1997-10-22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 1997
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
ROBERT KARPELES
ROBERT MC NALLY
BRIAN CUSTER
PAUL HAYES
LEWIS STONE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CHRIS ROUND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1997 TYPE II SFR-1A G.F. AREA HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLIANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. RELIEF IS
REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-20.
TAX MAP NO. 59-2-9 LOT SIZE: 1.20 ACRES SECTION 179-20
PAUL ARENDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-1997, G.F. Area Habitat for Humanity, Meeting Date:
PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed
October 22, 1997 “ Meadowbrook Road
Project:Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of a single family house. The
proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of §179-20. The required side
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
setback is 20 feet, the proposed setback is 12 feet.
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be
2. Feasible alternatives:
allowed to construct a single family home at a desired location.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Alternatives are limited due to site constraints.
ordinance?:4. Effects on the neighborhood or community?
Relief is interpreted as minimal.
5. Is this difficulty self -
Minimal impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community.
created?Parcel History
No. The difficulty is the result of site constraints and lot configuration.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance No. 53-1997 was issued September 17,
1997 granting relief from the buffer requirements of 179-20 requiring a 50 foot buffer between
Staff Comments:
residential property and the commercial property. Minimal impact to the
SEQR Status:
neighborhood character is anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Baudette?
MR. ARENDS-No, it’s Paul Arends.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to add, say?
MR. ARENDS-Only in so far as if we were to have to maintain the 20 foot side setback, we would
have to go back 100 feet, which will make it very difficult for the type of families that we’re
working with.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I measured out a 20 foot setback along that south property line, and I
came up with 125 to 130 foot back, setback from the front property line. What’s the difficulty of
going back that far, rather than the 37 feet that you want?
MR. ARENDS-The families that we’re working for are low income families, and with that kind of
a driveway, it would be difficult to maintain in the winter time. These people would probably have
to go to work, you know, in terms of transportation, probably would not have the most modern car,
that kind of thing.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
MR. KARPELES-Well, how did you arrive on the 12 feet, the 37 foot setback? How did you
arrive on the 37 foot side setback?
MR. ARENDS-I don’t understand your question.
MR. KARPELES-Well, your setback is 37 feet, right?
MR. THOMAS-From the front property line.
MR. ARENDS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. How did you come up with that?
MR. KARPELES-How did you happen to arrive upon 37 feet?
MR. ARENDS-I can’t answer that question. I was not the one that did the plan. I believe that it’s
in conformity with the surrounding properties.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. This whole lot is 1.26 acres, you know, and this house is way up here in
the front.
MR. ARENDS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Do you plan on doing anything else with that property?
MR. ARENDS-No.
MR. THOMAS-Nothing, look for another subdivision, put another house on it or something?
MR. ARENDS-We can’t do that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. KARPELES-I just noticed. It says on here, front setback is 30 feet, and yet the drawing
shows 37 feet.
MR. STONE-That’s the requirement of 30.
MR. ROUND-Those are, let me interrupt, the setbacks that are, that’s the SR-20. That was the
incorrect, if you remember the discussion from September, they had indicated the wrong setbacks
on the drawing.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. KARPELES-So what is required?
MR. ROUND-It is correct on the application. It’s 30, 20, and they had indicated 30, 10, 30.
Thirty in the front is correct, but the side is a 20 foot side setback, and not the 10, with the 30 total.
MR. STONE-And this is going to be 37.
MR. ROUND-So, yes, they’re in conformance with the front setback.
MR. THOMAS-I notice on this drawing it says 39 and a half feet across the front, but it shows
only 34 feet across the back. Is that right?
MR. ARENDS-I’m not sure what you’re looking at.
MR. THOMAS-On the drawing submitted on the plot plan, it shows the front of the house being
39 and a half feet wide, and at the rear of the house being 34 feet wide.
MR. ARENDS-I think the dimensions are 24 by 44, I believe.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. STONE-It says 26 by 34. I see the 39. That’s probably somewhere else, Chris. It’s
probably to the.
MR. THOMAS-I see the setback. I see the 30 foot boundary. The 39 and a half feet is written,
it’s the same plan as that 34. It’s five and a half feet difference. I’ve never seen a trapezoidal
house.
MR. ARENDS-I have one here, and I’m not sure what version this is, but it shows 26 by 34.
MR. THOMAS-Twenty-six by thirty-four is the measurement of the house?
MR. ARENDS-Correct. We’ve had a couple of variations on this because of people bringing in
various plans.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of ? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
MRS. LAPHAM-There’s correspondence.
MR. THOMAS-Read it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Queensbury Zoning Board, Queensbury Town Hall, Queensbury, NY
12804 “Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to make my objections known
to the Zoning Board regarding the application for construction of a home by Habitat for Humanity
on Meadowbrook Road, Tax Map No. 59-2-9. I do not believe the relief from the zoning
requirements should be granted for the construction of a house on this lot. These zoning
requirements have been instituted for the benefit of all town residences and the Board should honor
these guidelines. Sincerely,
Edward J. Oudekerk 117 Meadowbrook Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. STONE-Is that the neighbor to the south, I think?
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-No.
MR. STONE-No? I thought he was.
MR. HAYES-There was at least one neighbor here last time.
MR. STONE-There was one, yes. Is that the one to the north?
MR. CUSTER-To the north. The lawn care service.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. LAPHAM-“Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to make my objections known
to the Zoning Board regarding the application for construction of a home by Habitat for Humanity
on Meadowbrook Road, Tax Map No. 59-2-9. I do not believe the relief from the zoning
requirements should be granted for the construction of a house on this lot. These zoning
requirements have been instituted for the benefit of all town residences and the Board should honor
these guidelines. Sincerely, B. O’Connor, President E.F. O’Connor, Inc.” Town Planning/Zoning
Board, RE: Application for Variance property located adjoining my residence at 121
Meadowbrook Road “To the Board: In regard to the pending variance application, let me offer the
do not
following. First, I object to “Homes for the Habitat”. I feel it is a worthy organization
working for a good cause. Furthermore I feel that a variance should not be granted and want to go
on record in strong opposition. Below I have outlined my reasons for opposing this seemingly
harmless request. 1) The Town Board voted to change this area to Light Duty Commercial for a
reason. The reason we were told was the development of route 254 for Heavy Commercial use.
We were told that the properties surrounding Route 254 should be Light Duty Commercial to
further the expansion. Our area should now be restricted to any further development of Residential
homes because of the boards last change, yet here we are considering a residential dwelling. 2)
The area being developed is in the Glens Falls City School district. As we all know Glens Falls
City School System does not provide bus transportation for the students. Sooner or later there
could be children living in this proposed dwelling and they will have to attend Glens Falls City
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
Schools with no bus transportation or safety measures in place. Those children will be asked to
cross route 254 and several other dangerous intersections without the aid of a crossing guard or
safety signs in place. This in my opinion is a serious safety concern, and I feel we are inviting a
possible tragedy. 3) the area being considered is also a wet are with a very high water table. The
town board has allowed every other development surrounding my property because it was
commercial but has made no provisions for the high water table or drainage. The sewer system has
helped to alleviate the problem but it has by no means solved it. The land that the Ford dealer
adjoining me sits on had to be filled because of the water problem in our area. When they drew in
the fill for that building the water was pushed to the adjoining properties (mine). The town also
allowed the storage building project, which had to be filled as well and further increased the
problem. We had the Town Supervisor and the Highway Superintendent down to look at the brook
because it is plugged and the water can no longer run through. They both indicated that it wasn’t
their problem and there wasn’t anything that could be done. I don’t agree. You have the power to
stop further development of this wet area. If this home is to be built it can not be built on a slab.
The spring thaw will surely put it under water. This dwelling will have to be built on a foundation.
More fill will have to be drawn in further worsening my situation. I, as a Queensbury taxpayer do
not understand why a variance should be considered if it effects the values or creates a hardship for
surrounding property owners. If the variance is to be granted I encourage you to consider my
plight and be sure there are some concrete plans in place to alleviate the water table problem.
Michael and Constance Cleveland 121 Meadowbrook Rd. Queensbury, New York 12804”
MR. THOMAS-That does it?
MRS. LAPHAM-That does it.
MR. THOMAS-Would you like to comment on any of those letters?
MR. ARENDS-If it’s not inappropriate, Ralph Nicholson, who is with Habitat for Humanity, did
go talk to the neighbors, and I would like to have him tell you what he found out. Is that
permissible?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is.
RALPH NICHOLSON
MR. NICHOLSON-This is from memory, I guess. It was a while ago that I talked to him, and the
concern about the family with the children having to cross 254 didn’t seem to be, it wasn’t moot,
because the family that we’re considering for the house that we hope to build on that property has a
teenage boy who is in high school, and that wouldn’t be the concern. He was quite concerned
about that, and expressed it to me, that the small children would have that problem crossing the
highways. In fact, he laid out the different intersections that they would have to cross, and in our
particular case, the small children wouldn’t be the problem. There was another item. That was his
major concern. He said other than that he had no objection. They were concerned that we do as
much as we could to put a buffer in between the house, our property and theirs, so that the, well,
just a buffer. I’m not too sure I know why, other than they kind of liked their solitude, I guess, and
so they didn’t want to be too close, because in that particular case, the house would be closer than
the setback would allow.
MR. THOMAS-They also mentioned something about bringing in fill and the water table in those
letters.
MR. NICHOLSON-That’s right. He mentioned the fact that somewhere along the line in the
development of the properties to the south, that the drainage system was interrupted by the
construction of those, and somewhere along the line no one did anything about it, and now that that
system has been destroyed, he does get water runoff. That’s to the south, however, and the house
we’re considering would be to the north. I don’t see how that would effect it, but that is a problem
that he was concerned with, the fact that the water does now come through part of his property,
and it is true. This land does have a high water table, and we’re hoping to address that by doing as
he suggests, put in a foundation and have it set high enough so that we wouldn’t have that problem.
MR. THOMAS-Do you know how high the water table is there?
MR. NICHOLSON-What was it, 17 inches?
MR. ARENDS-I think it’s like 20, 24 inches.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-So, you’re going to have to build a foundation just about on top of the ground, and
then fill around it, or build it on the slab.
MR. NICHOLSON-There is some technology, in terms of creating a membrane underneath the
foundation, and I can’t give you all the technical details, but that’s what we would be looking into.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MR. STONE-What’s the contractual relationship between Habitat and this family that you’re
talking about?
MR. NICHOLSON-What we will do is we will build the house, and then we will turn the house
over to the family. They will have a mortgage with Habitat for Humanity. As they re-pay their
mortgage, the funds will come back in to us to build additional houses in the community.
MR. STONE-Okay, but lets assume that it’s a 30 year obligation.
MR. NICHOLSON-Twenty years.
MR. STONE-Twenty years, all right, and they pay it off, and it’s their house. They can sell it to
somebody with small kids.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, they could.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ARENDS-Which is true of all neighborhoods.
MR. STONE-I agree it is.
MR. NICHOLSON-Or they could sell to someone that has no children.
MR. STONE-They could, but you’re saying the family that you’re identified does have a teenager
in it?
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes. I believe he’s either a Junior or a Senior.
MR. HAYES-Was this property donated for this reason?
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, the property was donated. I guess just another crack at it would be, as
we sit right now, we are able to build on that property. We can go back 100 feet. So any of the
concerns that people might have as far as us, whatever they’re saying not to build, we would be
able to do that, and I guess I raise the question, if we were to build, why would we not want to
build a house as well as we can for the people we’re building for?
MR. MC NALLY-Did I hear the letter writer say this was in the Glens Falls City School District?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what it said in the letter.
MR. HAYES-That doesn’t seem possible.
MR. CUSTER-This is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, it is, and I wasn’t too sure about the placement of it, but it seems that on
the west side of that street, as far as Cronin, the houses, the people in those houses belong to the
Glens Falls City School System, and the people on the other side, including the apartments that are
there, belong in the Queensbury School System.
MR. STONE-We have four school districts in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. MC NALLY-But this particular area, they’re not bussed to the Queensbury?
MR. STONE-That would surprise me. I’m not surprised they’re not bussed to the Glens Falls
Schools, and they don’t furnish the guard at the Quaker Road crossing there?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. NICHOLSON-Apparently not. I can’t answer it.
MR. THOMAS-There’s really no crosswalk there.
MR. NICHOLSON-I find it hard to believe because of the large population that’s in the apartment
complex there, but not knowing that, I.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing, if I didn’t before.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-The only question I would ask is more of Staff. Could that house be turned, being
24 by 36, could it be turned so that the front, the long wise, length of the house is perpendicular to
the road? Is that permissible under our Code?
MR. ROUND-There’s no restriction on that. I think it’s the desire of the applicant to have that
configuration because of the architectural front of the house being that 36 foot width.
MR. STONE-I understand. I just wanted to be sure that there were no legal constraints to turning
it. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it. Lets
start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly think it’s a noble thing to do, and I applaud the organization for
doing that. I also recognize the point that you just made, that if you went back far enough, you
don’t even have to be here, after last time. You had to be here last time, but you don’t have to be
here now, because we’ve given you relief from the 50 foot. I hear all these things. I guess the only
thing that troubles me is the ability of this owner, or owner to be, to sell, if there is any concern
about young children getting to the Glens Falls School District, and I don’t believe that’s a
condition we can put on it, can we?
MR. THOMAS-No.
MR. STONE-No, I wouldn’t think so.
MR. THOMAS-We have no control over wherever the school.
MR. STONE-That’s the only concern that I have. It’s an interesting point, and I wouldn’t want to
have to cross Quaker Road to go anywhere on foot. It’s bad enough on a bike. Having said that, I
probably would vote yes.
MR. THOMAS-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think what Lew said is true. It’s a great organization. I think eight feet of
relief is as minimal as we deal with on a regular basis, and like Mr. Arends said. I mean, they
could move this house further back and not even have to be here. They’re just trying to do the best
job that they can, and the fact that the property has a high water table, that’s going to be a problem
with anybody that chooses to develop the property is going to have to deal with. So I don’t think
that’s something that should count against them, per se. So I would be in favor of the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I pretty much concur with Lew and Jaime. The lot is zoned single family one acre,
and if they could configure it that they wouldn’t have to ask for relief, they wouldn’t even be here.
The relief is, in my estimation, minimal, and I’ll support it.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-The purposes of the Habitat for Humanity are certainly laudable. They’d be
allowed to build a single family home for people that couldn’t otherwise afford a home, and I don’t
see how there are any feasible alternatives to speak of. You could go back, but that would result in
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
the need for an extensive driveway, the distance from the road requiring utilities be brought in a
further distance. You can’t really move it over because of the easement, as approaches the road,
and certainly setback from the front is sufficient. Was this donated land?
MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, it was.
MR. MC NALLY-This is an organization with a charitable purpose. It’s not in a position to
purchase any lot in any part of this Town that it chooses. It has to basically go with what charity
others have given it, and this is one of those instances. The relief I see is very minimal. I don’t see
any real change in the neighborhood or community. It’s a quasi-commercial, quasi-residential
area.
I think it would be fine.
MR. STONE-Can I ask a question?
MR. THOMAS-Shoot.
MR. STONE-Is this property, would this property be on the tax rolls as soon as it’s built?
