that?
MR. LAPPER-My answer, simply, is that this is an existing commercial marina where
anybody can come in and rent dock space. So the use of those docks by the public is
pre-existing and permissible, and that actually limiting it to the homeowners rather than
to the general public is less of an intense use than what exists now.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with the last statement you made, but I’m just wondering if, well.
MR. LAPPER-I believe that the right to have people use these docks that exist is a right
that runs with the property.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I understand, but the property doesn’t exist anymore. You’re splitting
it up into lots.
MR. LAPPER-Well, you’re absolutely right, but I guess the docks exist, and that’s what
I’m focused on. The docks can continue to be used.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-As long as they’re not removed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Then I’ll continue on if we have other current questions. Okay.
I’m going to respectfully remind the Board members that precedence mandates we
concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record. Having said that, I’m
going to ask Board members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 29-
2007, and do I have a volunteer to start off?
MR. BRYANT-I’ll start off.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-I’m going to use Mr. McNulty’s coined phrase. This is a tough one. I think
that much of what the applicant says relative to the new condition versus the existing
condition is probably true. However, these are the things that I have in my mind. Staff
brings up a number of new issues, and I’m very curious as to what, how this marina fits
into the whole picture, because the entire property right now is a marina, as opposed to
16, or 18 or 20 lots that are now split up. Do you follow what I’m saying? So I’m not
clear on that. The other issues that he raises in his comments at the end, I think they
raise flags. I’m just wondering, Mr. Chairman, we recommended this at the very
beginning, that it go back to the Planning Board, go to the Planning Board for their review
and recommendation, and I’m just wondering if maybe that’s where we should be now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So as far as my particular vote, I’m really not sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Who would like to go next? Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-I’ll go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Mr. Bryant
has said on this. I have several questions. Do we need to grant relief for shoreline,
minimum shoreline requirements? What are the implications of going from a Class E
Marina to a Class B Marina? As far as the appellant and the case they’ve presented
here tonight, I think what they’ve done here is the best configuration and the best layout
for this property that I’ve seen yet. I think what they’ve done here is they’ve pretty much
bent over backwards to give us a plan that is very, very close to what we’re looking for,
but at the same time I’d like to see something from Staff on this. We don’t even know
exactly what relief is being requested here. With these Staff Notes, everything is
ambiguous. At this time, I don’t feel comfortable voting on it right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would you, please, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree say I am also rather confused. It says the relief is
requested from minimum lot size, and yet when I look at the four lots, they do meet the
requirement. So I don’t know why that’s in there as a relief needed.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like Counsel to address that particular concern?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re not requesting that relief. I agree with you.
MRS. HUNT-Well, that’s what it says. Yes. I think the whole thing is rather confusing,
and I think it really has to be spelled out more definitively before I could make a decision.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, in going back to what we were talking about in the previous
meeting a month ago here, I think that I’m comfortable with what you’ve proposed on
QB-1, QB-2 and QB-3, in that you’re, you know, you’re going to need to access, QB-1’s
water is going to be accessed over QB-4, which I don’t think is going to be any great big
problem for us. As far as the shared driveway and the road frontage requirements, I
think that were all pretty comfortable with that the last time. I don’t have a problem with
that. I would be willing to vote on that, but I think that, you know, last time when I asked
you about the docks, the docks were presented, and I think Staff was not focused on the
docks prior to this latest submission here, and I think that the big question mark in my
mind is QB-4, and, you know, Staff has related, you know, you need 500 feet if you’re
going to access for all those properties and the Fort Ann also, but I think that, you know,
there’s room for some movement on your part here, also. I know on Monday we’re going
to be meeting formally with Fort Ann people regarding the project, and I think at that point
in time, I know that it’s been intimated to us that they have some concerns with some of
what’s in their area, which may be something that we’ve overlooked at that point, but
that’s something that both Planning Boards need to get together on at this time. I do not
have a problem, and I really don’t, frankly, think that any of us would have a problem. I
think the Bean Road issue is not germane to our decision making process. It was
brought up after the fact. It was suggested by Mr. Salvador at the last meeting. I do
recall that also, but I think that we’re comfortable with the shared driveway access to
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
those properties in Queensbury. I don’t think that that’s a big issue either, but I think
what needs to get hammered out here is the QB-4, and that is the marina operation, you
know, the boat access ramp. I mean, I’m sure that you can put a chain up and have Fort
Ann firemen with the key to it, but I mean, does that mean that the Fort Ann firemen are
going to be using it? I don’t want to get into the issues as to.
MR. LAPPER-We propose to take that out. They just asked us to keep it. We can go
either way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that may be an issue that, you know, that can be resolved as
far as another access point on the lake or, you know, something else to resolve that
issue. I know that they could go down into Queensbury and do it at that point, too,
maybe down at Lakewood or something, which is just up the road. As far as the marina
issue, though, I think it is important, the number of docks is still an important issue, and I
think that, you know, you need to have a fall back position, too. I mean, to assume that
you’re going to get the two dock spaces per lot, you know, throughout the whole project
there, I think is a little bit off the wall, still, and I think that, you know, in a sense, if it’s a
fall back position and Fort Ann says, you know, well, I’m point blank going to ask the Fort
Ann people, do you think this is reasonable or unreasonable, and I think that’s an
important issue for the Board to decide also, both Planning Board and Zoning Board, and
I think that in a worst case scenario you get one dock per house, and, you know, you can
whine about it. You can raise the issue about whether you think it’s fair or not, but I don’t
think a marina, as it exists, has anything to do with what we end up with as a final
product here, and I think that you have to be willing to negotiate on that issue, too. I
mean, the other alternative is to continue the marina operation, and as you intimated to
us also, you’ve got some other possible scenarios that could go. I don’t know what those
are, you know, you’re talking some big commercial operation or something. I don’t know
if that would fly.
MR. LAPPER-Just keeping it as a commercial marina.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure, but, you know, I think that, you know, we can dispense
with the QB-1, 2, and 3, but I think that until this gets hashed out by the Boards, both
Boards in both communities, Planning and Zoning, I think that that’s an open issue on
that alone.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Is that a meeting that we’re supposed to be at? Because I hadn’t
heard about that.
MR. ABBATE-I have a scheduled meeting eight o’clock Monday morning with the
Chairman of the Planning Board of Queensbury as well as the Chairman of the Planning
Board for Fort Ann, as well as the attorney.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s just the Chairman meeting, not a planning meeting?
MR. ABBATE-Well, if you feel that you want to attend, I would suggest that you give Matt
a call and express your concerns. Now we have two Board members left, one is Mr.
Urrico and the other is Mr. McNulty. Who would like to go next?