MR. ARENDS-Yes. It’s on the tax rolls now as vacant land.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. ARENDS-Yes . As soon as, I think it takes a year before the.
MR. STONE-That I understand, but I mean, there would no exemption from property taxes?
MR. ARENDS-Absolutely.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with the rest of the Board members. The only thing I want to ask
about is, could something, site plan, or who would cover the water table problem? Because I know
there is an extremely high water table there, all along that whole area.
MR. ROUND-There’s not a site plan review required for this project.
MR. THOMAS-We could ask for it, but it wouldn’t do any good.
MR. ROUND-No, I think it’s in the builder’s best interest, and I think Mr. Arends has
demonstrated that they’re aware of the problem, that they’d take it into consider as far as their
construction details are concerned.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that of concern to the Building Department? Do you get a CO if the place
is flooded?
MR. ROUND-I’m not sure how they deal with it, to be honest with you, Mr. McNally. I know if
a septic system was involved, there’s separation distance between a septic system, but as far as
foundation, footings, etc., there’s not. There’s provisions for waterproofing foundations and
providing vapor barriers and anti-flooding protections. It’s something that’s been raised as an
issue, and I’ll identify that to the Building Department.
MRS. LAPHAM-I’m not only thinking of them. I’m thinking of their neighbors, too.
MR. STONE-But what would happen if there were water in the basement and there were a sump
pump type thing? I don’t know what technique you’re talking about. Where would that be
pumped? Would that be pumped into a sewer or out on the property itself?
MR. ROUND-Typically, they’re into sewer or storm system. I mean, it’s not uncommon that
they’re on site. I mean, it depends on how the applicant handles it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob, we’re up to you.
MR. KARPELES-Well, I think it’s all been said, and I agree with everything that’s been said. I
just am surprised that the Township has no review of this ground water level, because they’re
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
already in a hassle with these people over by me, and where the cellars are flooded. I would think
they wouldn’t want to get into another situation like that.
MR. ROUND-I think you’re looking at two different problems. I’m not totally up to speed on
what, you’re talking about a subdivision that was built, and there was a review procedure for
subdivisions. It’s now a subdivision of land, different set of review procedures apply to this
particular project.
MR. KARPELES-I still think it’s a concern to the Township, if somebody is building something.
MR. ROUND-I mean, you can identify that concern to the Town Board. I mean, I don’t know, if
there is an Ordinance on the Regs, I’ll review it. I can get back to you if there is something else on
it.
MR. THOMAS-I agree with what most of the other Board members say, but I still say that moving
it back so that it could be within the 20 foot setback is feasible, because it’s only 100 foot long
driveway. There are many 100 foot long driveways in the Town of Queensbury. This is a
volunteer thing, kind of construction. Maybe they could get somebody to volunteer to plow it out
for them or something, until they have some other way to do it, but as it sits right now, I’m
opposed to it because there is a way around this, even though Habitat for Humanity is a good
organization, and I’ve contributed some to it myself, through my place of employment. So, having
said that, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1997 G.F. AREA HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY
, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Meadowbrook Road. The proposed project is the construction of a single family home, and the
variance will require relief of eight feet from the twenty feet in Section 179-20. Granting of this
variance will benefit the applicant by allowing him to construct a single family home at the desired
location on the lot. Feasible alternatives are limited, due to economic conditions relative to their
plans. Relief is minimal. No detrimental aspects are anticipated in the neighborhood or
community. The difficulty is not self created, due to the layout of the lot and its easements which
kind of hems him in somewhat.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles,
Mrs. Lapham
NOES: Mr. Thomas
MR. THOMAS-All right. Go ahead and starting swinging those hammers.
MR. ARENDS-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1997 TYPE II WR-1A JON & SUSAN DOUGHER
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 122 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 CAR GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM FRONT
YARD SETBACKS OF SECTION 179-16. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-85 LOT SIZE: 0.14
ACRES SECTION 179-16
JON DOUGHER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-1997, Jon & Susan Dougher, Meeting Date: October 22,
Project Location: Description of Proposed Project:
1997 “122 Sunnyside North Applicant
Relief Required:
proposes construction of a two (2) car garage. The proposed project requires
relief from the setback requirements of §179-16 (WR-1A). The required front (road) setback is 30
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
feet, the proposed setback is 10 feet.
Chapter 267 of Town Law:1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be allowed to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct a garage for vehicle storage purposes. No alternative
3. Is this relief
locations for the proposed garage are feasible due to the location of on site septic.
substantial relative to the ordinance?:4. Effects
The relief may be interpreted as substantial.
on the neighborhood or community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
No. None
Staff comments:
applicable. Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add to your application, anything
you’d like to tell us, say?
MR. DOUGHER-Only if the 10 foot isn’t back far enough, I know some of you people have been
over there to look at the property. I have a Mountain Ash tree there that I could chop down and
build that little three foot wall where I’m parking now and build that back, and get about 13 more
feet, if that helps. There’s garages up there now. I measured one today before I came over here. It
was only six feet off the road from where I measured the side of the road, and, I don’t know, there
doesn’t seem to be any problem plowing or anything, but I don’t know if 10 is enough.
MR. THOMAS-Did you measure that 10 feet off the road or off your property line?
MR. DOUGHER-That was off the edge of the road, because, I can’t remember who I talked to,
but they didn’t really know if there was a property line that runs through there. I mean, I don’t see
how there could be. There’d be people’s houses that would take the corner of their garage right
off.
MR. STONE-Chris, is this a dedicated road or a road by use?
MR. ROUND-I can’t answer that. I don’t know.
MR. STONE-That’s the same question I had with Chris, where was it measured. Where is the
right-of-way?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, where’s the property line? Is it the edge of the road or is it the middle of the
road? A lot of those around.
MRS. LAPHAM-The question I had is when you said that you could get another 13 feet if you
took the Ash tree down. Is that 13 feet plus the 10, which is 23, or is it that becomes 13 feet,
instead of 10 feet?
MR. DOUGHER-No. It would become 23 feet. If there was a 10 foot setback and I had the
garage where I propose to put it, if I built this wall back, I could get another 13 feet. So,
theoretically I could move the garage back another 13 feet so the front of it would be 23 feet off
there.
MR. STONE-So it would be seven feet.
MRS. LAPHAM-Seven feet, really.
MR. STONE-If the measurement is correct.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and it’s doable.
MR. CUSTER-That won’t effect your leachfield, your septic, moving it?
MR. DOUGHER-No.
MR. STONE-The leach field is right behind the house?
MR. DOUGHER-Well, if I move that wall back, it would probably start about three feet from
where that wall ended.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s right between there and the house.
MR. DOUGHER-Right.
MR. STONE-What is that little house, as I look at the lake, to the right. There’s a little structure.
I won’t call it a house.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. DOUGHER-It’s just my garbage shed. I keep my lawn tools and garbage in there so the
animals can’t get in it.
MR. STONE-Okay. What about that car that’s there, that’s been there a while? I don’t want to
describe it any other way. Lets say it has been there for some time, the red car.
MR. DOUGHER-The little spit fire there? That’s going.
MR. STONE-That’s going? Okay, good. That takes care of two of our questions. What about
that rock garden? Lets say you put it where you wanted to right now, there’s a little pile of, I call
it a lighthouse, but it’s raised three or four feet, pile of rocks?
MR. DOUGHER-Yes. Okay. I know where you’re talking about, yes. That’s, actually there is a
tree stump under there that I put rocks around and filled in and stuck a Hosta on top of it.
MR. STONE-If you put the garage where you wanted, that would still be there?
MR. DOUGHER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Would the garage go on top of it?
MR. DOUGHER-No. That would still be there.
MR. STONE-It would still be there. Okay. I just wanted to try to figure out where it was going to
go.
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to
speak in favor of? In favor of this variance? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, Jamie, what do you think?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think in our experience with the actual property line and the road, it’s usually
turned out that when people measure to the road, they actually need more relief than they
anticipate, and as I reviewed this application and looked
at the neighborhood, I thought that the proposed 10 foot setback when 30 foot was required was
very substantial, and the addition in that neighborhood of separated buildings I think contributes
negatively for the environment and to the general area. So I would, based partially on the
substantialness of the relief, I would be opposed to the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I’m not opposed, but I would like to see the garage moved back further. I think if
Mr. Dougher has recommended moving it back another 13 feet and, again, I’m making an
assumption that that is the property line then, I could probably go along with the application, but
I’d like to hear a little bit more.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I spoke with Mr. Dougher when I visited the site, and we did actually speak
about just where the heck that property line is, and Mr. Dougher told me that he measured to the
edge of the paved portion of the road. Wasn’t really certain where his line was, and in all honesty
he could be further 10 feet back toward the house or it could be at the edge of the road. I don’t
know, looking at this application, where it is. So if we grant you 10 feet, you may be, in fact,
requiring more substantial relief. You don’t know where your line is, and we don’t, certainly.
There are a lot of houses on that road as you go by, some close to the road and some not, but
overall I think a house or a building 24 by 24, which I think is the size of the existing structure
already, so close to the road is something I would not be terribly in favor of. Brian has suggested
moving it back some, and I’m not sure what you have exactly in mind.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. CUSTER-I’d like to know where that property line is.
MR. MC NALLY-But I don’t like 10 feet from the road. I know that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the area is so congested that I hated having anything more added to it, but
again, without knowing where the property line is, my theory is that he could either need, they
could need a lot more relief than the 10 feet, or if it’s a road where it’s originally a right-of-way
and your property line is in the middle of the road, then he might not need any relief. It’s a
question of, I don’t have any idea of what I might be granting, which is where my main objection
comes from, and I would rather see it moved further back because it’s very congested in that area.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert?
MR. KARPELES-I talked to Mr. Dougher, too, and I think it would be much preferable to move it
back the 23 feet from the edge of the road. Then I wouldn’t have any objection with approving it
23 feet from the edge of the road. I think, although I recognize there are other houses much closer
than that, I don’t think it’s a desirable situation, and I’d hate to create another one, but I would go
along with 23 feet from the edge of the road.
MR. THOMAS-The first thing I have to say is, we can’t even grant relief until we know where that
property line is.
MR. STONE-Do I get to speak?
MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, Lew, I jumped in out of turn. Being the Chairman, I can do that. I’d
like to know where that property line is before I do anything, and you don’t have it shown either on
a survey or some kind of sketch or even staked out in the field, so we know exactly how much
relief we have to give. Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-I heard Mr. Dougher say he could move it back. If he could move it back, then I
think he should move it back, but I also agree we have to know from where we’re moving it back.
I think we have to get a survey. We have to know where the right-of-way actually is or where the
property line is, because we can’t even write a motion yea or nay, because we don’t know what
kind of relief we’re giving. I certainly know the character of the neighborhood is poly(lost word),
if you will. There’s a lot of different houses, little small ones, big ones, close, far away, I would
not like to add to the clutter, and I would like, since you’ve indicated you could go to 23 feet from
what you believe is the property line or the edge of the road, then I certainly would like to see that,
that at least gets down to minimum relief, but even having said that, we need to know what the
actual relief is. So I would suggest that we might table it until we can get that.
MR. THOMAS-I think that’s a real good suggestion, until we can get that, find out exactly where
that relief is, because we have to tell him. We have to put that right in a motion.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, there’s one other thing that I discussed with Mr. Dougher, the
height of the building. I think you were considering, sir, a garage with a seven foot ceiling height
on the second floor for storage area.
MR. DOUGHER-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Across the road there’s a small home, and it has some what of a view of the
lake. I don’t think your neighbors care one way or the other, but I didn’t know if you had plans in
mind as far as exactly how high a building you wanted to put when you did, and that was
something I’d like to see if it ever comes back also. Some idea of what kind of structure you’re
talking about, something definitive.
MR. DOUGHER-Right. Well, it’s a Curtis Lumber package, and I think it’s 16 feet from the
ridge to the.
MR. HAYES-They can usually generate those for you, like on the computer if you want to. That
would be good.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Having said that, I think we should table this until he can get some more
information.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1997 JON & SUSAN DOUGHER
,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
For further information. We would like to see a conceptual drawing of the building, along with its
height, and we would also like to have a drawing, either a survey or some kind of plan showing the
exact property line and the setback of the garage from that property line.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer,
Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-So if you could get us those two things, come back and talk to us, we’ll take care
of you.
MR. DOUGHER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Thanks.
USE VARIANCE NO. 62-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A SEAN GARVEY OWNERS:
SEAN, PETER, MARC GARVEY 483 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 23 FT. BY 63 FT. CONCRETE BLOCK ADDITION. RELIEF
IS REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 179-79. CROSS REF. SPR 36-97 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-13.2 LOT SIZE: 3.99 ACRES SECTION 179-79
MR. ROUND-Mr. Garvey called and said he would be late and I tried to convey that message to
you yesterday.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did. I got it on my machine. You said eight o’clock. It’s 10 minutes of.
I thought maybe he’d be here, but I guess not. So we will wait and skip over that one and go to the
next one, and when Mr. Garvey shows up, we’ll throw him in there somewhere.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1997 TYPE I WR-1A MYRON RAPAPORT OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 16 BURNT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION
TO LIVING ROOM AND TO EXISTING DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, SHORELINE SETBACK OF SECTION 179-16,
179-60. CROSS REF. SPR 39-97 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-60
PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if I should recuse myself from that or not, but I’m a
close neighbor of the Rapaports.
MR. THOMAS-Did you receive a 500 foot notice?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-You can stay on as the Secretary, read all the correspondence and stuff, but you
can bail out on the discussion and voting. Does that sound fair?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Could I discuss it as a neighbor if I want to?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can if you want.
MR. STONE-You can speak.
MRS. LAPHAM-As as citizen. Okay. Well, then I’ll do the reading of it. I mean, I don’t even
know if I want to, but I didn’t want to give up the right.
STAFF INPUT
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-1997, Myron Rapaport, Meeting Date: October 22, 1997
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ 16 Burnt Ridge Road-Lake George,
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes an addition to an existing residential structure. The
proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of §179-16 and §179-60, The
required shoreline setback is 50 feet, the proposed setback is 42 feet. The required side setback is
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
25 feet, the proposed setback is 20 feet.
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant would be allowed to
2. Feasible alternatives:
construct an addition at the lakeside portion of his property.
3. Is this relief
Construction of an addition at an alternative location or no construction.
substantial relative to the ordinance?:4. Effects on the
The relief is interpreted as minimal.
neighborhood or community:5.
The effects on the neighborhood are interpreted as negligible.
Is this difficulty self-created?
The selection of lakeside as the desired construction location is
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
interpreted as self-created. Please find
Staff comments:
attached the previous zoning board actions for the referenced parcel. The
project site is extremely steep. Construction at the desired location may pose unique engineering
challenges and should be addressed as part of the building permit application. The project is also
SEQR Status:
subject to site plan review. Type II”
MR. ROUND-I’d like to identify a short fall on the Planning Department Staff’s. The applicant
requested a variance from 179-16G, which was compliance with the septic regulations requiring
any increase in floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities shall be upgraded,
and it was not advertised as such, and so we cannot hear that particular portion of the variance
request tonight. So we’ll have to re-advertise that portion to hear that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but I’ll open the public hearing, and anybody that wishes to speak, then I’ll
leave the public hearing open, and we’ll just have to carry over to another meeting.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Cushing, sir, is there anything else you’d like to say?
MR. CUSHING-I understand that a number of the members of the Board have visited this site and
they recognize by their visit the fact that it is very, very steep. The proposed addition of the living
room would be an extension out onto the existing deck, which is primarily beyond the setback
that’s stated in the Ordinance. They’re proposing a seven foot extension of the building itself onto
the deck. We would take care of the engineering aspects to support that loading within the
framework of the existing structure. The expansion of the deck itself would provide a space to get
around the addition of the living room so that one could utilize the door of the south end, and get
around in and out of the house and around this new proposed addition. The deck aspects that
we’re talking about as a proposed addition would be a very minor amount of space, and it would
be used primarily to allow passage from the dining room addition which is proposed, which is
within the setback requirements of the project, and realignment of the existing stairs. Basically,
that’s the entire scope of the project.
MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant?
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I’m not clear on the deck addition. That says one inch proposed deck
addition?
MR. CUSHING-No. That’s one foot.
MR. KARPELES-One foot. It looks like an inch to me. Okay. So one foot is in which direction?
MR. CUSHING-It’s toward the lake, sir, which is west.
MR. KARPELES-That’s on the whole length of the deck?
MR. CUSHING-That is correct.
MR. KARPELES-I understood originally that there wasn’t any, the deck wasn’t going out any
farther.
MR. CUSHING-Part of the deck, as you can see on the drawing, here, the deck comes in a straight
line and then it breaks out and there’s 10 feet deep at that point. So what we are proposing is to
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
square that off and give my client 4 feet clearance beyond the face of the proposed living room
addition, so that he has passage on the deck to get around the new addition and back into the south
end far away from the deck.
MR. HAYES-That stairwell that’s there now, are they going to move that around?
MR. CUSHING-Yes, and that is so indicated on the drawing.
MR. KARPELES-And there’s a three foot deck addition, too, also?
MR. CUSHING-Yes.
MR. STONE-You’re saying that the current deck now?
MR. CUSHING-The current deck is eight feet from the face of the existing house.
MR. STONE-And that’s going to be moved, extended a foot, too?
MR. CUSHING-That’s going to be extended three feet.
MR. STONE-The deck is going to go three feet.
MR. CUSHING-Correct.
MR. STONE-That’s not what Mr. Rapaport told me.
MR. KARPELES-No. I was told that it wasn’t going out at all.
MR. HAYES-Is it going out or is it going parallel, to the right there?
MR. STONE-It’s going out closer to the lake.
MR. CUSHING-It’s going closer to the lake and it will be parallel with the existing building, yes.
We’re extending the deck three feet closer to the lake.
MR. STONE-All right, in that section, in the living room section you’re also extending the deck to
the north and toward the lake, where the stairs are going down to the dock.
MR. HAYES-Squaring off the corner.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s at the expense of the setback? It’s going to be within the 50 feet?
MR. CUSHING-That is correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that within the side setback on that corner?
MR. CUSHING-On that corner, yes sir.
MR. MC NALLY-Existing setback to the house is 18 feet. Is that (lost words)?
MR. CUSHING-That’s to the house. The existing setback to the deck is 20 feet. So we would be
coming over and then tying back into that point.
MR. STONE-What is the total size of this lot? It’s there. Okay. Thank you, 1.4.
MR. CUSHING-One point four. That’s a big lot. It’s very, very steep, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Was any thought ever considered to building behind the house on the upslope?
MR. CUSHING-The unfortunate problem is that the upslope is such that we would be putting a
building that was probably two or three stories above the existing, and the amount of space that my
client really wishes to add to the total value is such a modest amount that it seemed to be that this
would be the more practical solution to solve their (lost word).
MR. MC NALLY-The existing structure would have to be cantilevered?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. CUSHING-The existing deck is cantilevered and sits on a series of six by six posts that run
north south, as you’ve seen, and there is a beam there that supports it, and it is cantilevered out
there. We would propose increasing by doubling up the amount of deck joists, floor joists to
support that (lost word) reinforce the facing of the existing piers to take care of (lost words) from
the living addition, and there would be no real foundation addition involved in so far as that aspect
is concerned. The only real change really that you would see would be the modification of the
stairs.
MR. MC NALLY-I tried to figure out if there were any trees that would be taken down.
MR. CUSHING-There’s one tree that’s coming up through the deck right through where the living
room is proposed. There’s a possibility that there is a further tree to the north that would impinge
where the proposed relocated stairs might come down. Both of these trees to be removed are way
beyond the 35 foot setback.
MR. STONE-Can we go back one more time? When I talked to the applicant today, I was under
the impression, and I had this, he said that the living room extension was going out onto the current
deck, leaving some existing deck with no further construction of the deck, and you’re saying there
will be an additional one to three feet?
MR. CUSHING-That is absolutely correct, and that’s the way we’ve submitted it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KARPELES-I was told the same thing, by his wife.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this the existing deck line right here?
MR. STONE-That’s the existing deck line, right.
MR. CUSHING-The dark line is the existing.
MR. MC NALLY-And this is the living room.
MR. STONE-That’s the extension.
MR. MC NALLY-And this is the extra three feet there, and one foot past the existing deck there.
Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LEN SIMMS
MR. SIMMS-My name is Len Simms. I’m a neighbor of Mr. Rapaport’s directly to the north. I
have not objected to the first of many, the last several variances that have been granted by Mr.
Rapaport, and I have to tell you I think this is a rather modest proposal, a modest change, and on
the face of it, I’m not concerned particularly about these changes. What is troubling me and brings
me out tonight is the apparent two year cycle we seem to be on since 1983, where we have seen the
building go from a modest summer unheated, uninsulated dwelling to a rather mammoth structure.
It’s gone up. It’s gone out, both ends. It’s gone out, decks have gone out on the front, all of it
apparently without considering septic questions which I guess will be addressed later. I don’t think
this in itself has a great impact on that, but all of a sudden, you know, had this been presented in
1983, I think my objections would have, I would have been to the first session. This looks, it’s
quite unbelievable how much it has expanded. I may be a day late and a dollar short on making
that comment, but I do have to raise that concern, and I don’t know where it will go from here. It
seems like as a Town we have, perhaps, a problem if you can vary your variances, you know,
apparently forever. He does have a tough location to deal with, and I recognize that. Thank you.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed to this application? If not, I’ll
leave the public hearing open, since we have to consider other options or other criteria for this
variance. Does anyone on the Board have any more questions for the applicant on this?
MR. STONE-I didn’t quite understand. It’s my fault, not Chris’ fault. I didn’t understand what
we.
MR. ROUND-The application request was also for a variance from the requirement that the septic
system would have to be upgraded. In accordance with the regulations, any expansion of a
lakefront structure requires upgrade to satisfy additional living space. It was not advertised in that
manner, and it will have to be re-advertised. You can hear the request as it is today without that.
You can handle it as two separate matters or you can decide otherwise.
MR. THOMAS-We don’t take into consideration sewer and septic. The Town Board does that,
don’t they?
MR. ROUND-Well, it’s not a septic variance. Let me read it for you.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s something new.
MR. ROUND-179-16G says it’s compliance with the Septic Regulations. “Any increase in the
floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities which requires a building permit
shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136, which is, Chapter 136 is the septic and
sewage requirements. So it’s another way to trigger, to make sure that living space is adequately
being serviced by existing septic. So if you're doubling the size of your house from two bedroom
to four bedroom, that you would upgrade in order to handle that additional demand on your septic
system. What they’re requesting is that they not be required to upgrade their septic system to
handle additional living space. Isn’t all septic decided on how many bedrooms are in the bedroom?
MR. ROUND-Typically it’s bedrooms.
MR. THOMAS-And they’re not increasing the number or size of buildings, are they?
MR. ROUND-I don’t believe so, so I don’t know that they’d be subject to that particular, I mean,
you have what I have in front of you. So I don’t know that their request is necessary.
MR. STONE-Does this existing in others beside the Waterfront One, because of course that’s the
most recent change. It’s an interesting one. Of course the words “Sanitary facilities” they have no
definition for “Sanitary facilities” in this Code either. So I don’t know what that means. At least
not in the zoning code.
MR. ROUND-I believe it’s only in the WR zone, because of the critical nature of the septic in that
area.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Like I say, everything hinges on the number of bedrooms.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. THOMAS-And they’re not adding bedrooms to this, that we know of.
MR. ROUND-I’d address that to the applicant, why the request from the variance was made.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, can you tell us why?
MR. CUSHING-It says “living space”, Mr. Thomas. Living space is defined in the Ordinance as
space that’s used for eating, reading. It has no specific definition relative to bedrooms. Bedrooms
are where waste is created by the number of people, obviously, but that’s the way the Ordinance is
written.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay.
MR. STONE-We applaud your trying to read the Ordinance.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CUSHING-That’s what I’m charged to do.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I think we should just table this whole thing and wait until it’s properly
advertised and decide the whole thing all at once, and in the mean time I can talk with Mr. Goralski
and see what he thinks about the sewage thing, or the septic system, living space versus the number
of bedrooms, which is the requirement. Does anyone have any other different opinion than that?
MR. CUSHING-Mr. Thomas, if I may, we did denote that in our application, and I do feel that my
client is being unduly delayed.
MR. THOMAS-The fact of the matter is, it wasn’t properly advertised. It wasn’t legally
advertised. So there’s nothing that I can do about it.
MR. CUSHING-I’d just like that noted for the record, please.
MR. THOMAS-So noted in the record. All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1997 MYRON RAPAPORT
, Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles:
Until proper determination of the septic system by the Planning Department and proper advertising
is determined.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
MR. ROUND-I don’t know if I was clear before, Mr. Thomas. You could hear the variance
request for the two items that were advertised, make a decision on that, and then Staff would make
a determination whether there actually is a variance required.
MR. THOMAS-I’d rather do them all at once. I don’t like splitting them up like that. Things
seem to get lost.
AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham
MR. MC NALLY-Chris, looking at these prior variances, I see that he’s been given some (lost
words). I couldn’t make heads or tails. Do you think for the next hearing we could have some
kind of summary for what the history of the property has been? Short, nothing fancy.
MR. CUSHING-I was not involved in the one in 1991, which is the only one that I have seen any
data on whatsoever.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Having said that, is Mr. Garvey here yet?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll go back to that one.
MR. CUSHING-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
USE VARIANCE NO. 62-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A SEAN GARVEY OWNERS:
SEAN, PETER, MARC GARVEY 483 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 23 FT. BY 63 FT. CONCRETE BLOCK ADDITION. RELIEF
IS REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 179-79. CROSS REF. SPR 36-97 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-13.2 LOT SIZE: 3.99 ACRES SECTION 179-79
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
SEAN GARVEY
MR. GARVEY-Good evening. Thank you for letting me arrive late.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 62-1997, Sean Garvey - Garvey Volkswagen, Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
October 22, 1997 “ 483 Quaker Road
2
Relief
Applicant proposes construction of a 1450 ft expansion to an existing structure.
Required:
The proposed project requires relief from the use requirements of the Light Industrial 1
acre zone §179-26. The existing auto dealership is a non-conforming use and an expansion of a
The applicant for a use variance must
non-conforming use is subject to variance approval.
satisfy all four (4) of the following criteria for granting a use variance: 1. Can a reasonable
return be realized as the property is currently zoned:
The applicant would be allowed to
2. Is
construct additional service areas to facilitate continued operation of a non-conforming use.
the alleged hardship unique to the property:
Yes, this property was allowed use at the time of
3. Will the requested
construction and now an unlisted use as a result of the zoning change.
variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
Minimal impact is anticipated on
the neighborhood or community. The area is commercial in character, with several auto
4. Is the alleged hardship self-created?:
dealerships located in close proximity to the site. No.
Staff comments:
The 1988 zoning change from PC-1A to LI-1A is the cause of the hardship.
The existing facility received site plan approval on October 15, 1985. The site was zoned Plaza
Commercial at that time. A zoning change in 1988 to Light Industrial is the cause of the hardship.
Adjacent properties are zoned Highway Commercial and the current use (auto dealership) is an
allowed use in that zone. The current zoning does not specifically allow the current use, although
truck repair and heavy machinery repair facilities are listed site plan review uses. As indicated
above the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established for the granting of a use variance.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of
October 1997, the above application for a Use Variance to build a 23’ by 63’ concrete block
addition was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County
Impact” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Garvey, is there anything else you’d like to add to your application,
tell us about?
MR. GARVEY-My brothers and I have been in business for over 20 years in this Town. We’ve
been at this location for a little bit over 11 years. We’ve tried very hard to improve the product
and the services that we give to the Town, and because of that, our sales have increased. It’s
become much more competitive to survive in the business world. You have to sell more product to
cover your increased expenses. My expenses for the past ten years have gone up 57% to operate
the business, and to do that I need to sell more product, and so we have to be aggressively trying to
do what we can to survive. Because we do sell more cars, we have to process this product, and
service the cars, and we have a 10 bay shop. One of the bays in the shop is a wash bay where we
wash and prep the new and used cars, and the cars that we wholesale. Over the years, the
automobile industry has become much more competitive, and I’m sure many of you have been in
touch with the manufacturers of the cars which you own. They’re very concerned with your
customer satisfaction index. Your CSI, as they call it, and one of the things that we do to keep our
CSI high is to wash all of our customer’s cars, and so instead of washing just 1100 cars now, I
service over 5,000 cars a year. So that’s an additional need to wash cars. Basically I’m washing
the cars that we service, also in this space. Obviously as it’s said in the application, when we
purchased the property over 10 years ago, it was zoned Plaza Commercial, and two years later,
pardon me, three years later, it was changed to Light Industrial. Light Industrial, obviously, can be
interpreted a number of different ways, because truck repair facilities, heavy machinery repair
facilities and passenger limousine or bus service that are terminal facilities are in, considered Light
Industrial, though car dealerships are considered, as you know, Heavy Commercial. We also are
taking on a third car line called Arrow, which is a four wheel drive, and we expect increased sales,
and we need more space to service these cars. Right now I have three people working outside, and
we need to get them inside when the snow flies. So I appreciate you all taking the time out of your
busy schedules to inspect the site, and if there’s any more questions, I’ll be happy to try and.
MR. KARPELES-Yes. What specifically is that going to be used for? Is it car washing?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. GARVEY-Primarily car wash and/or servicing cars. Storage also, but typically when you
prep a car, you need to let it warm up. You need to let it dry when you’re done. You have to
apply wax, and so we have basically two men now prepping our new and used cars, or detailing
them, and we have a third person washing all of our customer’s cars. So basically we’ve designed
it, keeping expense down, of course, and trying to increase the work space. So we need more space
in the shop. That wash bay in the shop needs to become a work stall, and so that’s primarily what
they’ll be used for.
MR. THOMAS-Back in 1985 when the site plan review for this was done.
MR. GARVEY-That’s all that was required then.
MR. THOMAS-It mentioned about 100 feet within the wetlands. Is any part of this new building
within 100 feet of the wetlands?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it does not show on the map that you have here,
but this is the, this map that’s on the last page of your application, the wetlands cut across the back
at an angle here, in the back part. It actually goes this way. I’m sorry, across the bottom, and this
building, as you can see, is between existing sites, and we currently have been washing cars,
obviously, inside and outside. We just increased the number of products that we’re working on.