MR. URRICO-Mr. McNulty, I think, spoke earlier. If he wants to speak for me he’s
welcome to.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, Mr. Bryant stole my phrase as he acknowledged at the
beginning, but I’m not sure I’m even far enough to use that phrase yet. I will agree I like
the effort that the applicant has put in to try to react to some of the comments that they’ve
heard, and while I’m inclined to agree that the three regular building lots in Queensbury
look reasonable to me. I’m not ready yet to commit to saying I would say yes. I will
agree, I think that the Bean Road proposal is probably one of those things that needed to
be brought up, just because any time there’s any kind of an alternative, it ought to at
least be mentioned so you can reject it, and I’m inclined to agree that certainly it doesn’t
seem reasonable to request that whether it be the project developer or the Town, to
rebuild Bean Road in order to provide access to one lot, and even if that lot does have
frontage on Bean Road, if that lot is not accessed from Bean Road, then it doesn’t matter
whether it’s got frontage or not, that the relief that the applicant’s asking for is still
required.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. MC NULTY-The Lot Four shoreline requirement that Staff mentioned is something
that I want to know more about. If that, indeed, is a requirement, then it’s there for a
reason, and obviously there’s going to be a load of people using this lot, and if it’s been
determined we need 500 or 600 feet of shoreline in order to accommodate that number
of lots, then I think we ought to have it. So I need more investigation by Staff, I think
partially, into some of those requirements. I need a better explanation of precisely
what’s required. I’m also inclined to say I’d like to see the Planning Boards of both
Towns take a little more time looking at this. I’m reluctant to say that because I’m also
sensitive to what the Fischer brothers said tonight. From their viewpoint, obviously,
every time they come in the rules have changed. There’s new things thrown up, but it’s
this kind of a project that’s going to happen. I don’t think there’s any way, really, of going
back and avoiding that. This is an important project that needs to be done right, and it’s
going to take a lot of examination. I’m not looking for either Planning Board to
recommend to us how we should vote on the relief that’s being requested, but I’m
wondering whether or not, when they get into it a little deeper, if they are not going to
have enough other changes that maybe some of the relief requests that we’ve got before
us now are also going to change, and before we fret about those too much, I’d like to see
the Planning Boards develop a little more of their concept, then take a fresh look at it. So
that’s where I’m at. I’m not opposed to the project, but I’m definitely not ready to vote on
anything tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-The last time we spoke, the last time we met, I indicated that I would be in
favor of the project regarding, in favor of the variance for road frontage. I didn’t have a
problem with that, but I was concerned about what’s going to happen with the docks,
especially on the QB-4, and I’m still at that same position. I haven’t changed in terms of
where I want to see more information. Had the extra issues not been raised tonight, and
this was the fix, I would still have the same concerns or the same questions, is this the
best we can do, in terms of the dock space, keeping it the way it is, as opposed to
changing it to what you had last time. Is there something in between? I do understand
the applicant’s frustration, because I feel the same frustration as a Board member that
we don’t seem to be hitting in any direction. We seem to be circling, and I think it’s
important. I spoke about due process last time, that this thing roll, so everybody wins in
the end, and that’s my concern right now, that we haven’t done right in terms of how this
application has proceeded. So right now I would still be where I was last time in favor of
the variance for the road frontage and still questioning what we’re doing with the docks.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I think Mr Bryant had a question you
wanted to ask?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I do have a question, actually.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Do you have, and this is for my own information. Do you have a plan in
place to limit the use of Lot Number Four to residence only?
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-Can you tell me a little bit about that?
MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be owned by the Homeowners Association, and it’s only going
to be, nothing’s going to be rented out to the public. No one’s going to have access to
the docks, other than the Homeowners Association.
MR. BRYANT-I’m driving down Pilot Knob Road, what stops me from driving in there and
dumping my boat and going out on the lake.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, if we keep the launch there, and again, we had originally
proposed that it be removed, but we were asked by the Fire Department to keep it there.
If it stays there, it would be chained and only the Fire Department would have a key,
because it’s not there as part of the project to allow launching.
MR. BRYANT-You were going to say something?
MR. LEFNER-John Lefner. As part of that community room it’s going to include where
the well’s water system is and a bathroom changing area, bathrooms for the residents
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
that are going to use the beach front, but it would be in the deed and covenant
restrictions that no one would have access to the lake. We’re not renting docks out.
We’re not selling extra docks. The public won’t have it. Only the homeowners of Irish
Bay.
MR. URRICO-And the homeowners would have control over their dock space and would
they be able to transfer it to somebody else?
MR. LEFNER-Absolutely not.
MR. LAPPER-It would only run with the land. They can’t rent it out.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. LAPPER-That was important to get that on the record.
MR. ABBATE-My position, basically, is I don’t object, overall, to the project, quite frankly,
but I also am confused, as some of the members of the public are, and frustrated, as well
as the Zoning Board of Appeals members as well, about the procedures that are going
on. Due process is part of our responsibility. However, I also agree with what I believe
the majority of this Board is trying to say and that is they are seeking additional
information, not only from Staff, but additional information from the Planning Board,
perhaps of both the Town of Queensbury and Fort Ann. Again, Mr. McNulty made it
quite clear, and I can’t emphasize enough, we’re not looking for recommendations to
approve or disapprove, but we’re looking for recommendations about concerns that have
been addressed so far. At this point, I’m going to continue on, and we can take our
thoughts and carry them over with us until we reach a particular part in our procedures
here. I hesitate, at this time, to close the public hearing, ladies and gentlemen of the
Board, because quite frankly I would hope that perhaps one of you might do a motion to
seek additional information, not only from Staff of Queensbury, but additional information
from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as well as the Planning Board from Fort
Ann. Is that reasonable to expect perhaps one of you to move a motion for that?
MR. LAPPER-Could I make a suggestion first that might settle this?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you certainly may.
MR. LAPPER-What I hear is that even though, you know, we feel like it was last minute
to hear about the dock issue, that you’d like us to explore that a little bit more. I’m only
complaining procedurally, not substantively. I also hear that everyone’s pretty
comfortable with the issue of the lack of road frontage on a public road. So what I would
suggest, I know that the Zoning Administrator is away this week, is that if we had the
opportunity, next week, to meet with the Zoning Administrator and if we had to, or chose
to, make a change to the dock configuration in any way, to satisfy the Zoning
Administrator, if we be given the opportunity to, you know, give us two weeks to get that
back, and put us on an agenda for maybe the second meeting in August for you, but we
would rather not go back to the Planning Board at this time. We have to, of course, get
Site Plan approval from both, but we’ve already been to both Planning Boards. We went
to Queensbury Planning Board and their suggestions, again, were just about those lot
widths. We’ve been in Queensbury for five months already. So it’s really just a
procedural thing. We’ve got the existing owners that are looking to see which way this is
going to go and whether we’re going to develop this or whether they’re going to keep it
as a marina. So I would ask that if you give us time to meet with the Zoning
Administrator and consider whether we want to do anything different on the dock
configuration and put us back on, you know, at the end of next month, and the same
time, since the Chairman is going to be meeting with the Chairman of the other two
Planning Boards, you can certainly get their input, but we feel we had a very positive
meeting with Fort Ann, and the Queensbury Planning Board, we did what they asked us
to do in terms of changing the project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Counsel has made a compromise, a recommendation.
MR. BRYANT-Could I comment?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, certainly. I’m going to ask all the Board members to comment.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. BRYANT-I agree with you. This has been a lengthy process, and you had gone
before the Planning Board, but it was a different application, okay.
MR. LAPPER-No, we only made the changes that they asked us to change. I mean,
that’s what, we changed the lots around because that’s what they said they wanted to
see.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but they still came back, if I remember correctly, Mr. Chairman, they
still came back with a negative.
MR. LAPPER-They said negative on two variances, and we got rid of both of those. We
changed it so that we didn’t need the relief that they didn’t recommend, and they were
okay with the rest. So we did exactly what they wanted us to do.
MR. BRYANT-I’m just afraid, here’s what I’m afraid of, okay. We have new information,
and you know that we can only rule based on what’s in the record, okay. We have new
information here to change the picture this time out of the box. I’m just afraid that we’re
going to come back in August and, from what I understand August is pretty packed
already, but I’m afraid we’re going to come back in August, and then we’re going to have
new information again and here we are. I mean, you know, I would like to say, I’ll tell
you, I have a question about this paragraph relative to the shoreline requirement. I’d
also like the comment made earlier regarding additional shoreline requirement as a
result of the Fort Ann property. This is the kind of stuff, I agree with Mr. Urrico 100%,
okay. The road frontage, I think you’ve solved it with the shared driveway, no question
about it.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-The only question I really have in my mind is the dock.
MR. LAPPER-We understand that, and I’m proposing that, since we just got this today,
and Craig is away, we will meet with him over the next week and try and get that solved
and come back to you with any changes to the application, you know, we’ll resubmit
quickly and come back to you in August to deal with that exact issue about the frontage.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me address the issue. Let me go right down the line. I’ll start
with Roy, if he doesn’t mind. Counsel has made a proposal that he be allowed to work
with the Zoning Administrator to resolve a lot of these issues and that within several
weeks I place them on the agenda. If it’s going to be for August, I’m going to, I’ll do the
agenda tomorrow. You may be on the end of August. What is your feeling, Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I’m all for it, if that’s what’s needed to get this resolved in a way that is
satisfactory to everybody, I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. I think this has gone on long enough and I think we’ve had
enough discussions. I’d like to see it resolved.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m fine with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Rick, please?
MR. GARRAND-Sir, I just still want the Staff to specify the amount of relief being asked
for and beyond that I think it’s a good idea from Counsel.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think Counsel’s the one that’s consciously taking the risk that we’ll
come back in August and we’ll do the same thing to them again if things are not clear,
and I’m sure he understands that. So, given that, if he wants to try it, I think I’m willing. If
he can work it out, we can get clear indication from Staff as to what’s required and we
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
come up with something reasonable, so that we’re comfortable with the use of the land in
Queensbury, then I think we could move forward. So, if he wants to take that risk, it’s a
good shot, and maybe we can get him started on one step.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Then apparently there is a majority of agreement with your
recommendation. I’d like to have a motion, please, to address that issue, where Counsel
for Area Variance No. 29-2007 will meet with the Zoning Administrator to address the
issues that will be found in the minutes of this meeting and based upon that, I will table
the application until August at this time I’m not sure what date, Counselor.
MR. LAPPER-We’d let you vote on the road frontage tonight, if you wanted to.
MR. ABBATE-Well, no, I think we’ll go this route and stay this route. Otherwise we’re
going to have segmented approvals, disapprovals, and what have you. So I’m looking
for, the public hearing will still remain open. So I’m looking for a motion, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You just made it.
MRS. HUNT-You just made it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll move the motion, okay.
MR. LAPPER-We need a date to resubmit, after we meet with the Zoning Administrator,
if we have to make some changes.
MR. URRICO-There’s potentially three meetings next month. That’s why.
MR. ABBATE-Quite frankly I suspect, let me look at this, tentatively, what I’ll do, I’ll
th
schedule it for August 29, okay, because we have 13 as it is right now. You’re now
Number Fourteen. Okay. I’ll move a motion.
MOTION REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 IRISH BAYPARTNER LLC c/o
JOHN LEFNER, BASED UPON IRISH BAY COUNSEL’S REQUEST THAT HE BE
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES THAT ARE CLEARLY
DEFINED IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING WITH THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR, AND, BASED UPON THAT, HE IS REQUESTING THAT WE TABLE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 UNTIL THE AUGUST 29, 2007 HEARING, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Included in the motion will be the comments, concerns, and/or recommendations, what
have you, as a result of the meeting this coming Monday between the Chairman of the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board, the Chairman of the Planning Board for Fort Ann,
the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman and Counsel. New information to be submitted
th
no later than August 15.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure, and I don’t know how to exactly
do this, that any information that comes out of the Fort Ann/Queensbury meeting, that
that’s all incorporated, and we come with a very clear and precise package. We know
exactly what the relief requested on each lot is.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll include it in the motion, as a matter of fact.
MR. LAPPER-And how long do we have to resubmit if we make changes?
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me put it this way. What is the date today?
th
MR. GARRAND-The 25.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Give him two weeks before the meeting.
MR. ABBATE-All right. How about if you submit the new information no later than
th
August the 15?
MR. LAPPER-That would be terrific.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and then if you do that, and it’s confirmed, and I would request that
you send me an e-mail confirming that, please.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And then I will, tomorrow, place you on the agenda, tentatively for August
29, 2007.
th
MR. LAPPER-I’ll tell you right on the record that that’s acceptable, August 15.
MR. ABBATE-That’s acceptable to you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The vote to table Area Variance No. 29-2007, based upon
provisions and acceptance of the provisions by Counsel for Area Variance No. 29-2007,
will be scheduled for August 29, 2007. The vote is seven yes, zero no. The vote to table
Area Variance No. 29-2007 until the 29August 2007 hearing date is approved seven to
zero. The motion is carried. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II FREDERICK E. WHITESEL
OWNER(S): FREDERICK E. WHITESEL ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 167
SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A SWIMMING
POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-283 POOL WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-44 SECTION: 179-
5-020C
FRED WHITESEL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2007, Frederick Whitesel, Meeting Date: July
25, 2007 “Project Location: 167 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool.
Relief Required:
Application requests 9 feet of setback relief from the minimum 20 foot rear setback
requirement. However, in the application, the applicant references a desire for 10 feet of
relief. Clarification is needed.
Additionally, the applicant makes reference to a future pool deck at a 6 foot property line
setback. This request can not be considered at this time.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be permitted to construct the pool in the preferred location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to relocation of the pool to a location closer to
the back of the home as there appears to be roughly 5 feet of additional space between
the sidewalk and the proposed pool.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
The request for either 9 or 10 feet of setback relief from the 20 foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate to substantial (50%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the application materials.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
At least a portion of the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-283 Pool permit application pending
BP 1997-607 Single Family Dwelling C/O issued 1/12/98
Staff comments:
The plot plan indicates an existing, compliant 6 foot stockade fence surrounding the
proposed pool area. If this were a single frontage lot the minimum side setback
requirement would be 10 feet.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 45-2007 please approach the
table, speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. Okay. The petitioner would
like to introduce into the record letters. Mr. Secretary, would you take those, please, for
the record, and you know our procedure. Do you have any questions concerning it?
MR. WHITESEL-I’m a little naïve at this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, let me explain to you. It’s not that complicated. Since you
don’t have a counsel that you’ve employed to represent you, during the hearing, all we’re
asking you is to look at us and say, this is what I want, and then justify why you feel that
we should approve your request, and if at any time during the hearing there’s something
you don’t understand, stop us, we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, or, if at any
time during the hearing you feel, gee, I should have mentioned this. Perhaps it’ll help my
case, guess what, let us know, and we’ll allow you to introduce it into the record. It’s as
simple as that. Fair enough?
MR. WHITESEL-Fair enough.
MR. ABBATE-Are you ready to proceed?