This use is not going to interfere at all with that area.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So all the runoff, after you wash the cars, is contained within the property?
It doesn’t run toward the wetland?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. We put a new septic system in, and a new drywell to handle wastewater.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for the applicant?
MR. CUSTER-Sean, maybe Chris, when it was Plaza Commercial, you read in the book,
automobile sales and service is an acceptable usage in the Plaza Commercial.
MR. ROUND-Correct. I might point out that this Highway Commercial is the zone that’s directly,
there’s a single property that’s zoned Light Industrial next to Mr. Garvey’s operation, and then a
site across the street, AES, and a couple of vacant properties behind each of those properties, and
it’s a really narrow strip of Light Industrial zoning. It’s kind of unusual and I don’t know the
history behind that. Maybe you all do.
MR. GARVEY-This map would show how we’re surrounded by a heavy industrial.
MR. CUSTER-Could we see that, Sean, please.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question, only for my own satisfaction. Will this be accessible from
inside the main shop?
MR. GARVEY-No. The original design was going to have five overhead doors facing toward the
back. If you look at the building now, there was a canopy around the side of the building. The
edge, the corner of the canopy was a small overhead door that goes into the Parts Department,
similar to a garage door that you’d have on a normal home. How this canopy was, how this was
designed was to match the design of the canopy, so it wouldn’t be as high as the original building,
and it would wrap around the back, the way the canopy is around the front of the building, and the
five overhead garage doors would be facing toward the rear, toward that shed, the rear storage
shed.
MR. STONE-Okay. So to get in there, you’d have to go outside to get inside?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. There’ll be two man doors at either end.
MR. STONE-Either end, but no connection? The wall that’s there now will stay as an inside wall?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. So we’re losing five parking spaces, basically. That’s what it comes down
to.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. MC NALLY-As I looked at it, the addition is flush with the north wall?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely.
MR. MC NALLY-And that you have roof over parking which is going to remain there.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s not being converted to (lost words) space?
MR. GARVEY-No. If you continue that roof around would be, it’s actually going to be separate,
but it’ll be shaped just like that roof to match the design of the building.
MR. MC NALLY-Will that continue to the rear of the building also, or just extend it?
MR. GARVEY-No. The roof over this, these five working stalls, will be self standing. It won’t be
attached to the corner.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for Mr. Garvey? If not, lets see what we all think about it.
Brian?
MR. CUSTER-Well, the granting of a Use Variance requires us to substantiate the four
perimeters, and I can easily accept Mr. Garvey’s explanation for Numbers Two, Three, and Four.
It’s always Number One I think that causes the greatest amount of problems, but I think he has
delineated pretty fairly how that is impacting his business financially, and I also consider the
historical perspective of initial zoning. I think he may have been unduly penalized in some shape
or form when the zoning was changed. So I think it’s minimal at this time. I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. I don’t see this as a self-created hardship. The property was properly
zoned at the time of purchase, Plaza Commercial, and use for automobile sales was permitted at
the time. It’s only because of a change of zoning after the fact that this hardship has arisen. I
don’t see how it’s going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood whatsoever. The road
is relatively undeveloped at that end, but more recently, the addition of new businesses, primarily
automobile related businesses, has increased in frequency. Garvey Volkswagen has been there
long enough that I think their use currently to the existing property is appropriate, and in keeping
with the rest of the neighborhood. This hardship is unique to the property. The Light Industrial
zone is very narrow, limited strip. It’s Highway Commercial, otherwise which would allow an
automobile business. I would be in favor of this project.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I agree. Bob said it all, so I don’t need to say anymore, and I think it should be
encouraged because Garvey Volkswagen has always been a nice business to have in Queensbury.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert?
MR. KARPELES-I agree. I think it’s a successful business, and we like to see successful
businesses, and I can’t see where granting this is going to impact on anybody unfavorably. So I’m
in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. STONE-I agree. The only hang up is the wording of Number One, of course, about
competent financial. Mr. Garvey has told us about how the business has increased. Three cars
that you have to get ready on average is a lot of cars, and if you keep your customers happen, you
have to wash the car any time they want it washed? Is that what?
MR. GARVEY-Every time they get serviced, and also these cars get re-washed over and over
again as they stay in stock. Our used cars require a lot more.
MR. STONE-It seems to me, while you haven’t given us a balance sheet, dollars and cents, you’ve
certainly made a financial case. To be in business today, one has to spend money to make money,
and if you don’t spend money, you’re not going to make money. I think that’s very clear. I have
no problem.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, the Use Variance does require a higher standard as far as relief, but I think this
application is right on the money. I think it’s well prepared, and I think that Mr. Garvey’s position
that the automobile industry has become more competitive is an accepted fact on a commercial
basis, and I think he meets all four criteria. I would be in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the rest of the Board. I think that even though Number One
does ask to provide competent financial evidence, that anyone, you know, anyone reading this
would see that if they have increased sales from 576 in 1987 to 1174 into 1996, and plus the other
cars that Mr. Garvey says he handles about 5,000 cars a year, that they’re going to need an
expansion on this business somewhere, and just because they change the zoning doesn’t mean that
Mr. Garvey should tear the building down and put up whatever is allowed in that zone. I don’t see
that happening. So I have no problem whatsoever in granting this variance. Having said that,
would anyone care to make a motion. It’s Unlisted. If you’d look at the Short Environmental
Assessment Form.
MR. ROUND-There was a revised one in there as well, with that.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-All right. Now, we’ll look for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 62-1997 SEAN GARVEY
, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
483 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1450 square foot expansion to an
existing structure, and this 1450 foot expansion was to go immediately contiguous to the northeast
corner of the building. The proposed project requires relief from the use requirements of the Light
Industrial One Acre zone, Section 179-26. The existing auto dealership is a nonconforming use,
and an expansion of a nonconforming use is subject to the variance approval. In asking for a Use
Variance, there are four criteria that must be satisfied. One, can a reasonable return be realized as
the property is currently zoned? The applicant has made a cogent case for the fact that the
business has expanded. Competitive demands have increased on this type of business. Whereas,
eight years ago he was preparing maybe approximately 1,000 cars a year we’re talking about
5,000 cars a year, in terms of the washing that is going on in this building. The actual car sales
have increased from 576 in 1987 to 1174 in 1996, but with all of the service work that is attendant
upon the sale of new cars, and the need, the competitive need to wash these cars every time they
come in for service, this raises the number of cars that must be prepared to approximately 5,000.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
Whereas, the applicant did not give any other financial numbers, these kinds of business expansion
numbers and the need to stay competitive are felt to properly satisfy point number one. Point
Number Two, is the alleged hardship unique to the property? Yes. The use of this property was
allowed at the time of construction, and now is an Unlisted use, as a result of a zoning change in
the intervening years. Will the requested variance alter the essential character of the
neighborhood? Minimal impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community. The area is
commercial in nature with several auto dealerships located in close proximity to the site, most of
which are in the Highway Commercial zone, this is one of the few properties along Quaker Road
that is zoned Light Industrial. Number Four, is the alleged hardship self-created? No. The 1988
zoning change from Plaza Commercial 1-A to Light Industrial 1-A is the cause of the hardship.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles,
Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you all.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
USE VARIANCE NO. 64-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-10 JAMIE BROWN OWNER:
ALMIRA HERMANCE CORNER OF NATHAN & MALLORY APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A VACANT LOT OUTSIDE A
MOBILE HOME DISTRICT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-17. TAX
MAP NO. 117-6-1, 13, 14 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TOTAL SECTION 179-17
JAMES HERMANCE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 64-1997, Jamie Brown, Meeting Date: October 22, 1997
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Corner of Nathan & Mallory Applicant
Relief
proposes siting a mobile home outside a mobile home park or mobile home overlay district.
Required:
The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of §179-17: UR-10.
The applicant for a use
Mobile homes are not an allowable use in the UR-10 zoning district.
variance must satisfy all four (4) of the following criteria for the granting of a use variance: 1.
Can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned:
The property could be
2. Is the alleged hardship unique to the property:
utilized in a residential manner. The
3.
hardship demonstrated by the applicant is not attributable to the property or zoning restrictions.
Will the requested variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?:
The area is
residential in character and recent building permit activity indicates an increase in single family
residential construction. Placement of a mobile home at this location may be interpreted as altering
5. Is the alleged hardship self-created?:
the residential character of the neighborhood. No
Staff comments:
comment. As indicated above the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria
established for the granting of a use variance. Additionally, the board should consider the impact
SEQR Status:
of the proposed variance on the zoning regulations themselves. Unlisted”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Hermance?
MR. HERMANCE-Yes, sir.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you’d like to add, say, comments?
MR. HERMANCE-Well, the reason, you know, my daughter, she’s willing to help, because I
haven’t worked since July, she came out of the hospital because somebody has to be there to watch
her because she goes into shock or something, who’s going to be there? I have to have somebody
there that can watch here. If she goes into a coma, she has to take insulin in the morning and at
night, and, you know, there is a possibility that she could, and my daughter is willing to help come
up and take care of her while I’m working.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. STONE-Well, I’m not sure I understand your comment, sir. Where is your mother now?
MR. HERMANCE-She is home with my other daughter. That’s my wife.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I saw mother on the thing.
MR. HERMANCE-My daughter’s here. My other daughter’s watching her while we’re up here.
MR. STONE-But where is she? What does that have to do with this mobile home? I’m not sure I
understand.
MR. HERMANCE-Well, she lives in Hartford, and it’s hard for her to come back and forth, so I
have that property. I’ve owned it for years, and paid taxes on it, and she’s willing to move up here
to help take care of her mother, and we’d appreciate if we could get something out there.
JAMIE BROWN
MRS. BROWN-I also have some signatures from the neighbors, if you’d like that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, when it comes time to read them into the record, we’ll read it in there
and just read down the signatures.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Hermance, your daughter is Jaime Brown?
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and you’re sitting there right now?
MRS. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Almira, is that your wife?
MR. HERMANCE-My wife, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-If I look at this map, is the lot that you plan to put the mobile home on separate
from the surrounding property?
MR. HERMANCE-There are three lots right in there. Yes, they’re separate from the other, yes.
They have separate deeds to them, or she does.
MR. MC NALLY-Some of the buildings go over the lines, the barn, for instance.
MR. HERMANCE-That’s on a separate lot, my garage is.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you ever give any thought to perhaps doing something else with that one lot
other than put a mobile home on it?
MR. HERMANCE-No, because you really can’t get any return for anything. If I sold that, then
they couldn’t get, if I decided to sell the garage, they can’t get to the garage, because that’s on a
separate property, and I’m sure if I wanted, if I sold that out there, then if I wanted to sell the
garage, I’m not going to let them come through my driveway for the garage.
MR. STONE-Right now there is access to that barn from whatever that street is I rode down,
Mallory, from Feld.
MR. HERMANCE-No. If you went through my driveway to get to my garage.
MR. STONE-That’s your driveway, but you do have a sign up directing people, as a business, to
the barn, to that big garage.
MR. HERMANCE-Just on my mailbox.
MR. STONE-Yes, but there’s an arrow pointing down.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. HERMANCE-No.
MR. STONE-It looked like an arrow to me.
MR. HERMANCE-That’s that sign that’s on the mailbox. Yes.
MRS. BROWN-That’s not an arrow. That’s just a sign that someone had made him for a gift and
put up there.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you own, that driveway is where you live?
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Is that well house used any more, that’s shown on this print? I didn’t see it out
there. There’s a well house.
MRS. BROWN-That’s the line. That’s Jane Gilman’s property.
MR. HERMANCE-That’s Jane Gilman’s property there where the well house is.
MR. MC NALLY-I tried to see mobile homes in the area, just sitting at that corner of Nathan and
Mallory. I saw some new homes that had been built, but where are you referring to mobile homes?
MR. HERMANCE-There’s nine in the area altogether.
MRS. BROWN-On Feld Avenue there are four.
MR. HERMANCE-Four on Feld Avenue, and then there’s one up on the hill.
MRS. BROWN-On Columbia Avenue there’s two.
MR. HERMANCE-Columbia Avenue, and then there’s Sunset. There’s one over in there.
MR. THOMAS-The house you live in, Mr. Hermance, which one is it, the one with the pool?
MR. HERMANCE-Yes, but the pool is buried.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it shows a pool on here.
MR. HERMANCE-Yes. It was there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, with a barn out behind it.
MR. HERMANCE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Then the house to the north of you is a neighbor.
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-That’s not part of this property.
MR. HERMANCE-No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then he’s, this lot up here on the corner of Nathan and Mallory is
actually three 90 foot, or a 70 foot, 90 foot.
MR. HERMANCE-Ninety foot by forty-five, is it.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t know how many feet deep they are.
MRS. BROWN-One thirty-five.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s actually three building lots.
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. STONE-Even though you’ve got that big hill to get up to Mallory.
MR. HERMANCE-Right. They still call them on Mallory for some reason.
MR. STONE-Yes. You’ve got two rectangles on this property, a two bedroom mobile home, and
then something going the other way, toward Mallory, perpendicular to Mallory.
MRS. BROWN-That’s where the septic.
MR. STONE-Okay. I see the distribution box.
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CUSTER-Is there a reason why you want to site the mobile home where it is? Wouldn’t it
ideally be better, I mean, can’t you put it more centered in the lot?
MR. HERMANCE-I could, but, you know, I’d rather keep it away from the bank. Because it’s
pretty steep, I wanted to keep it away from the bank, because you never know. Last year, the car
almost went over the bank. That’s why I’ve got it set back as far as I can possibly get with it.
They helped us make the plans up there, where to set it.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I have a question of Chris. The definition of “modular home”, when in place, is that
a single family dwelling? I mean, it says when it’s done, it’s indistinguishable in appearance from
a conventionally built home.
MR. THOMAS-That’s a modular. They’re asking for a mobile.
MR. STONE-I understand. I’m just trying to, obviously speed is of the essence in this particular
case, is what I’m hearing. It hasn’t quite been said, and maybe if a modular home would work on
there, if that is a single family dwelling, and it’s not clear to me.
MR. MC NALLY-On a foundation, that’s the distinction.
MR. CUSTER-It’s got to be on a permanent foundation.
MR. STONE-It says with or without chassis, capable of being transported to their building site
and permanently joined into one integral unit which is indistinguishable in appearance from a
conventionally built home, but not limited to a sloped roof and permanent foundation, including but
not limited to a sloped roof and permanent foundation.
MRS. LAPHAM-Mobile homes are built now days on basements as well as foundations.
MR. ROUND-It’s becoming a tougher and tougher distinction to make because mobile homes are
required to be anchored now actually have to be bolted onto a slab, and I guess I’m missing, why is
the question being asked, number one.
MR. STONE-Well, what I’m asking, if speed seems to be of the essence. He needs to get his wife
with care close by so that we don’t have this drive to Hartford and back. Obviously, a mobile
home, if you go out and buy a trailer, it’s not very long to do. I’m just wondering if a modular
home might fit the definition of the use for this.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I believe a modular home would be an approved, or would be an allowable use
in this location. Modular homes are typically considered.