MR. WHITESEL-Let me start.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. WHITESEL-My name is Fred Whitesel. I’m the owner of the property. We’ve been
wanting to install a pool, and the notes were correct in that there has been some
landscaping done recently, and there’s a picture of it that Mr. Underwood has. I ask for
ten foot minimum relief. The drawing I submitted did show the nine foot that’s on that,
and I guess I asked for 10 foot because I’m not quite sure, when the pool installer puts in
it, whether he might get it off a little bit, and I didn’t want to put any inspector in an
awkward position there, or me, having to move a pool maybe later, and I at first didn’t
quite understand his notes about there’s an additional five feet between the existing
landscaping, or about five feet. There could be some little bit,. but there are side braces
for an oval pool, as was shown in this sketch. So I needed a little room to work with that,
and so I asked for that much, really for the three reasons. So as not to have to disturb
the existing landscaping. To get it far enough away from the north side of the house for
the sun to hit it and warm it earlier and later in the year, and also to get it far enough
away from the house to allow for better observation from inside the house, in different
room windows and the back door and access to the house and that kind of thing. The
other item I saw in the Staff Notes, and we had talked with some of the neighbors prior to
this, but, while Mr. Brown was quite helpful in getting me this far, I don’t recall that being
mentioned to have letter along, and I didn’t think of it. So we did go and get letters. I
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
believe there’s five of them there. The top two are probably the most relevant, because
they are the adjacent property owners. Phyllis Conklin, who supports it, is the owner on
the side where we’re asking the relief. Cynthia Gundiette I believe it is, I’m not sure.
She’s just Cindy to me, also support of it. She’s on the other adjacent side. This is a
corner lot. So there’s only two adjacent neighbors, and that’s my pitch. If you have any
questions, I’ll try to answer them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank so very much. Any of the Board members have any
questions concerning Area Variance No. 45-2007?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, for Staff.
MR. BRYANT-The pool is not really in the front yard. It still requires 20 feet relief?
MR. FRANK-I don’t think they’re proposing to put it in the front yard.
MR. BRYANT-No, no, but it still requires the 20 feet?
MR. FRANK-Well, because this is a lot that fronts on two roads, it has two fronts and two
rears, and that’s where the problem is here. As Craig stated, where he’s asking for relief
for, if it wasn’t a corner lot, then he would meet the requirement. A 10 foot side setback,
it’s a 20 foot rear, because of the lot configuration being on a corner.
MR. BRYANT-I understand.
MR. ABBATE-Any questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have questions.
MR. ABBATE-All right. What is your question?
MR. BRYANT-How far is the pool going to be away from the walkway?
MR. WHITESEL-Three or four feet. I didn’t measure that exactly. Let me do some quick
numbers.
MR. BRYANT-It looks like about five or six feet.
MR. WHITESEL-I think it might be slightly less than that, but it’s probably about five feet.
MR. BRYANT-And I can understand wanting to keep the pool away from the house, but
why can’t we just move closer to that walkway, just out of curiosity?
MR. WHITESEL-I don’t want to get too close because I don’t want to, I don’t know if you
got to look at the picture, but there’s heavy stones and that kind of thing involved. So
when you excavate, put some bracing in, to support the side walls, I didn’t want to
undermine that and have that kind of stuff cave in also. Now, so I’d like to put it where
I’ve requested, if that’s agreeable.
MR. BRYANT-And the configuration of the pool, that’s something you’ve already set on,
is that it?
MR. WHITESEL-Yes. We set on, well, actually, we’ve agreed to buy a pool, and we
thought we were going to be able to get a 14 by 28, but it turned out they discontinued
that model. So it’s 15 by 30, and then if you get the pool the size enough for a big child
to swim in, a small round pool just doesn’t get there, and it’s still, round pools often are
bigger than the 15 foot width of the oval pool.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions? If not, I’m going to open up the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 45-2007. Do we have any members of the public who
would like to address Area Variance No. 45-2007? If you’d raise your hands, I’ll be more
than happy to recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-I see none, then I’m going to continue on. Members, again, I’m going to
inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the
Chairman and they’re not subject to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’ve
already gone through and reminded you about precedence, what our mandates are, and
having said that, I’m going to ask.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll just note these letters that we received.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s five letters here from the near property owners, and “I have
no concerns with the installation of a swimming pool in the rear yard at 167 Sunnyside
North as close as 10-feet to the rear property line. I am the closest visible neighbor and
own the lot to the east.” Likewise for the other one on the other side of there, and the
other ones are people just on adjacent properties further away. “The person signing
below has no objection to the relief requested by Frederick E. Whitesel from minimum
rear yard setback requirements for installation of a swimming pool in the rear yard at 167
Sunnyside North. I understand that 10-feet of relief is requested for the required rear
yard set back of 20-feet to provide a minimum of 10-feet of rear yard setback.” And three
more of those.
MR. ABBATE-Basically saying the same thing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’re all saying the same thing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it’s a matter of record now. I’m going to go down the line.
Let’s see, now. Mr. Urrico, would you be kind enough, please, to offer your comments.
MR. URRICO-Sure. I would have no problem with this application. I think the applicant
has made a good request, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Wonderful. Thank you very much. Let’s see. How about Mr. Clements,
please.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I went out and looked at this this afternoon. I can see what the
applicant was talking about, if you moved it closer to the house how it would possibly,
with the excavation, would ruin some of the landscaping that he has there. So this looks
like a good alternative and I would be in favor of this application also.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ve got more problem with this application. I understand what the
applicant’s trying to do, and I fully understand the basis for his request. However, it
strikes me that this may be one of the lots that I like to quote saying some lots just simply
are not intended for a pool. Granted the lot that’s closest to where the relief is being
requested right now is a vacant, narrow lot, but these lots are also fairly close to a body
of water, and those areas tend to build up, and people tend to cram camps and homes in
wherever they can at some point. So someday in the future there may be somebody
trying to put a dwelling up on that side. So I think we have to think about that, and I also
have concerns, there’s indication in the application, even though we can’t consider it
tonight, that it might be nice to have a deck around that some time. In which case, then
we’ve got somebody coming back, whether it’s the current applicant or the next owner,
saying, well, now I don’t want to be 10 feet away from the back line. I want to be four
feet away or whatever. So I think it leads to other problems. So, given all those
concerns, I believe I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to agree with Mr. McNulty.
Sometimes a feasible alternative is not to build, and in this case I think the configuration
of the lot, the size of the lot, I think there are negative factors when you look at the
project. So I’m going to be opposed also.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any problem with the request. I think it’s reasonable.
Many people come in and have asked for the same relief on these corner lots, and we’ve
dealt with these before and granted relief. I don’t think this is going to trigger anything in
my mind. Maybe that property will get developed at some point, the one next door, but,
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
you know, they’ll know what’s there when it’s there, when they see it. So I don’t have a
problem with the request.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I don’t have any problem with it either. I think if this were a
single frontage lot you wouldn’t even be here. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, would support the application. I don’t
believe there’s any real problems, and I think you made a genuine attempt to
compromise as much as you possibly can. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 45-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing
the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Having said that, I’m going to
request a motion for Area Variance No. 45-2007. Please.
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Hunt.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2007 FREDERICK E. WHITESEL,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
167 Sunnyside Road. The applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool. Applicant
requests 10 feet of setback relief from the minimum 20 foot rear setback requirement.
Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I
think he’s made the case that it could not be. He has landscaping which he doesn’t want
to interfere with, and if this were a single frontage lot there would not be any need for the
variance. There would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or
to nearby properties. The request is substantial, again, only because it’s a corner lot and
not a single frontage lot. The difficulty is self-created only in the fact that the owner
wants a pool. I would request that we approve Area Variance No. 45-2007.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 45-2007 is five yes, two no. Area
Variance No. 45-2007 is approved. Thank you very much.
MR. WHITESEL-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST
AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): BRETT R. & PAMELA T.
WEST ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: NORTHERLY END OF ASSEMBLY POINT
(BAY PARKWAY) 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INFILL DECKING
ON EXISTING DOCK. PROPOSED DOCK WILL BE 30 FT. 9 IN. WIDE AS THE PIER
TO THE NORTH IS 8 FT. 2 IN. WIDE AND THE PIER TO THE SOUTH IS 4 FT. 1 IN. IN
ADDITION, INFILL OF 18 FT. BY 6 IN. IS PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
THE DOCK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. REQUEST FOR WAIVER ON SURVEY GRANTED
BY C. ABBATE, ZBA CHAIRMAN. CROSS REF.: BP 97-676 BOAT SHELTER/BP 99-
566 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION: 179-
5-050A; 179-13-010D
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2007, Brett R. & Pamela T. West, Meeting Date:
July 25, 2007 “Project Location: Northerly end of Assembly Point (Bay Parkway) 106
Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a
419.17 sf dock addition.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
Relief Required:
The proposal requires the following:
Relief from the maximum allowable dock square footage of 700 sf in order to increase
the dock to a 1461.55 sf size.
Relief from the maximum allowable pier width of 8 feet in order to create a surface area
30’ -9” by 29’-0”. ( 29 foot dimension scaled from plan as existing pier width not provided)
Relief for construction of a dock beyond 40 feet from the Mean Low Water mark in order
to construct at 53.98 feet from the Mean Low Water Mark.
Relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure, which, in this case will also
require Site Plan Review from our Planning Board.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be permitted to construct the covered deck area in the preferred
location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to include infill of a smaller existing slip, closer to shore,
thereby reducing the width and square footage relief requests and eliminating the Mean
Low Water relief request.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for a 1461 sf dock versus the 700 sf requirement may be interpreted as
substantial (108%). A 30 foot wide dock versus the maximum width requirement of 8
feet may be interpreted as substantial (275%). Construction of a 53.98 feet or 13.98 feet
beyond the 40 foot maximum from the mean low water mark may be interpreted as
moderate (35%). The expansion of a non conforming dock for both size and location
may be interpreted as substantial.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Two letters of support were submitted with the application materials.
North Queensbury Rescue and North Queensbury Fire Company.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing size and location of the
dock, however as there appear to be more compliant alternatives available the size and
location relief requests may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-359 Interior Alterations permit issued: 6/18/07
BP 1999-566 75 sf dock permit issued: 9/3/99
BP 1997-676 1260 sf Boathouse replacement C/O issued: 3/31/99
Staff comments:
No question that improvements to the methods and performance of emergency services
are welcome changes.
How is the existing 1042 sf, 112 foot long dock insufficient?
What impacts might the “ten plus vehicles” have on the site and neighborhood?
How will the new deck/dock area be used during the non-emergency times?
Will the current property owner and future owners continue to allow use of the dock?
Are there any plans for additional docks on the property?
Is the new deck area to remain open or are there plans to enclose it?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
July 11, 2007 Project Name: West, Brett R. & Pamela T. Owner(s): Brett R. & Pamela
T. West ID Number: QBY-07-AV-47 County Project#: Jul07-37 Current Zoning: WR-
1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to infill decking
on existing dock. Proposed dock will be 30 ft. wide. Relief requested from the dock
requirements as well as for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location:
106 Bay Parkway Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-17 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to construct 419.17 sq. ft. of new dock to an existing 1,042.38 sq. ft.
dock system. The total dock system will be 1,461.55 sq. ft where 700 sq. ft. is the
maximum allowed, the pier width is to be 30.9 ft. where 8 ft. is the maximum allowed, a
portion of the dock is to be greater than 40 ft. from the mean low water mark. Relief is
also requested for the expansion of a nonconforming dock. The applicant has indicated
the infill of the new dock is to better assist with rescues of the Rescue Squad and Fire
Department. The dock will also allow for use by the owner. The applicant has indicated
that the area provides privacy for rescue operations and the property is able to
accommodate the ten vehicles typically involved with rescue operations where the
property has been used for a number of years for this service. The applicant has also
applied to the Park Commission for a permit and variance. Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Default approval
due to lack of quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill,
Warren County Planning Board 7/12/07.
MR. ABBATE-One thing I might bring to the attention of the Board members, that there
is, in fact, a survey enclosed with the application. Counselor, you are representing the
folks on Area Variance No. 47-2007. Would you introduce yourself, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the Law Firm of
Little & O’Connor, and I represent the applicants, Brett and Pamela West. Mr. West is
here, on my right, and on my left is the builder or the caretaker/supervisor of work on the
property of Mr. and Mrs. West. We basically, I think, have a very simple application.
Unfortunately we probably have killed a couple of trees getting here, with the paperwork.
You did mention, and because it was in the notice, I’ll mention it also. When we filed the
application for the variance, we asked specifically for a waiver from part of the survey
requirements.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We didn’t think it was necessary that we show upland because they
are not impacted in any way by what we have before the Board. We have an existing
dock that we hope to infill between two existing piers, so that we have a bigger area that
the rescue squads can work from, in the event that they come to the property, and we
didn’t think it was necessary to show the septic system and the water source and other
things that typically you would show on a survey, although we did file with you a stamped
survey, and I think was sufficient, the Chairman did author a waiver, and we hope that
that will stay in place. We have made application, or had made application, at the same
time we made application to you, to the Lake George Park Commission. I have, in hand,
a permit, which came in since that time. We had a hearing before the Lake George Park
Commission, and they granted the variance, or granted the permit. I can’t say that they
granted a variance, but I would like to, a little bit, and I wrote a lengthy letter, a cover
letter, with this application, which I hope that you’ve each looked at. I’m not 100% sure
why everything is on the table, or appears to be on the table, and I thought it was
probably quicker and simpler to simply apply for the variance and then speak about
whether or not they are in fact actually necessary. On the Town application, we are
asking for, or were told to ask for, a variance because this infill would be beyond 40 feet
from the mean low water mark. Now the Lake George Park Commission has the exact
same language. They did not require a variance for that, because the dock itself, that we
have, already is in existence, and what they’re saying is we are simply changing the
decking on the dock, and that is not, in their interpretation, construction of a dock beyond
40 feet from the mean low water mark. The other issue, which I think I also would like to
mention, is that we were told to apply for a variance because this structure is in excess of
700 square feet, and it obviously is. Presently right now it’s 1,042 square feet, and we’re
adding 419 square feet for a total of 1461 square feet, but if you look at the frontage on
this property, and you look at how the Lake George Park Commission interprets, again,
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
the exact same language that we have in the Queensbury Ordinance, they look upon the
dockage on a property as being cumulative. They told us that we are entitled to 2100
square feet of dockage, and we, in total, will have 1461. We’re no place near the
maximum that the Lake George Park Commission will allow. The other thing which
we’re applying for is a variance because the dock is a nonconforming structure. It’s
obviously longer than what is permitted. It’s larger than what’s permitted, and under the
nonconforming structure sections of our Ordinance, it says if you’re going to vary it or
modify it or expand it in any manner, you need to apply for a variance. So we’re applying
for a variance for that. The main thing that we’re really talking about is infilling, if you will,
between the two outer piers, and I think you’ve seen it. I think it’s fairly well shown on
the survey. That’s going to create additional decking of 23 feet by 18 feet. That will
make that total pier, if you count just one end of the pier to the other pier, 30 feet nine
inches wide. Your Ordinance says you can’t have a pier in excess of eight feet wide.
Lake George has the same language. Lake George Park Commission said the same
thing, that because this pier is larger than, or wider than 40 feet, wider than 8 feet, we
would need a variance from them, and that’s what we’re here for. We’re not talking
about new cribbing. The existing cribbing is there. We’ve attached to some of the
submittal an actual drawing as to how it will be attached. It will be an infill, if you will.
One point that Staff made was what would happen if the relationship between the
present owners of the property and the fire service and the emergency service changed.