MR. STONE-Okay, and they can be put up pretty quickly. That’s what I’m getting at.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Hermance, your wife is still going to live in your home with you?
MR. HERMANCE-Yes, definitely.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s just your daughter that’s going to be living in this mobile home.
MR. HERMANCE-Right, and her husband.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROSEANNE COLOMB
MRS. COLOMB-My name is Roseanne Colomb. I live at 33 Alta Avenue in Queensbury. I’m
here to represent myself, my husband, and my children. I don’t really know where to begin here.
There’s been like 13 homes that have been built in the area. We’re trying to build the area up.
Our home was appraised at $115,000, and that was in ’95. We have a large two story addition
that has been in progress and very close to being finished, and they said on completion it should be
worth somewhere around $150,000. Out of all the new houses that have been put inn the area,
there was three this summer. There’s two which one of the Hermances has gotten and they are
remodeling, they are re-doing. There is another one on the corner of Holden and Columbia that
just got re-done. I think, at this time, if you put another trailer, which we were all hoping that the
trailers would get out of that area, because it’s just going to depreciate the property value that we
have. I mean, we worked 20 years to get where we’re at. To put another trailer in there is just
going to degrade our property as well as all the new houses there. We have doctors, lawyers,
police officer, Warren County Sheriff. We have a lot of distinguished people, as well as us middle
class that are trying very hard to upgrade ourselves. I don’t think putting a trailer across from a
home which also, I know Jim very well. I’ve know him for years, and to me, this isn’t going to
upgrade his property either, and no offense, but I’m against it completely. I don’t see where it’s
going to do any good for any of the people that have invested, worked hard, and you know, Jim, as
well as I do, we’ve all gone that route. We’ve worked for years to get where we’re at.
MR. HERMANCE-But you face Veterans Road.
MRS. COLOMB-But I own property on Sunset, which is one corner from Mallory.
MR. HERMANCE-You’ve got a right to voice your opinion.
MRS. COLOMB-I have eleven lots up there. I’ve had other people want to put trailers up there,
and I just lost my mother in May. She was diabetic. She was in renal failure. My sister drove
from Hartford to help care for her.
MR. HERMANCE-She had somebody to help take care of her so she could work. I’ve got to have
somebody there.
MRS. COLOMB-But you have your daughter, just as my mother had her daughters.
MR. HERMANCE-Right. Well, she has to travel back and forth.
MRS. COLOMB-And we shouldn’t suffer as your neighbors to lose property value because of
your crisis. We had to deal with ours, you should deal with yours.
MR. THOMAS-None of this going back and forth.
MR. HERMANCE-I’m not going to argue with her.
MRS. COLOMB-I’m not arguing. I’m just stating my opinion. I just lost my mother in May, and
I can relate to where he’s coming from, but putting the trailer there is not going to upgrade
anyone’s property in the area that have put all these houses in there. Thirteen houses have gone in.
If he wants that, then he should build a house, that would upgrade it, not degrade it.
MR. HERMANCE-I’ve got names from all those people that built those 13 houses.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MRS. COLOMB-But what about everybody? You didn’t knock on my door.
MR. HERMANCE-It says 500 feet.
MRS. COLOMB-Nobody told me to get a list, and I’ve had a lot of people tell to get a list, and
I’ve had a lot of people tell me that they didn’t want that. So I don’t know. I only know what they
said and what they told me, and I said I was coming.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you’d like to say, add?
MRS. COLOMB-No, I don’t think so.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. COLOMB-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anybody else that would like to speak opposed to this application?
Correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Correspondence is from Roger P. Whiting, Jr. and Pamela L. Whiting
“Dear Mr. Thomas and Members of the Zoning Board:”, this letter is dated October 22, 1997,
“We’d like to go on record as being opposed to Use Variance No. 64-1997 Jamie Brown, for
placement of a mobile home outside of a mobile home overlay zone. We own property at 29
Mallory Avenue. There have been two previous variance requests in the immediate vicinity to
place mobile homes outside of a mobile home overlay zone. Use Variance No. 58-1990, Taylor
and Lisa Stevenson, Alta Avenue, and Use Variance No. 57-1995, Barbara Mallaney, Sunset
Drive, behind Mallory Avenue, were both denied. See attached. The area has, over the past few
years, been improved with many new building permits issued for a new single family dwellings as a
drive through the neighborhood will verify. The neighborhood is essentially residential in
character, and we feel that the placement of a mobile home would be a detriment to the
neighborhood. Please consider this information as you make your decision. Thank you. Yours
truly, Roger P. Whiting, Jr. and Pamela L. Whiting”
MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence in there?
MRS. LAPHAM-No, not that I’m aware of.
MR. THOMAS-Do you want to bring that chunk of paper up here and we’ll read on it, and just
read down the names?
MRS. LAPHAM-“I, Jamie Brown, would like to place a mobile home on the corner of Nathan and
Mallory Avenue. I have no objection of mobile homes. Signatures” There’s actually 24; 16
Columbia Avenue, 15 Columbia Avenue, 18 Columbia, 4 Feld, 34 Southwestern, P.O. Box 260,
Glens Falls, 1A Mallory, 23B Sunset, 9 Nathan Street, 25 Mallory, 26 Mallory, Nathan Street,
Nathan Street, 26 Holden, 26 Holden, 22 Sunset, 10 Columbia, 31 Mallory, 23 Mallory, 18
Mallory, 23 Nathan, 23 Nathan, 21 Nathan, and another 21 Nathan.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So there’s 24 signatures altogether.
MRS. LAPHAM-There’s 24 signatures.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That does it for correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, lets see what everybody
thinks. Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I think mobile homes provide some valuable and necessary housing, as part of
any town’s plan. Our Town Board has seen fit to exclude mobile homes from this particular
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
district. So you do need a Use Variance, and I do sympathize with these people that Mrs.
Hermance is ill and requires care, but I don’t know why a Use Variance should be granted just for
that reason. I know that there’s alternative housing opportunities, rentals and what not, in the area.
If you look at the four criteria for granting of a Use Variance, the first element is whether or not a
reasonable return can be realized as the property is currently zoned. When I visited the site, I saw
quite a few new homes, small homes, modest homes, but new homes, on nearby streets, right at
that intersection, about the same size lot, and clearly it would seem to me that there would be some
kind of opportunity to put a modular home or a stick built home on this property. So I don’t think
that the applicant’s have really shown that they can’t get a reasonable return. I don’t find that the
hardship is necessarily unique to the property. There’s nothing about this property that doesn’t
allow it to be developed in accordance with the Town Board zoning code. The area is mixed.
We’ve got some poorer housing, some wealthier housing, some well to do housing in the area. I
was actually surprised to see, I think the housing is on the upswing, that there is a lot of new
construction there. I didn’t realize there had been, and if you put a mobile home on the property, I
don’t know if that’s going to be in conformance with what’s to come, I think, the essential
character of the area, and I do find that your hardship is self-created, unfortunately. I’d have to
say no as to this particular application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, again, I think I would have to say no, in that the hardship that exists is not
on the part of the property. It’s on the part of the property owner, which, well, years ago, when I
argued for a variance based on this very thing, I had a very wise lady who was an attorney who
died recently, Rebecca Silverman who said you are to follow the law of zoning as applies to the
property, not to the individual, while we can sympathize with the individual’s plight, and even
though that was like 15 years ago, I think she was probably correct today, too, if she were here.
So I think I would have to say no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert?
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I’m opposed to this also, for the very same reasons that everybody else
has enumerated. I have nothing to add.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I agree, unfortunately. Emotion is something we all have to live with, but
unfortunately in this particular case we can’t be emotional. We have to look at the law. The lot is
zoned for a regular home. A regular home can be built on it. There’s been no demonstration of
financial need. I recognize the emotional need. I understand the nurturing need, but I think, as Mr.
McNally said, there may be alternate places for the applicant to stay, and we have to be
constrained by the fact that the land is what is being changed, and the land is zoned one way, and
we can’t change it another for a temporary situation. So on that basis, I will vote no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Likewise, I (lost word) for Mr. Hermance in what’s obviously a basic human
emotion, but unfortunately, we are charged with using specific criteria for designing Use
Variances, and I don’t believe that this particular application meets the first criteria, which is could
the applicant realize a reasonable return if used as zoned, and I think it could be used as zoned. So
I would be opposed to it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I, too, am in concurrence with the rest of the Board for the reasons everybody’s so
eloquently enumerated.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I would be opposed to this variance also, because even though I feel bad
for the Hermances and their situation, I’ve been in the same exact situation myself, that putting a
mobile home on this property would take away from the neighborhood. Even though there are 24
signatures saying that they have no problem with it, as Mrs. Colomb said that she could probably
get signatures saying that the neighborhood would be opposed to it, and reading down through the
four different questions for a Use Variance, that the first one cannot be answered in a positive way,
because they have shown no financial evidence. They, themselves, have stated that there is a
reasonable return for the land if used as zoned, and that the hardship for this property is not
unique, and then the other two, the same thing. So I would have to say no on this also. Before I
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
ask for a motion, this is an Unlisted Type, and if you would look at the Short Environmental
Review form. Does anyone see anything on this form that would cause a negative impact on the
environment by this project? No?
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THIS PROPERTY
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS PROJECT
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to either approve, deny or table this
application?
MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 64-1997 JAMIE BROWN
, Introduced by
Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
Who wishes to locate a mobile home at the corner of Nathan and Mallory. This is outside the
mobile home park and mobile home overlay district. The proposed project would require relief
from 179-17, UR-10. Mobile homes are not an allowable use in this zoning district. We cannot
show that a reasonable return could not be realized by using the property as currently zoned. The
property can be utilized in a residential manner. There is no hardship actually to the property
unique or otherwise. While we can all sympathize with the personal problems of the Hermances,
they really do not relate to the property. The requested variance could alter the essential character
of the neighborhood, which is a single family residential neighborhood, and new home construction
is being built, and it could alter this, and the hardship is self-created in that, yes, wanting to put a
mobile home on this lot where we could do with a stick built or modular is, to my way of thinking,
a self-created problem.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham,
Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-The application is denied.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A CEA, APA PHILLIP H.
MORSE SUSAN K. MORSE OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF A PORTION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE, REMODELING OF
PORTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 179-16, GARAGE RESTRICTIONS OF
SECTION 179-16, AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT; SECTION 179-79. CROSS REF. SPR 41-97 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-19 LOT SIZE: 1.55 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-79
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1997, Phillip H. Morse Susan K. Morse, Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
October 22, 1997 “ Assembly Point
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of an expansion to a non-conforming structure.
The proposed project requires relief from the building height requirements of §179-16. A portion
of the proposed structure will exceed the 28 foot height limit for principal structures (two areas of
the roof are approximately 30 feet in height). The project requires relief from the 50 percent
expansion limit of non-conforming structures §179-79. The proposed project includes two garage
2
areas (attached garage structures) for a total of 1240 ft of garage area which is in excess of the
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
2
Criteria for considering an Area
permitted 900 ft area per the definition of garages (§179-7).
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicant
2. Feasible alternatives:
would be allowed to construct an addition to an existing lakefront home.
3.
Several alternatives are available that would allow conformance to the referenced regulations.
Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
Relief from the 50 percent expansion rule
regulation may be interpreted as substantial. Relief from the remaining regulations may be
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
interpreted as insubstantial. Minimal negative
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community. Yes.
Parcel
The size and character of the proposed project is interpreted as the source of the difficulty.
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. The project
has been reviewed for conformity to the WR-1A zone requirements. The requested relief from the
ordinance is minimal with respect to height and garage floor area restriction. It should be noted
that the proposed project does meet the floor area ratio (FAR) and permeability requirements.
Additional information of the FAR calculations and permeable area calculations are provided
SEQR Status:Additional Notes:
below and as a separate attachment. Type II The following
Floor Area Ratio:
definitions are included within the Town zoning ordinance. The relationship of
building size to lot size, derived by dividing the total building square footage by the lot size in
Building Square Footage, Total:
square feet, yielding a percentage. 1) The combined floor area
of: (a) All floors of the primary structure and covered porches, including the basement when at
least three (3) feet in height of one wall is exposed and the space meets the requirements for living
space as described in Section 711 and 712 of the New York State Building Code. (b) Detached
storage shed buildings greater than one hundred (100) square feet, and detaches garages. 2)
Excluded from the building square footage are open decks, docks, and that portion of covered
docks which extend into the water and one (1) shed of one hundred (100) square feet or less. Any
Principal Building (outside
additional shed will be included. No definition for primary structure
Adirondack Park):
The building in which the principal use is conducted. Based on a review of
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) definition attached garages are not to be included in the FAR
calculation. Although it may have been the intention to include attached garages and although
garages are included on the worksheet provided to applicants for calculation of this figure. The
applicant/applicants agent has indicated the garage floor areas are not included in the FAR
Building Height:
calculation. As measured along a vertical plane from the high point on the
building/to structure to grade at any point adjacent to the building or structure.”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law
firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicants, Phillip and Susan Morse this
evening, and with me is John Mason who is to be the builder of the project, and Joseph Peon, who
is in the first row here, who is the architect for the project. We have probably a very complicated
building project, but not a very complicated variance application. I didn’t mean to overkill with the
submittals that we gave to you, but I wanted you to have enough information so that if you had
questions that you’d have some documentation that you could refer to. There is an existing one
family residence on this property, and the owners wish to preserve a portion of that and build a
home that they wish to have on this parcel. It involves demolition and rebuilding. Basically, for
housekeeping purposes, although not necessarily part of your deliberations, we did apply to the
Town Board for a variance to allow them to put in a holding tank system for this property, and it
was approved Monday night. We will put in a 5,000 gallon holding tank system, which will have
bells and alarms on it, which will tell us when we need to address it, when we need to maintain it,
when we need to service it. We also, as part of this project, will be going to the Planning Board for
site plan review, and perhaps some of the information that you have in your packet, although I kind
of distinguished in my letter as to which was for which application, serves more the purpose of site
plan review than it does Area Variance. Basically the Area Variances that we looked at or are
looking for are very simple. We are asking for a variance for two portions of the structure, on the
required height of 28 feet. We are asking for, and we are asking for one structure, a portion of the
structure, both of them are 30 feet. So we’re asking for two feet relief on those portions of the
structure, and I’ll show you, and I’ve got a separate map of that. We’re also asking for relief in
that we want to have more than one accessory structure, if you will, in that we are having more
than one attached garage, and we’ll show you where we’re going to do that. We also are asking for
relief for the rule that if you have a nonconforming structure, you can’t expand it more than 50% in
area, although we will show you, when we talk about that particular part of the application, that all
of the expansion that we’re talking about here is in conformance. We are not talking about
expanding any of the nonconformity in any manner. So let me give you, if you will, just for your
record, and if you think, again, that we’re into overkill, let me know. We submitted to you a whole
set of plans. I don’t believe we submitted to you a tax map. We have one for the property, and
just to give you an idea, I think it’s very easily demonstrable. This is a unique piece of property.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
It has some 590 feet of frontage on the lake. It’s in excess of one and a half acres. It’s probably
larger than almost any other portion, or any other parcel on Assembly Point, except for maybe Bob
Stewart’s parcel, which is at the very tip. I’m not sure what his acreage is, but he certainly has as
much frontage with it. It’s a combination of a number of lots, and we’ve got the deed with us. If
you look at it, you can see that it all came along in history pretty much together. The piece behind
the property is shown as a blank piece. That’s a homeowners association piece, and it is not built
on, which also maybe makes us a little bit unique in the sense that there’s nobody immediately
behind us, when we talk about the structure that we’re building on this particular parcel. The
survey we did include in your packet, and I think we included that mainly to give you an idea of
what is there now, distinct from the plans of what we propose, and also to give you the
measurement of the 590 feet of frontage that we have. As I said before, probably the most
complicated part of this application is explaining to you what is there, what will remain, and what
will be built. If you will, this is the patio area, and it ends right about at this line right in here.