We acknowledge that this is a dual purpose deck, if you will. The owners can use it for
their own purposes when it’s not being used for emergency services. When it’s
appropriate for emergency services, it’ll be used by them. The Lake George Park
Commission, in its application, or permit, added a special condition, which we’ve
accepted and acknowledged, and that is Special Condition Number 37 that says “Should
the relationship between the Rescue Squad, Fire Company and the owner of the dock
cease, meaning that the Rescue Squad and Fire Company no longer have the
permission of the owner of the premises to utilize the platform herein authorized, the
platform shall be removed immediately.” So we understand that. They, and I started to
tell you that we have a permit from them. I will get a copy of this for you. We have filed
these with the Site Plan application that we filed after we filed the variance application
that will be before the Zoning Board hopefully in August, but I will file these with you,
copies for your file, so you have them. You asked, perhaps, why did we get to this point,
or how did we get to this point. As I understand it, Mr. Galley is a member of the Fire
Company, and when he saw that Mr. West was resurfacing the dock and rebuilding it, he
had personal experience as to using it for rescue purposes and asked whether or not a
deck could be built, so that when they take people out of the boat, it would be not on an
eight foot pier, and we’ve got some pictures that Mr. West can show you. This thing has
probably been used, and John Owen from the Emergency Squad is here, and Mr. Galley
is from the Fire Department. This has actually been used a number of times. I think last
winter it was used three times. I don’t know if this summer.
APPLICANT-Three times within 24 hours.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if it’s been used this summer. Where the snowmobiles
went through and they set up operations to go out and take care of the snowmobiles.
There are some Staff comments that I didn’t understand. The benefit to the applicant is,
I agree. Feasible alternatives. It was the suggestion that we could infill a smaller,
existing slip. If you were up there and you visited the property, you will see that the
smaller slips that are shown are those that are under the cover, the boat cover, where
the owner keeps their boats. There are no other slips that you could use in an alternative
manner. The questions, one of the questions was, how is the existing 1042 square foot
dock, 112 foot long, insufficient? Well, if you take a look at these pictures, and I don’t
know how you want to show those, Brett, you can see, eight, ten people standing on the
dock, on an eight foot dock which is probably, this table is probably an eight foot wide
table, trying to do their rescue thing, and in honesty, this is a very generous offer by Mr.
and Mrs. West to allow their property to be taken over, during times when there is a
rescue on that part of the lake. It’s a tradition that started apparently with Maggie
Stewart, and maybe when Bob Stewart was there. I’m not sure. The two people from
the fire services can speak to that more directly. Basically, the family gets out of the
way, and they’ve got young children and what not. They purposely get out of the way,
and let the firemen or rescue squad take over the property, get out to the property, out to
the point of the property, and bring people in there, and take them off. If you were up
there, you saw the circular driveway. I’m not sure where anybody had the thought that
there are 10 plus vehicles in the neighborhood. We’re not talking about changing the
use of this dock at all. Somebody had asked, in the very beginning of the application by
somebody, well, what about if you build this deck, does that mean the Fire Company will
use it for drills where they don’t presently use it now and they only use it for actual
rescues. No, they will not. That’s not part of the understanding. That’s not part of the
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
agreement, and again, these folks can tell you better than I can, but they bring in one
vehicle, inside the circle, and maybe a second car inside the circle, and if there’s a
multiple rescue, then they wait until another, they get that first vehicle out of there before
they bring another vehicle in. During the summertime there’s places across the road on
the parkway that people can pull into on the left hand side. It’s that open space area.
During the winter, there’s very few people up there. Part of the reason that they chose
this property is because it’s remote. They can kind of isolate it from non-participants,
whether they be laypeople or media or something. People that aren’t part of the rescue
that would just get in the way, and they like the idea of keeping the traffic loop open to go
around Parkway. They’re not going to block that in any manner. It’s a relationship that’s
worked. It’s a benefit to the community, and I think that’s basically the pitch that we
have. It’s not going to, although you’re talking numbers and dimensions and things like
this, it really is not going to be that noticeable to the public, or to the community that
there’s an infill in that deck. That dock’s there. It’s a well lit navigational point that
people understand. They look. They see it. I doubt if anybody’s going to know it’s there
except for the Boards and the Fire Department and the Rescue Squad. The other
question was, are there any plans for additional docks on the property. No. That’s not
part of the application, but there are no plans. Is the new deck area to remain open or
are there plans to enclose it? There are no plans to enclose it. The idea is to have a flat,
open surface that you can take people out of a boat, put them up on a flat deck that you
can get two or three people around them to work on them if they need to work on them,
getting them ready to transport or whatever they are doing. That’s basically, I think, it.
Specifically, we are asking for a number of variances, based upon Staff’s interpretation
of our Ordinance. We’re asking for the width of the pier, which I have at 30 feet 9 inches,
as opposed to 8 feet. We’re asking for a total square footage on this dock of 1461.55
square feet, and we’re asking, the mean low water mark would cut across part of this.
The outside edge of this infill is like 53.98 feet from the mean low water mark. So we
would look for 13.98 feet relief there, and we’d ask for the general relief of allowing us to
alter/expand a nonconforming structure. So those are the four areas of relief that I
believe that we’re looking for. If you have any questions of us or Mr. West, we’d be glad
to answer them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions
concerning Area Variance No. 47-2007?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got to at least partially echo some of the Staff comments. For me it
begs the question, okay, when it’s not being used for emergency purposes, what’s it
going to be used for? Parties? You’ve got a beautiful party platform there. In which
case, if there’s a loud party, it changes the character of the neighborhood. I wonder
about, okay, we’ve tried it for a couple of years now, and the platform’s great for
emergency services, but it would be a lot greater if we had a roof over it. I can see all
kinds of possibilities this direction, and same thing applied to the next owner, because
it’s not just the current owner. One of the problems with variances is while we, on the
one hand have to consider them in terms of benefit to the applicant, once they’re
granted, they live forever. It doesn’t matter who’s there. So I think we have to think also
ahead to Fred Smith or whoever owns the property next and how he might use it, and
obviously there’s no guarantees, but I don’t know. It just strikes me that there’s a lot of
emphasis on the emergency services that this very benevolent private individual is
offering to build emergency service support on his own property, on his own dock. I’m
waiting for the other shoe to drop.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can I answer those?
MR. ABBATE-Why certainly you may.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think you can answer all of those, and take out the unknowns
by conditions. I understand that a variance runs with the land, but you, like the Lake
George Park Commission, can put conditions on a variance. You can condition it as
long as this dock is made available for rescue purposes. You can condition it upon there
not being a cover established on it. Will it be used by the family in non-rescue times?
Yes, it will be. What impact it will have on the neighborhood? The neighborhood had a
notice of tonight’s meeting and nobody is here. They all understand it. They all kind of
appreciate it. This is a sheltered area that, on that side between Speaker Heck. To
come in on that side of the dock is a lot better than the existing way of coming in on the
other side of the dock. They also were given notice of the Lake George Park
Commission meeting, and, you know, nobody has voiced any concern about changing
the character of the neighborhood. This is a very large piece of property. It’s not a piece
of property where this dock is immediately adjacent to an owner. I think the O’Keefe’s
own the property that is to the east of it, and the Roths own the property to the other side
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
of it. They’re docks are well away from this particular dock and the activity. I don’t even
know, even if you had a party out there, whether or not it’s going to impact those people,
to be honest with you. It’s not like you’re on a 50 foot lot and you’ve got 20 feet to your
side line or whatever. You’re a couple of hundred feet on each end of that dock.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? I think Mr. Urrico had a question?
MR. URRICO-Actually I didn’t, but I can make one up if you’d like.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any members of the Board who have any other
questions? Yes, Mr. Clements, please.
MR. CLEMENTS-I just had a question for Staff. I thought that I had heard something
mentioned, and I just wanted it clarified. Could a boathouse roof or a sundeck be placed
over that same area without a variance?
MR. FRANK-Just through the Site Plan Review, but I think the applicant’s offering to
condition it they won’t. So he’s going to make that a non-issue.
MR. O'CONNOR-It wouldn’t need a variance.
MR. FRANK-It wouldn’t need a variance. It’s Site Plan Review by the Planning Board for
a boathouse is required. No variances are required.
MR. ABBATE-What we could do, Mr. Clements, is this. If, in fact, there’s a motion to
approve, we could show that no cover, etc., as a condition of approval, which prevents
them from doing it. Okay. Do we have any other questions? None? Okay. I’m going to
open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 47-2007. Is there anyone in the
public? Thank you, sir. Come forward. Speak into the microphone. Tell us who you
are.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN OWEN
MR. OWEN-Good evening. John Owen. I’m the Captain, or Co-Captain, of the North
Queensbury Rescue Squad. I’ve been in the Rescue Squad for 31 years. I just figured it
out. Conservatively, this location we’re talking about, I’ve used over 150 plus or minus
times. As was mentioned, I think we used it three times in a 24 hour period. It is a very
vital part of what we need to carry out our actions, because obviously we just don’t deal
with the land. We deal with waterways. We’ve got miles and miles of waterways. Most
places where we can do this type of operation you get into topo problems, because
you’ve got, as you know about the lake, you’ve got these vertical spots that, you know,
it’s just difficult to put stretchers in, carry people up and down. It makes it almost next to
impossible. So we are very much for this, and by the way we use it year round. We use
it for ice rescues and so forth. The unique part about it is the fact that it is protected not
only by a five mile an hour zone, but also by Long Island and South Island, and anybody
that knows that lake knows that the majority of the time the storms come out of the
northwest, or the west, and the waves are horrendous. I’ve seen waves five to, God,
eight feet probably tall. So this gives us the protection. As far as where they’re filling in,
it’s a deep part of the lake. Therefore we’re able to get more boats in. Many times,
particularly during lightening strikes on Long Island, I mean, we’ve had casualties out
there. You’ve read them in the paper, boats going out there. I mean, this is the perfect
spot. A number of times we’ve brought people back on shore, stormy, rain, everything
else, I hope they put some more lights up for us. That would make it great, and attach it
to a generator. I can add that in. On top of it, when we bring the people in, many times,
because of the width of the dock, the medics and so forth that do the triage have to get
into the boats, have to get in to be able to do the triage, not safe, not smart. Get the
people out of the boat. This landing will give us that, get it out of the boat, and then we’ll
be able to take them up to the ambulances. I’ve got a short letter. I think it’s part of this
anyway, but I’ll read it in anyway. This is under the heading of the North Queensbury
Rescue Squad. “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is concerning the proposed dock
expansion on the property owned by Brett R. and Pamela T. West at 106 Bay Parkway,
Assembly Point, Lake George, New York, Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17. For the past 20+
years the North Queensbury Rescue Squad has been using this property for a staging
area to assist Lake Rescues and render needed medical care, we continue to have the
West’s support. During past summers we use this location over 50% of the time as a
staging area for mass casualty treatment. The advantages are many. 1. The privacy of
the location, which is out of prying eyes of bystanders and the press, this maintains
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
patient confidentiality, yet the location is known by most of the patrol boats on Lake
George, and is a central spot in the southern basin. 2. Egress ingress for multiple
ambulances and fire rescue equipment. Bay Parkway turns into Lake Parkway to
Crossover Lane and back to Bay Parkway which allows the safety issue of no backing up
and no congestion for the ten plus vehicles involved.” Because sometimes that’s exactly
what we end up with, particularly if I call a bunch of ambulances. “3. During major
storms or weekends with heavy boat traffic the wind is normally out of the North West.
Speaker Heck Island is a buffer from wind, and the 5 mph area in front of the subject
property keeps the wave action down to a minimum. This helps the safety issue when
transferring individuals from the various boats to the ambulances. We request to all
agencies involved in the permit process, allow the proposed expansion of the surface
area. This will make our operations safer and more efficient for both the patients and the
rescue personnel. In the past triage has been done in the boats since surface area on
the dock was limited. Staging will be significantly safer with the proposed surface area
expansion. Cordially, John Owen Co-Captain” Do you have any questions for me?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. You said you’ve been with the Emergency Squad for 31 years?
MR. OWEN-You’ve got it.
MR. URRICO-How long have you used this location?
MR. OWEN-I think I’ve actually probably used it 31 years because the Stewarts bought it
in 1972, and I had Bob Stewart’s permission way back then to use it, and it’s just
something that gradually, because obviously back in 1972 we didn’t have that many
accidents. People weren’t as foolish as they are now, and I’ve used it continually on and
had their support, and when the property was sold, I was concerned that we were going
to lose that, and luckily I talked to Mr. West and Frank Galley did as well, and we got his
permission to use this, and it’s, I’ll tell you, I couldn’t do the operation that we do.
There’s no way we could do it, and you know some of the problems we’ve had up there.
We’ve had some severe problems. I mean, one of the biggest boating accidents in the
history, the history of the world, basically, and the United States, happened to happen on
Lake George, and was very close, we were very close to using that as a staging area, if
the bodies had come over to the other side, and believe me when I say from Northwest
Bay, well, actually not, it’s actually south of probably the Sagamore. From anywhere
south of that, that location is used. I can’t emphasize that enough.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience
who’d like to address Area Variance No. 47-2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one other supporting letter. This is from the North
Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, and it says, “To Whom It May Concern: I am
writing this letter in regards to the proposed expansion of dock surface area at 106 Bay
Parkway Assembly Point. The North Queensbury Fire Company has used this site on
numerous occasions over the last 25 years. Most recently 2 ice rescue incidents
between the channel, lightening strikes on Long Island, numerous snowmobile accidents
and fires on the lake and many EMS incidents over the summer. The increased surface
area for rescuers would allow for better staging of equipment for various operations that
have been based at this dock. This location is vital to operations based at the Southern
Basin of the lake because EMS vehicles can loop around the point keeping one way
traffic available. It also allows boats a safe protected drop off point without having to
transport all the way into a marina or a bay location. Please give this project serious
consideration as the expansion will allow better and safer operations. Thank you. Jeff
Baertschi Chief North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
FRANK GALLEY
MR. GALLEY-My name is Frank Galley. I’m the caretaker for the West residence. I’m
also an 18 year member of the North Queensbury Fire Company, and I would just like to
say tonight that if you were to grant this permit, not only the Wests would benefit, but it
would be in the interest of public safety.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, sir. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the
Board, do we have any questions concerning 47-2007? I think Mr. Bryant wanted to
raise an issue.
MR. BRYANT-No, I have no issues.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MR. ABBATE-You have no issues. Any questions?
MR. BRYANT-No questions.
MR. ABBATE-No questions at all. Do we have any questions from any of the Board
members at this point? Okay. I’m going to continue on. I’m going to close the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 47-2007.
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, etc. I’ve already
stated that earlier. Comments? Any of the Board members have any comments
concerning Area Variance No. 47-2007?