That is there presently. That will remain. That’s probably attachment to that patio is why we have
nonconformity, or why, it’s not a nonconforming lot. If that patio is considered part of the
structure and it lies within the 50 feet setback, then that is nonconforming, and our attachment of
this house to that patio is what brings us into the 50 foot or 50% application or portion of the
application. If we detach from that patio, or if they abandon that patio, we probably wouldn’t be
here on the issue of the 50% expansion, and nothing is proposed, as I understand it, to that patio.
The green area is there now, and it is an enclosed glass porch, if you were up to the property in the
front part of the building across the property. It’s a large living room with a beamed ceiling behind
it with a fireplace. The intent is to demolish the house that’s above that right now, to the point that
the floor joists in the ceiling of this great room or this living room is left intact. Behind that room
right now there is a kitchen that goes the full length of the house. It’s a very narrow kitchen.
That’s shown in the aqua color, and the area where we’re talking, the demolition will be to the floor
joist, is in green on the map. The area that’s in aqua is also a part of the existing house. That
portion of the house will be demolished down to the floor joist on the first floor, and that’s where
they will begin with the new construction process. The green area that we’re going to build on, the
blue area that we’re going to build on, and all the other areas that we’re going to build on that are
fresh soil are entirely conforming in the manner in which we’re building. It’s not an expansion of
nonconformity in any sense. If we took the patio out, we could build there without the patio, but
the idea is to preserve the patio if we can. I think that gives you an idea of what we’re talking
about, and interrupt me if I’m not clear or if you have questions.
MR. STONE-Mike, is that the 50 foot line there that goes to the patio?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. The dotted line shown through there. That is the building envelope. I
think it’s drawn all the way around, on all setbacks are shown. I think on the south setback, I call
this the south end of the property, back toward Glens Falls, if you will, that has, or will have, a 75
foot setback when they’re done, and on the north end of the property there will be a 90 foot
setback, much more than what is required by the Ordinance. The next map I will refer to is the
map which we have marked the elevation. We gave you a separate map, marked elevation, and we
marked on there the two areas where this will excess the 28 feet in height. There are two small
portions of the building. One is a small cubicle, or cubica, if you will, that’s shown here. This is
the back side of the house. This is toward Bay Parkway. In this particular area here, a portion of
the roof will be two feet above the 28 feet. At the base, that is four feet wide, four feet to zero,
obviously as it comes to a point. I don’t know what the total square footage is that is above it.
The other portion that will be above the 28 feet is this portion which you would see of the roof that
you will see from the lake side, which is in front of the chimney, which will be preserved. At the
base of this extension above 28 feet, the measurement across would be 20 feet, and it goes to 12
feet. It’s not a rectangle. It doesn’t go to a complete triangle. There’s very minimum excursions,
if you will, above the 28 feet, with an intent to give some architecture design, some architecture
point of center to the structure. They did the drawings without that, with 28 feet, and it looked
kind of like a flat, commercial building. It just gives it a little bit of flair. It really is not a
significant change, and I say that particularly because of the single map that we gave you, and I’m
not sure if you have that out. You will notice that the existing structure, there’s some 30 feet, is 35
feet high. The dotted line on this map actually shows the existing structure’s height, and you see it,
we’re below that with what we propose is being a variance, and we’re much less in size, if you take
the totality of that. So it’s really a much smaller nonconformity if you talk about the existing roof
being a nonconformity, if somehow we were to preserve that roof. Probably something that is very
demonstrable of what we’re talking about is it being not an impediment or detrimental to the
neighborhood is this set of photographs. There are four photographs here, and on the map it’s
indicated where the person stood when they were taking them. They’re the panoramic type
photographs. So you get a pretty good idea. We are looking into the Morse property. We are
trying to locate on the Morse property from Parkway Driveway, the 35 foot house structure, and
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
the only place that you can get a glimpse of it at all is through the driveway, and you can see
exactly where the people were standing. So if we decrease that by seven feet, it’s very hard to
imagine how that is going to be obnoxious or noticeable or detrimental to the community or to any
neighboring property, and if you want to, just out of curiosity, those are probably very
representative, but there are some 20 or better photos here taken. We couldn’t find the house,
because it’s so well treed, on Parkview side. There is no proposal to remove in any significant
manner the trees that are there. We also, and this is something that we will submit at site plan
review, had the survey actually locate all the trees that are in existence on the site. If you overlay
this over the site of construction, you will see that we will maintain the existing trees and foliage
that are there. Okay. As to the issue of the two garages, basically, this is a large house, no
denying it. The people who are going to reside in this house enjoy a certain lifestyle. They have
more than one car. They also have family that visit on a regular basis. They want to have the
ability to keep the car within doors. It fits the design very well to separate Mrs. Morse’s car and
put it near the kitchen area, so that she can come in and immediately unload whatever she’s doing
or whatever immediately next to the house. The rest of the cars are being put over here, and
there’s a three car garage there. The variance is phrased and put forth in the nature of being a
request to allow two garages. I will announce to you, and I think Staff comments that the totality
of the two garages is in excess of the 900 square feet, if you had one garage, but again, I think
you’re talking about a bulk issue, and there’s really no showing here that even though this is a very
large structure, that it’s going to be offensive or detrimental to the community or adjoining
properties. I think I’ve been involved in a couple of others. I think I sat through the Maynard
application, and that was a large structure, and that required a garage larger than 900 square feet,
if you put it all in one space. It really doesn’t fit this to put all the garages right in the center of the
house. So it fits the flow plan and everything else to try and separate them. I think I also sat
through Jim and Tina Marshall’s application a few years ago. People that are going to build a
house of that size aren’t going to want or aren’t going to be satisfied with a 900 square foot garage.
I think that that came about, if I remember, because of a problem with somebody who built a large
garage, and then turned it into a trucking and logging business, and there’s always a question of
nonconformity and where you started, where you didn’t start, it was up near Pickle Hill Road,
that’s still been a problem and many times been before you different operations out of that
particular property. Shortly after that issue came up, the Town adopted this business of having
one garage not to exceed 900 square feet. I don’t think there’s any fear or possibility here that
these two garages as requested are going to support the operation of a business that’s going to be
offensive to that neighborhood. The alternative is to make them keep their cars outdoors, and if
they were visible, I would think that the people would be much happier to have them indoors. It
really has no impact on the Town, neighborhood, or community. The third issue that they’re
talking about is, as I indicated, because we want to maintain the patio, we have what you call a
nonconforming structure or we’re adding to a nonconforming structure. We actually could add to
this great room and to the enclosed porch, and that’s conforming, and we wouldn’t be
nonconforming on those issues. The only thing I can really say on that is that everything we’re
doing is within conformity, would conform to the setback, would conform to the side, on the back.
We do on the side, both sides. We do on the frontage as well. There really is no significant
impact. These two maps are done basically for the site planning, with the coloring, but I thought
I’d share them with you, whatever. That gives you some perspective of the green area and how the
lot would, or the house would sit on the lot from a vertical position, if you were directly above and
looking down. This gives you an idea of the landscaping plan that’s proposed, and which will
probably be conditioned, not probably, but will be part of the site plan application and site plan
approval. It gives you, again, probably even to some degree a false impression of the property,
because from Parkview Lane, that property is not that visible. You take a look at the pictures that
were taken recently or you’ve been up to the property as you do, there just is not that visibility.
We also had, and I don’t know, sometimes these work one way and work to your advantage one
way and work to your disadvantage another way, because it’s hard, on a two foot by one foot
showing, to give you a fair perspective of what a model would be of this particular property. The
point that we tried to make with this, though, and these trees are along here. They are in existence
already and there’s no intention to remove them, is that, on this map here, it looks like you’re
building a great long building, but you really can’t get that perspective of that building from the
lake where it’s visible. From Parkview it’s not visible at all, or Bay Parkway. Probably at most
you’re going to get a picture of the front portion of the existing house, and the northerly end of the
house. The southerly end of the house is pretty well tucked back in, and it is not really going to be
that visible. It really is an extension with an open porch area with a bridge above it with a garage
and what we’ve labeled on the plans as, and what we will use as a golf practice area. It’s a very
narrow thing. It’s 25 feet, in think, in width, although it extends quite a ways over. A lot of
planning went into this, trying to make this as conforming as possible, and still allowing the
applicant to enjoy the property in the manner that he thought was appropriate. We went over with
Staff to great degree all of the percentages and square footages and everything else, and we’re not
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
asking for a variance on permeability. We’re not asking for a variance on total building to lot
ratio. Basically what we’re asking for is three area variances, and they center around the fact that
we want to put two portions of the roof a little bit higher than what is permissive, which is lower
than what is existing, and we want to have the two garages as opposed to one garage. I can do it
now. If we were putting it all into one garage, we’d be asking for a variance for the excess of the
900 square feet, and also because of the 50%. I can show you on that model, if you want, the two
areas that we’re talking about the height. This is the area that’s two feet, twenty feet at the base
and it goes to about twelve feet at the top. This is the existing chimney, and this little cubicle here,
on the inside, is the other area that is about two feet in excess.
MR. STONE-What about chimneys? They’re part of the building.
MR. O’CONNOR-Chimneys have never been measured, as far as I’m aware, and that’s what we
were told by Mr. Goralski.
MR. ROUND-They haven’t been included in the building height.
MR. O’CONNOR-They have not been included.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m only reading what it says, building height, the top of the highest, as high
as it goes.
JOHN MASON
MR. MASON-The chimneys will be lower now. We’re bringing the chimneys down.
MR. STONE-The highest point of a building or structure, is what the law says.
MR. ROUND-The historical interpretation is that chimneys are not subject to that.
MR. O’CONNOR-We went through many of those meetings, when they were doing the lakeshore
regulations, and that was specifically excluded. It went back and forth. The same thing as house,
measured, this applicant probably handicapped a little bit because of the flatness of the lot. You
wouldn’t have that difference if you were accommodating the structure into a hill. You could set
up your architectural setting and center without being partially above that.
MR. STONE-Mike, I assume this dotted line here is supposed to represent the 50 foot line?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-And yet it goes through this part of the structure. It doesn’t on there, but it does
here. I just want to be sure we’re consistent.
MR. MASON-That’s a planter.
MR. STONE-That’s a planter.
MR. MASON-That’s in the patio itself.
MR. STONE-That’s where the dirt is now, where the shrubs were taken out?
MR. MASON-You measure from the existing structure 50 feet from the existing structure to the
sea wall. It’s 50 feet right here.
MR. STONE-It looks okay there. Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-We’ve not asked for any setback variances. Specifically, they worked hard to
try and get that to a point where they would not be. We’ve got all kinds of things else, but I think
I’ve covered the points that I’d like to cover, unless you have questions of me.
MR. STONE-What about the Floor Area Ratio, 22%?
MR. O’CONNOR-Floor Area Ratio? We comply.
MR. STONE-You include the garages?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. O’CONNOR-No, we do not. We did not because that’s the way the Ordinance is written, but
if you did include the square footage of the two garages as we’ve proposed them, we would still
comply.
MR. STONE-I figured it out. You do, yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-We did, too, because I thought somebody might ask that question. Because we
spent three or four days trying to figure out whether or not we should include them or not include
them.
MR. STONE-Did you, see, I was going to ask the Town, if the number had come in over 22, I was
going to ask the Town Board to come in here, or at least review the minutes of all those meetings
for what was their intent, because at least talking to one person, the intent was to include garages.
The law is not very clear.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, no, it is. The law says, if you look at the floor area, and floor area is
defined as a separate item, and floor area excludes attached garages.
MR. STONE-I didn’t find it that way.
MR. O’CONNOR-Look under “Floor Area”.
MR. MASON-Look under “Gross Floor Area”.
MR. ROUND-The definition doesn’t refer to Gross Floor Area.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it uses the term “Floor Area”, and that’s the only definition of Floor Area.
MR. ROUND-I guess we could debate this, but I’m not going to go there, but it meets within, we
don’t have to go there. It would save us all some time.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s something that might be addressed.
MR. STONE-I did figure it out.
MR. O’CONNOR-It might be something that somebody does address. It probably wouldn’t hurt
to look at it.
MR. STONE-Where is the septic system, and where are the tanks going to be?
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I have an actual map of it. I can show you in general. The existing
septic system right now is in this area, and it’s some place around 75 to, have you got the septic?
Okay. The holding tank area is on the back of the property. It meets all the setbacks that are
required of a holding system, or even a conventional system. It meets those setbacks, and it’s on
the back of the property along the parkway.
MRS. LAPHAM-Is this supposed to be better than a conventional system? Because it’s self
contained.
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s set up so that you have two alarms. One alarm tells you that you should be
thinking about doing something. The second alarm says your water is shut off because you didn’t
do something. It shuts your water off. There’s a third page here that gives you all the alarms and
whatever in details that are required by the Queensbury Town Ordinance. I was going to show
you, if you look at the front page here, just for comparison purposes, the existing system is over in
this area here. It wasn’t really truly located for me to tell you that it was, you know, exactly how
close, but it’s a lot closer to the lake than even this system over there.
MR. HAYES-Mike, I have a question. On one of the plans there, it shows an existing garage. It
says “remove existing garage”?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. That garage will be removed. Right now on the property there is a
freestanding garage, which is toward Bay Parkway, and attached to the house is a three car garage
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
itself. So there are two garages on the property right now. The one that’s in the back, I did look in
through the door. I don’t know how we did, Chris Round and I were up there one day. It doesn’t
look like it’s fully, it would be utilized as a garage right now. They have all kinds of lawn stuff in
there, and they’ve shortened up at least the portion that we looked into, but there are two garages
there. That one garage would be removed.
MR. STONE-I have to admit, I’ve biked by that road many times, and I never saw the garage until
I saw the plans, the other one.
MR. O’CONNOR-The house is very well hidden from the roadway. It’s a unique piece of
property.
MR. HAYES-Do we have the square footage of the garage that’s going to be removed? I mean, is
that available to us?
MR. MASON-It’s approximately 600.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-And the three car attached garage is probably 500.
MR. STONE-The small one.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So we’re going from one attached garage and one detached garage, proposed, to two
attached garages?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MASON-We’re also going from 1100 square feet to 1240.
MR. KARPELES-Is there any significance to this Test Pit Number One? What does that mean?
MR. O’CONNOR-I think it was made just to see what the soil conditions were.
MR. MASON-That was just an excavation made for soil conditions when we were planning the
septic.
MR. O’CONNOR-It shows, I think, six feet of good soil.
MR. KARPELES-It doesn’t come into play as long you’ve got a holding tank, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project? In favor of? Would anyone like to
speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB STEWART
MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart and I live at 106
Bay Parkway, which is about three houses beyond the subject property. I think at this stage I have
more questions than I do objections, but I don’t, I was not aware of the magnitude of this project
until I got here tonight, and it just takes your breath away. Mr. O’Connor has indicated that the
property is well secluded so that you really won’t notice this mammoth, but in fact the trees behind
the house which border on Bay Parkway are virtually all dead. I don’t know if any of you have
looked, but I’ve wondered for years why nobody cut them down. They’re held up by a fence and
their branches are sort of woven together. There’s some dead pine trees, and they’ve all been killed
by the salt and so on on the road over the years. Those obviously cannot stay any length of time,
because there just isn’t a green branch on them, and when they come down, there goes that
protection. The original property, before Mr. and Mrs. Morse bought it, was sheltered from the
lake. There were two huge magnificent trees in the front yard, probably in the neighborhood of
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
100 years old. Both of those were cut after they purchased the property, so the front of the
property now is just bare to the lake. There is nothing subtle about it, and now we’re going to
enlarge it, which wouldn’t bother me, but I know it’s more than 50%, because that’s why they’re
here, but I don’t know how much. I don’t know what the square footage is now, Mike, or what it is
proposed to be, if this is approved. Just how big an expansion is this?
MR. O’CONNOR-Forty-one hundred and twenty-two is the existing Floor Area, and thirteen
thousand six eighty-seven is the proposed. That’s two story construction.
MR. STEWART-And is that garages and everything altogether, or is that just the house?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, that’s everything, of what is accounted for as to the 50%.
MR. STEWART-So we’re taking a house that’s too close to the lake, water line, the shoreline
now, to meet your existing requirements, even though you’ve shrunk them down within the past
year from 75 to 50. This is inside the 50.
MR. HAYES-I don’t believe that it is.
MR. STEWART-Well, the patio only, but the patio is part of the house by definition in your
Ordinance. Is there any question that this house is nonconforming because it’s too close to the
lake? I thought that’s why we’re here?
MR. THOMAS-No, 50% expansion, more than 900 square feet garage.
MR. ROUND-It’s a nonconforming structure. Because a portion of the structure is within the 50
foot setback.
MR. STEWART-That’s what I’m saying. All right.
MR. STONE-Which is not being elevated from its old level. It’s just, it’s the same patio. It’s
being worked on, but it’s the same patio.
MR. STEWART-Now, a second question I have, and Mr. O’Connor, maybe you can help me, the
front part of the building, where you said there were beamed ceilings and so on now, is that going
to be raised higher than it presently is?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. The green area, they will demolish it to the top of the floor joist. They
may take the sub floor off above the floor joist, because everything from the ceiling on down will
stay the same.
MR. STONE-The second floor will be put on top?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MASON-We removed the old second floor and built a new second floor on it. It’s primarily
second floor. It’s bedroom space.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s in comparison to the existing structure, you’re saying?
MR. MASON-In comparison to the existing height, we go from 35 feet down to 28 feet. That
section right there, and this little spindle right there, they’re the only parts that are above the 28,
from the original 35. This house sits there. So if what Bob says is accurate, we’re actually
lowering the structure on the lake side, so you’ll see it less.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think the purpose of this model was to show you that you will see not all
13,000 square feet or even all 6,000 square feet. It’s hard to imagine how far out on the lake that
you’re going to have to have, if that were completely denuded, from this line of trees that are there
were taken down, to actually get a perspective of end to end. I don’t mean to interrupt you.
MR. STEWART-Well, I think I have raised my points. The last thing that concerns me, there is
one other, and the reason I came over tonight was when I realized that the expansion was going to
be of such a size, that it literally could not take care of its own septic, and we’re going to have to
go to a holding tank. This is the first I’ve seen that done on a magnificent mansion of this type in
my life. I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Morse will be very, very careful and cautious in the way they
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
handle it, but of course what’s granted here is going to go on forever, long after they’ve sold the
property, and the second, third and fourth owner may come along. I don’t know where a sewer
system stands. I doubt that we’re going to see one in our life times. In terms of it’s size, how often
it’s going to have to be pumped, how many trucks will be required to pump it, it’s not an
insignificant issue. How many bathrooms will this house have?
MR. MASON-It’s six bedrooms. It’s based on bedrooms.
MR. O’CONNOR-Part of your premise is not correct. They could install a conventional septic
system that would manage to handle the house with the new construction. That was the reason we
went to the Town Board and applied for a variance, because we didn’t have a hardship need for
holding tanks. We had simply a desire that we thought that it was more environmentally sensitive
to take the septic off of the point entirely, and these people are in a position that they can afford to
do that. Also, if we put in a conventional septic system, and still met, we would meet the setbacks,
we would have to take down a great deal of the screening which you’ve seen in those pictures that
are along the roadway in the back. We’ve got the map with the septic. We’ll put that back up.
We actually showed on this septic map where a conventional septic system could go, and we did a
test pit to show that we had six feet of soil that we could put it in without bringing soil onto the
site. If you take a look at, you don’t have the septic because it wasn’t part of your application, but
the dotted line that goes around the holding tank area is the outline of the conventional septic
system sized to service this house if they were of a mind to put in a septic system, a conventional
septic system in. They could do that.
MR. STONE-What’s the anticipated interval between pump outs?
MR. MASON-What we’ve found in most of the holding tank systems that we’ve put in, is that we
pump out far less than what the Board of Health expects. The Board of Health expects that a
house will use 150 gallons per day per bedroom. Our experience has been that it’s half that,
maybe even less. Holding tanks that we have put in on other houses, and while we haven’t put in
one on a house this large, we have put them in on a number of houses very close to this size.
Houses that we’ve put holding tanks on we find that we will have a pump truck up there probably
six times during the summer months, and then even less during the off season. Most of the pump
trucks that are on the road today can handle 3,000 gallons. So they don’t come up every day. It’s
nowhere near as invasive as you might think, Bob, and frankly, it truly is the only septic system
where you can go to sleep at night and know very well that not one drop of effluent is getting into
Lake George. The only one. I’m glad they’re willing to do it. It’s more expensive, but I’m glad
they’re willing to do it. I wish more people would.
MR. STEWART-Well, I have made my comments, so that you’re aware of the magnitude of what
you’re seeing. It certainly is not subtle, and it depends upon your point of view of, you know, how
you’d like to see the lake develop. With that, I’ll leave it to your judgment. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I just have a couple of questions pertaining to the permeability. We had long
discussions in Town Board workshops and Town Board hearings concerning this subject of
permeability and our arriving at that 22%. I just can’t understand that Staff interprets garage area
not to be a part of that area to be considered as nonpermeable, in addition to the patio, okay.
Those, it’s clear that that ratio has to take into account what is not permeable. Also, the septic
system, the leach bed area and the septic tank are not considered to be permeable areas. Now, I
don’t know what areas this 5,000 gallon septic system is going to take, or how deep it’s going to
be, but I think the Code says it has to be below existing grade. The five feet of good soil you’ve
found is encouraging to hear. Was that the depth of bedrock, and will these tanks? Is it the depth
of bedrock?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The first question I had is, however far you dug down, was bedrock
encountered? Is it anticipated that you’re going to disturb bedrock in this construction? If you are,
you’re playing with a natural resource, and I think you should address that in your environmental
assessment, and again, the area of things like leach beds, patios, garages, septic tanks, is not
considered to be permeable.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. John, Mr. Mason?
MR. O’CONNOR-Let me respond, because I don’t often agree with John Salvador, but I don’t
disagree with him on the definition of permeable. The garages were, you’re mixing apples and
oranges, and this is a very complicated construction project, but it is not really a very complicated
variance application. We included the patios. We included the walkways. We included the
driveways. We included the total square footage of any structure on there, whether it was garage,
living space or whatever, when we made a calculation of permeability. That’s a separate
calculation. Our calculation of nonpermeable area was 21,162 square feet. That turned out to be
some 65%, or it left us 69% permeable area. We were required to leave 65%. We actually had
4% left over after the calculation, and on the total lot size, that’s almost 3,000 square feet. I can’t
tell you as I sit here, and I would guess, I’ve never heard of anybody including the area of septic
where it’s covered by, I think, three feet of ground above the tank. I’ve never heard of anybody
including that as being nonpermeable, and I don’t think Staff has ever done it either on a
commercial project or a residential project. I would differ with you on that issue, but even if you
included the area that is here for those five holding tanks, it certainly is not going to take up that
4% excess that we had. So we comply fully with the permeability requirements of the Ordinance,
and for otherwise is not a fair review of the application. I asked the question as to rock, because I
was talking to Kathy Vilmar from the Lake George Association about the project, and she was
concerned about ledge or something like that. So I got into that discussion with John Mason.
There was no rock or ledge found in this test pit. We don’t anticipate that we’re going to find any
rock with any of the excavation that we’re going to do, and you folks are more familiar with the
rules of the LGA than I am, and I’ve asked her to look at those rules. I said, Kathy, are you going
to make a comment letter, and I specifically called her and asked her if she was, because I’ve been
involved where they come to the mic and have a concern or don’t have a concern, and she said, no,
you are very negligible in any impact that you’re going to have, and I said, would you come and
tell us that, and she said, no, we don’t do that. I got into a long discussion, then, about looking at a
glass half full and half empty, and credibility of reviewing organizations when they can’t say
you’ve done a good job when you’ve done a good job, and I think this applicant has done a decent
job and really presented something that’s worthwhile, and apparently, and I told her I’m very
reluctant, she said go ahead and say what I have said to you that she said to me, and I told her I’m
reluctant to do that because I always go off into unrelated items, but the reason that they won’t
give you a letter that says that it is a good project, and I think Mr. Stone is laughing because I
think we got one letter from you, involving a dock project up in Lake George, just north of the
Village, where we wanted to put a walkway out, but we got that from the Dock Committee. We
didn’t get that from the LGA in total. They don’t recognize the variance portion of the ordinance.
They say if you need any variance, they will not recommend a project, even if it’s a project that
fully qualifies for the variances. It’s a philosophical thing.
MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak?
MR. SALVADOR-If the area of the leaching device were to be included in the permeability
calculation, would you meet the requirement? Would you be able to meet the requirement?
MR. MASON-Yes, many times over.
MR. THOMAS-John, how many square feet are each one of those tanks?
MR. MASON-Each one of those tanks is probably 32 square feet, maybe at most 50 square feet.
You’ve got five tanks times 50 square feet. You’re looking at 250 square feet.
MR. THOMAS-Two hundred and fifty square feet of surface.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. How about if you were to put in a conventional septic system with a
leach bed or a mound system, whatever you need, the area of that device included in your
permeability calculation as a nonpermeable surface, because I think that’s the way it’s considered,
I heard this debate many, many, many times to tell you, okay, would you meet the requirement?
MR. MASON-Yes. Even with a pressurized system, the largest pressurized system I’m aware of,
that’s ever been placed on Lake George, would probably be, I’m talking residential, would
probably be 40 feet wide by perhaps 60 feet long. You’d be looking at 2400 square feet. We’re
still under the permeability, and, John, like Mike, I don’t agree with you. A septic system is a
permeable area. It is not impermeable.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but it’s meant to go this way.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. MASON-A tank I think you might be right about, but a field, you’re absolutely dead wrong.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other thing I’d like to mention is that it’s my understanding that a
holding tank system is not considered an alternative waste management handling system, an on-site
system, by the New York State Health Department. A holding tank is something you’re allowed to
go to on a short term basis. You have no other relief. There’s no other way, but a project that is
billed as an expansion from 4100 some square feet to 13,000 some, I mean, and then not to address
the septic system in a conventional manner, the New York State Health Code, I believe, provides,
anticipates, that waste water will be handled through a community system, and an on-site septic
system involving a leaching device is a suitable alternative. That’s the alternative, and they have
design criteria for it, but I think that thing should be checked with the New York State Health
Department. I think the Town Board was wrong in assuming that that could be permitted, and it is
in fact a better system. I wouldn’t want to be living in a neighborhood with those honey buckets
driving down the road every day. I wouldn’t want to be there. That’s for them.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
MR. O’CONNOR-Just for the record, the expansion, if you really get into the septic area, is not an
expansion. There presently is seven bedrooms there. We’re going to a five bedroom home, and
we’ve always quantified everything septic by bedrooms. I think the State, the Health Department
does. Our Code does, that’s what gives us the requirements. We, and I’ve been personally
involved in other year round homes where they’ve put holding tanks in, and I don’t understand
what he’s really talking about. The Town Board did give us a variance. If the Town Board is
proven wrong or doesn’t have the authority or the jurisdiction to give us a variance, then we could
do the conventional part. The unfortunate part of that is that we then will have a septic system on
site, and we’ll also do a lot of clearing that we don’t think is necessary.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-There’s no correspondence from the public, but I haven’t read the Warren
County Planning Board notes yet.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Read them.
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of
October 1997, the above application for Area Variance 65-1997 Phillip H. and Susan K. Morse
on Bay Parkway for an Area Variance to demolish a portion of existing residence, remodel
portions and construct an addition, was reviewed, and the following action was taken.
Recommendation to: Return. Removed from the agenda at the request of the Town.” Signed by
Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.
MR. O’CONNOR-The Town realized, after they sent it, that it wasn’t one required to go to the
County, and that’s why they withdrew it from the County.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Yes, I have a question. You showed us some very detailed photos taken from Bay
Parkway in October and September, when the deciduous trees were in gorgeous living greens and
reds and yellow colors. There are five months out of the year when a lot of the trees on that
property have no leaves whatsoever. I would anticipate that the house would be more visible to
year round residents on Assembly Point than your, where you’re referring to.
MR. O’CONNOR-Certainly, there’s a certain amount of foliage that will fall as it gets colder, but
you yourself indicated that you’ve ridden around there for how long on a bike.
MR. STONE-Not in the winter.
MR. O’CONNOR-Not in the winter? Okay. The other thing which we haven’t gotten into a little
bit is this is going to be environmentally sensitive, as far as color and siding and whatnot, and we
will get into that with the site plan review. They will be muted colors. It’ll be a slate roof,
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
fieldstone. I don’t think, and I really didn’t, you’ve got to take a look at the pictures. There’s a
pretty good mix of some evergreen there as well as deciduous. The deciduous trees are closer to
the house itself than they are to the roadway.
MR. STONE-But we did hear from a resident three houses away that a lot of the deciduous trees,
or some of the pine trees, so called evergreens, are in a bad state of health.
MR. MASON-I can respond to that. If you’re facing the driveway, the pine trees that go from the
gate toward Bob Stewart’s house, Bob is absolutely correct. There are a number of pine trees that
are in pretty tough shape. However, if you look at the pictures right now, you’ll see even with
those pine trees in tough shape, you still can’t see the house. I can tell you that while this project is
going on, any of the dead trees that are there will be removed and new screening will be replaced.
It is the Morse’s intention that that house will be completely blocked from Bay Parkway. You will
not see it.
MR. STONE-If we put a contingency in the variance, that would not be a problem?
MR. MASON-You would not have a problem with the applicant. Do you agree with that?
MR. O’CONNOR-I think that’s a site plan review issue, and I would prefer to leave it there. Any
property that these folks have held have been very well landscaped. They maintain their privacy
probably more than other people. Take a look at their home in Glens Falls and whatnot.