MR. BRYANT-Are you polling?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m polling now.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’d like to go, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. BRYANT-I went through your application very carefully, and it appears to me that
the sole justification for the application has to do with the Rescue Squad and the fire
people and so forth and so on. I just hope that they’re picking up some of the tab there
on the addition. Frankly, I think it’s a good idea and it’s in the public interest. However, I
would prefer that we add a condition. The same condition that the Lake George Park
Commission had on their permit, and that if the relationship between the owner and the
emergency service people terminates, that they’ll remove that area. I just want to say
one thing on conditions, okay. A lot of times we impose conditions on these variances
and applications, and frankly it’s very, very difficult to keep track of all the conditions and
actually enforce them down the road, but I’m counting on the emergency service people
and the fire department people to remember this condition so, somewhere down the
road, two or three owners, if that relationship terminates, that the little lights go off and
they remind the new owners that this was a condition of the variance. I’m in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m still bothered, and I’m making a guess as to how most of the
members of this Board are going to vote, but if my guess is correct, it makes my decision
easier. I would be a lot more comfortable if this were the emergency services coming in
here saying we’re ready to spend $10,000 to put this in, but that’s not the case. Now I
understand that anybody that owns this size property certainly has the relatively easy
ability to make this kind of contribution to emergency services, too, but it’s still, as I said
before. I’m still waiting for the other shoe. It bothers me some with the fact that, as Mr.
Bryant said, the whole justification seems to be for the emergency services, and this is a
private piece of property. So, given that, I think there’s got to be at least one no vote. So
I’m going to be it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clements, please.
MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be in favor of this, and I would
agree with Mr. Bryant, and I’d say that his conditions be stipulated. I think it’s good for
the public safety. I think that probably they could build a sundeck here or something like
that, you know, rather than do this. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s a long term history of the use of this dock for
emergency and rescue type operations. I don’t think there’s any benefit to the applicant,
the owners of the property, if this occurs, other than it’s going to create some more space
out there to sit out in your chair on a nice, sunny day. As far as the requirements, it’s
well over the top as far as what we normally would permit, but I think that when we
balance that against the public health, safety and welfare, it’s justifiable, given the
Darwin awards that are given out on a daily basis up on that lake, and it’s probably going
to see more use in the future as opposed to less use, knowing the way that the lake is
going up there. As far as the requirements, I mean, infilling is going to occur, but I mean
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
I don’t think it’s going to have any detriment on the environment or the lake itself. It’s
going to be a place for the fish to hide out under there in the dark, instead of being out in
the bright sun. As far as the Rescue Squad goes, I think it’s long overdue for something
like this, and it’s going to mean much quicker relief as far as getting people into
ambulances and off site, and as we’ve seen in the recent history, too, with large events
taking place on the lake, on a regular basis, that the public needs to be rescued from or
whatever, it’s justifiable. So I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think it’s very admirable of the Wests to want to
increase the size of this dock, and I think that it would be a great benefit to the
community, and I have no problem with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. The top criteria for considering a variance is the balancing the
benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and here’s a case where
the benefit to the community outweighs the detriment to the applicant I think, and I think
I’d be in favor of this for many reasons, but that would be the major one.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, support the application. Having said
that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 47-2007. Again, I’d, one
more time, remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the
variance against the impact on the area, and about State laws, etc., and the five factors
to take into consideration, and again, I’d like to make the point, unlike a Use Variance
test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors.
Okay. Having said that, I am seeking a motion for Area Variance No. 47-2007. Do I
have one?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make the motion.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2007 BRETT R. & PAMELA T.
WEST, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
106 Bay Parkway. The applicant is proposing construction of a 419.17 square foot dock
addition. Under the relief requested, the proposal is going to require the following items:
Relief from the maximum allowable dock square footage of 700 square feet and
increasing that to 1,461.55 square feet in size; relief from the maximum allowable pier
width of eight feet in order to create a surface area 30 feet 9 inches by 29 feet, the 29
foot dimension is scaled from the plan, and that’s from outside of pier to outside of pier,
that’s the width; relief for the construction of a dock beyond the 40 foot mean low water
mark in order to construct at 53.98 feet from the mean low water mark, and, again, relief
for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, which in this case will require Site Plan
Review from the Planning Board eventually. As far as the benefit to the applicant, they
would be permitted to construct a deck area in the preferred location. As mentioned,
we’re going to condition this request with the fact that it will not be covered at any point in
the future, and that should such occurrence occur in the future with the future property
owners, if it’s terminated, then that structure will be removed at that point in time. As far
as feasible alternatives, although they could construct a smaller dock out there, it makes
sense to utilize the area that they’re proposing because that dock has two piers already
in place there. They’re just simply going to be decking it over. As far as any detriment
to the community, this is located on a point that’s way out, located over 200 feet from the
adjacent property owner’s nearest dockage. So it doesn’t appear that this is going to
create anything as far as a big change in the neighborhood. As mentioned before, it’s
going to be a benefit to the rescue squads and the firemen out there because they will
have something substantial to stand on besides as an eight foot wide dock. As far as
effects on the community, no one seems to be opposed to this project. In fact, there
seems to be universal approval for it from the neighborhood since no one commented,
and is the difficulty self-created? It is self-created in the sense that it’s much greater in
size than what we normally allow in the Code book, but it’s a preexisting size and
location of the dock is already there, so it’s not really going to be that great of a change.
So I’d move for its approval.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 47-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance
No. 47-2007 is approved.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have several administrative items I have to
attend to this evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me make one comment. My comment to Mr. West was, and I think
the firemen understand this. They’re the ones that are going to be your policemen, but at
the same time, he’s going to be their policemen. If the use gets out of hand, he will tell
them sorry and they have to go someplace else. I mean, it’s got to be a mutual
relationship that’s of mutual benefit to each, because, as I’ve said, he gives up his whole
property during one of these operations. It’s not just the dock that sticks out into the
water, which I think is more than generous.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Counselor. We have two items that we have to address this
evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Earlier I passed out to members of the
Board a memorandum I wrote concerning the agenda, and I have to put together
tomorrow at eight o’clock in the morning, and there’s a recommendation that I had made
as to the number of cases to be heard during the month of August, and I have had a
unanimous agreement to my recommendation, and that recommendation would be that,
thth
in addition to the August 8 workshop hearing, that August the 15 we would limit our
ndth
hearing appeals to five. August the 22 to four, and August the 29 to five. Having said
that, and knowing that I have the majority of approval, I’m going to move a resolution.
MOTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SET THE AUGUST 2007 AGENDA AS FOLLOWS:
THTH
AUGUST 8 A WORKSHOP; AUGUST THE 15 A TOTAL OF FIVE AGENDA ITEMS;
NDTH
AUGUST THE 22 A TOTAL OF FOUR AGENDA ITEMS; AND AUGUST THE 29 A
TOTAL OF FIVE AGENDA ITEMS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no as follows, for the Chairman to set the
th
agenda, tomorrow, for the August hearing as follows. August the 8 a workshop, August
thndth
the 15 five appeals, August the 22, four appeals, August the 29, five appeals. It has
been seconded and approved. So be it. Now, the other administrative item I have,
ladies and gentlemen, is the approval of minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 20, 2007
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Mr. Bryant:
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the ZBA meeting minutes of June 20, 2007 is five
yes, zero no. Those minutes are approved.
June 27, 2007
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/07)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for
its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the ZBA meeting minutes of June 27, 2007 is six yes,
zero no. The ZBA minutes of June 27, 2007 are approved. Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you very much, and tomorrow I will set the agenda, and once I set the agenda, I’ll
get it off to you ASAP.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
32