MR. STEWART-But we would possibly grant a more than 50% expansion. I think we can put
that contingent on the fact that that is not seen.
MR. O’CONNOR-You certainly have the authority to do that if you thought it was necessary.
The 50% portion that we’re talking about screening can be built without a variance, if he takes the
patio off the front.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. O’CONNOR-He’d prefer not to.
MR. MASON-I also want to mention one other thing about summer, winter, fall, whatever. I am
familiar with that area in the winter months, and you still do not see the house from Bay Parkway
during the winter months. I will grant many of the leaves do fall off the trees in that area, but it is
still well blocked.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what’s going on at the house now? When I went to look at the property
today there were all kinds of workmen all over and what was happening there?
MR. O’CONNOR-The patio is being re-built.
MRS. LAPHAM-That’s all?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Because it looked like a massive project already.
MR. O’CONNOR-They were doing some work down on the boathouse, too, and the sea wall.
MR. STONE-It’s been a two year project.
MR. O’CONNOR-Somebody found a home.
MR. MASON-Maybe I better respond to this. There are three different projects going on right
now. One is almost completed. The entire sea wall was re-faced. The Belgian paving blocks were
taken down. They were put back in, re-pointed, and a new blue stone cap has been placed on that
sea wall. The boathouse has been, I won’t use the term “re-modeled”. He’s put pine siding inside
the boathouse, repainted the boathouse. Basically just a real fix up on the boathouse. The third
project is that the pre-existing blue stone patios are also being re-faced, and those are the three
projects that are going on. They have been going on for two years, and I’m not the mason.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. STONE-But you got the dock, though.
MR. MASON-I did the boathouse. I’m guilty.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MRS. LAPHAM-What do I think?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think it’s probably planned as best it can be planned for a 13,000 square
foot house. I’m against seeing anything that large on the lake, but I’m also aware that they have
met most of the requirements and if it weren’t for the patio it wouldn’t be here, but it’s not
something I’m thrilled with, no matter how well planned and how good taste it is in, it’s still
13,000 square feet, and it’s not shaded from the lake. That’s all I have to say. I want to see what
the rest of the Board says.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert?
MR. KARPELES-I’m in favor of it. I think it’s going to be, obviously it’s been well thought out
and well planned, and they appear to want to do everything right, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t
see any big objection if we can see the house. I think it’s going to be beautiful, and it could be
built without any variance if it weren’t for the patio, and I think that the holding tanks are a great
idea. I’m in favor of the project.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, this will be the first home in the great and gracious volume two, so it seems.
I’m of the same mind that Bob is. I mean, at first blush, 14,000, 13,000, 15,000, however you
figure it, is a huge house, visa vie Assembly Point and certainly the east side, with a couple of
exceptions, but there is no doubt, just by evidence of the weight of the evidence that we have here,
that an awful lot of planning has gone into it. The fact that the projects that John Mason just
talked about have been going on for two years shows a real desire, on the part of the applicant, to
do it right, and as you correctly pointed out, if you took the patio out, it wouldn’t need a variance.
I am a little concerned by your contention that the chimneys don’t count. I mean, I don’t know
what we’ve said. I’m just looking at the words, and it says, the highest part of the building, and
even then, I don’t have a problem in probably granting that relief. I just want to be sure that if in
fact we do grant relief that we’re getting the right number. I’m always concerned that we’re
granting the proper number. The project is, it’s the biggest lot around, and it’ll be the biggest
house around. I guess they two go together.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s important to note that an individual’s right to do with his property
has been an important aspect of this Country’s history, and it’s been vigorously protected in our
court system, and that the very existence of zoning laws, it’s my understanding, are to protect the
public good and people right to not have somebody do something else with their property that is a
nuisance to somebody’s remaining property. Looking at these plans, I can’t see how anybody
could interpret these are either one of those. When we talk about a variance, one of the first and
most important things we’ve always discussed is whether the project’s going to be done right. If
we grant the relief, is the project going to be done right, and I agree with Bob Karpeles and Lew
that there’s been a tremendous amount of mental thought gone into this. They’ve employed some
of the best and finest people in our community, professionals that are proud of what they do, and
they’ve come up with a plan that, to me, looks good, and last, I think that, you know, what’s the
message you send out to the community, the applicant has been a successful businessman in our
area, he’s not someone who’s come outside the area as a non-contributor and is asking for a lot of
relief for a lot of things from our Board. He’s been engaged in the community. He’s been active in
a number of important charities and other things in our community, and I think that, what’s the
message we send out, that if you’re successful and you want to live a successful lifestyle in our
community, that we don’t want you to build in our Town? I don’t think that’s the message we
want to send to the people that live here and have lived here all their lives. So I would be in favor
of the application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. CUSTER-I’m pretty much in concurrence with everyone else. I think, you know, initially you
look at it and it’s pretty much, wow, it’s a big house, but once you get beyond that, it’s been very
well thought out and very well planned, and I’m not sure if it’s the biggest house on the lake, Mike,
but somebody has to have the biggest house on the lake, and if that’s Mr. Morse, so be it. In fact,
if anything, and this is not criticism of the architect, it’s more a criticism of the Town’s height
restriction. I think it’s rather limiting in the aesthetics of that roof. That hip roof looks awful flat.
I wish I could give you an extra few feet to put some more pitch to that roof, but that would open
up a whole other can of worms. So I’ll just say I’m for the project.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know Assembly Point too well, but I drove by past the place twice
before I could figure out where the hell it was. I wasn’t even sure there was a house there to begin
with, and I thought that way until I saw that diagram showing the frontal elevation and the rear
elevation of the building, and said, that’s one hell of a structure, but once you get over the fact that
this is a 14,000 square foot house and it’s going to be 50 feet from Lake George on the end of
Assembly Point, I think Mr. O’Connor has demonstrated that they are in essential compliance with
the spirit of the Town zoning code. The height differential which they’re asking us to give them a
variance for is insignificant and minor. They’re not going within the 50 foot lake front restriction.
They don’t require any variances for other setbacks, and but for that patio, they could build this
house any time that they pleased. All things considered, I don’t see that this is something which is
going to be detrimental to the community. I think it would be, on balance, favorable to the
community, and I believe that the variances they seek are minimal. So I would be in favor of it,
though it’s going to be one hell of a big house.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, may I address one more thing?
MR. THOMAS-One more.
MR. STONE-There is the matter of the two garages, and we have been, certainly I, as of last
week, have voted against granting a variance for a second garage, but the fact that these are both
attached garage inside the house, and they’re not going to be two lumps on the property, it’s all
going to be part of the house, I don’t have a problem with granting that part of the variance.
MR. THOMAS-All right. As I see it, we have three simple variances to grant, the relief from the
height of 28 feet, the 50% expansion, and the 1240 square foot garage. I have no problem with the
roof. The 50% expansion they could do anyway without, if that patio wasn’t there. They could rip
that patio up and they wouldn’t even see us, but I do have a 1240 square foot garage, as I’ve stated
for the last five years that I’ve been here. Nine hundred square foot is what the law says, and nine
hundred square foot is what is should be. Out of a 900 square foot garage, you can get three stalls.
Some people own more than three cars. I myself own three. One stays out. So I can’t see why we
should grant a variance for more than 900 square foot of garage space. If it’s for storage, in this
case, it’s not for storage. It is for another vehicle, but that I can’t see. The other two I can, and as
far as adding some little contingency, as Mr. Stone calls it, I would like to see that, in the motion,
that the building look like the artist rendering, because we’re running into problems of that sort in
and around Lake George and in and around Queensbury, and also that the landscaping that’s done
is shown that there’s no trees taken out that aren’t replaced with live plantings, given the dead trees
that are around the perimeter of the property and along the road. Anything removed is replaced.
So that’s all I have to say about it. This is a Type II Action. So we don’t have to worry about it.
MR. ROUND-No. It’s Unlisted because of that 50% expansion rule. So you have to perform the
review.
MR. THOMAS-All right. If everyone would look at the attached Short Environmental Assessment
Form. After reading through it, does anyone see any problems with any of the way the questions
are answered?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THIS PROPERTY
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS PROJECT
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles,
Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-All right. Having said that, all we need now is a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1997 PHILLIP H. MORSE SUSAN
K. MORSE
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
The applicant proposes construction of an expansion to a nonconforming structure. As far as
relief, the proposed project requires relief from the building height requirements of Section 179-16,
specifically they propose a 30 foot height, and 28 feet is the maximum. So that’s two feet of relief.
The project requires relief from the 50% expansion limit of nonconforming structure mentioned in
Section 179-79. The current residence is 4,122 sq. ft., which would allow an addition of 2,061, for
a total of 6183. The proposed residence is 13,687, which means the applicant is requesting 7,504
feet of relief, from that Section. Lastly, the proposed project includes two garages, two attached
garage structures, for a total of 1,240 feet of garage area, which is in excess of the permitted 900
square feet. Specifically, they are requesting 340 feet of relief from Section 179-7. The benefit to
the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to construct an addition to an existing lakefront
home. There are several alternatives available, but the applicant wishes to construct the proposed
project as a permanent residence. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Clearly, in
regard to the 50 foot expansion rule, the relief is substantial, but I think based on the plans, and the
quality of the plans that went into the project, the detriment to the neighborhood would be minimal,
if not an improvement. Finally, is the difficulty self-created? Yes, but the size and the character of
the project is such that that’s what they wanted, and they did conform within the nature of the lot.
Additionally, we’d like to put two stipulations. One is that the project conform substantially with
the artist’s renderings, as we see tonight, and, two, in regard to screening, that any vegetation or
trees that are removed will be replaced with at least as great a cover so as to exposure from the
road, and that in general the applicant will maintain adequate screening. We’re permitting two
accessory uses on the property, in the form of the garages as presented on the plans, which are 496
and 764 respectively.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
MR. THOMAS-The only thing I think I’d want to throw in there, too, right along that same line, is
the landscaping as shown in the prints and renderings.
MR. STONE-Should we specifically say A-5, for example?
MR. O’CONNOR-They are not necessarily the final, final plans. We hope to have those ready for
the site plan review. They will be substantially the same, but I can’t tell you that they’re going to
be exactly the same.
MR. THOMAS-All right. How about if we say “substantially”?
MR. ROUND-Can I caution the Board in regard to substantially, and in conformance with visual
architectural renderings. The test becomes very clouded, and I would hesitate using any such
language in there.
MR. O’CONNOR-Can you use the word “adequate” screening as Mr. Hayes phrased it?
MR. ROUND-Yes, not so much in regard to landscaping, but in respect to artist’s rendering of the
building or architectural details, etc.
MR. O’CONNOR-Would you want to include earth tones?
MR. MASON-We can use earth tones. It’s all going to be stone, slate and earth tones.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. O’CONNOR-I will make a general stipulation, which I make often, or I’m starting to make
often. I’ve been making it, though. This project will be built as we have presented it to you,
substantially as we have built it. We have not presented anything to you that we do not think will
be actually part of the final project.
MR. STONE-Is A-5 fairly close?
MR. MASON-That’s in regard to the elevation, right?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MASON-Yes. The problem is when you’re incorporating preliminary landscaping plans.
MR. STONE-The architecture, I’m talking. A-5 is the front and rear elevation?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-The elevations are the same. The siding or the vinear on that siding may be
different than what’s shown there.
MR. THOMAS-Another thing, what I’m really driving at is on the lake view, okay, as you look at
it, there’s not a whole lot of windows. You turn around. You build a structure, the whole thing is
completely glass on the front. See, that’s what I don’t want to get into, because the Adirondacks
are not made of glass, they’re made of wood, and stone.
MR. MASON-That is not our concern. Our concern is, Number One, the landscaping plans are
preliminary landscaping plans. They need to be, they really do need to be fine tuned. The second
thing is, as far as the elevation sidings and exterior textures are concerned, there’s a person
working on that right now with Joe and with Sue and Phil, and so many of those decisions are
being made as we speak, and what I’m talking about is the type of wood sidings. I can tell you that
it is Susan and Phil’s intention that all colors will be earth tones. All textures will be earth
textures. It is going to be a slate roof. It is going to be, I don’t know what else to tell you in that
regard. It’s going to be a very muted house, and no more windows than you see right there.
MR. THOMAS-That’s what I want to hear. There’s no more windows than what we see right
there.
MR. MASON-Done.
MR. THOMAS-Because, like I say, when you go down the lake, drive down the lake, ride on the
lake in a boat, you don’t want to see glass reflecting back at you. You want to see the natural, and
this is more.
MR. STONE-There’s a lot of glass there.
MR. THOMAS-There’s a lot of glass, but there’s also a lot of building there, too.
MR. O’CONNOR-The majority of that glass is in place there now. That’s on the first floor.
That’s a pre-existing glass enclosed porch.
MR. THOMAS-Just as long as we’re straight on that. Because we’re going to run into a
ballgame.
MR. STONE-A-5 has basically all that.
MRS. LAPHAM-We’re past the comment stage, but still I think all of us feel that we’ve been
stung before by these huge houses that seem to be fine in the plans, and then suddenly they come
out red brick, and stick out like a sore thumb.
MR. O’CONNOR-We do not intend that. If I understood Mr. Hayes’ motion correctly, you gave
us relief from the 900 square feet garage requirement. I don’t think that’s really what we need,
because either garage is 900 feet. What we need is relief that says, in the specific section of the
Ordinance, that says, accessory uses shall be deemed to be separate, or be single. We need to have
permission to have two attached garages of the size that we’ve shown. One, I think, is seven
something.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
MR. THOMAS-One’s 900 and the other one is 340.
MR. HAYES-I can add that to the motion.
MR. O’CONNOR-One is.
MR. MASON-496 and 764.
MR. STONE-I have one question about the motion. Did we give relief from the existing plus 50%
of the total?
MR. HAYES-Yes, 7,504 feet was the relief.
MR. STONE-That’s 50% more.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
MR. THOMAS-Because of the 900 square foot garages, I’m going to say no.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles
NOES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
MR. THOMAS-So it passes, there you go.
MR. O’CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. MASON-Thank you very much.
MR. SALVADOR-While you were adding language to the resolution, Mr. O’Connor was offering
to give you assurance that this project would be built as presented. I would have felt better if the
word “exactly” as presented was in place of substantially as presented because now you’re still in a
situation of, who determines whether or not it’s substantial.
MR. THOMAS-We do.
MR. SALVADOR-The second thing I’d like to mention is, white is an earth tone, if you’ve ever
been here in the winter time. The other thing I’d like to mention is, at your last meeting, you
approved a variance request for a property on the east side of Lake George, and it was presented to
you as a one acre parcel. It is, in fact, a three acre parcel.
MR. THOMAS-We are going to re-hear that in its entirety.
MR. SALVADOR-Has the applicant been notified?
MR. THOMAS-I don’t believe so.
MR. SALVADOR-Has work been stopped?
MR. ROUND-The applicant hasn’t yet been notified.
MR. SALVADOR-Will work be stopped?
MR. ROUND-Yes, it will be.
MR. SALVADOR-And when will he be notified?
MR. ROUND-Tomorrow morning.
MR. STONE-Does he have his building permit?
MR. ROUND-That I don’t, I don’t believe so.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/97)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
46