1998-01-21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 1998
7:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
BRIAN CUSTER
LEWIS STONE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CHRIS ROUND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 SEQRA TYPE II HC-1A BROWN’S WELCOME INN
MOTEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 932
LAKE GEORGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING
PORCH TO AN OFFICE AND THE ADDITION OF A CANOPY. THE APPLICANT
REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23
AND SECTION 179-28. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 70-
2-10 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28
WILLIAM MINARCHI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-Just read the tabling motion?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, read the tabling motion.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following
request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: November 19,
1997, Variance No. 74-1997, Tabled. Motion to Table Area Variance No. 74-1997, Brown’s
Welcome Inn Motel. Introduced by Chris Thomas, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Bonnie Lapham, Until a further Board member can familiarize himself with the application and
th
read the notes and come in and vote one way or the other. Duly adopted this 19 day of
November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs.
Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone”
MR. THOMAS-All right. I think I did leave the public hearing open for this, and we had already
gone through the public hearing and I think we just need to vote on this, but I did leave the public
hearing open. So I will ask anyone that would like to speak in favor of this variance to come
forward at this time, if they would like to speak. Anyone opposed? And there’s no correspondence,
all the correspondence has been read?
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think there was any last time. No, there wasn’t any.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We didn’t go through the discussion on this, but we’ll start again. I’ll start
down at the back end there with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I see we’ve got our meeting minutes where this was first brought up.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And I’ve reviewed it, and in all honesty, I see this as an application for a sign in
some sense. There’s a reason for the setback. I think I made it clear in my earlier comments that I
think it’s important that we maintain (lost words), and while I sympathize, I certainly don’t see the
need for putting a sign, a building so close to the road, where the only real purpose is to attract
business. I’m not in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ve got a little re-arrangement here. Brian?
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. CUSTER-Well, I think, as I said before on the record, if he was coming back to just put the
office section forward of the building there, that I would be in favor of it, with some new design
work, and I’d like to hear the further notice on that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob. My opinion really hasn’t changed that much. I think the relief is
substantial and I think it’s a stretch. So I would be opposed.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I guess I’m somewhat confused. In reading the record, I thought there was, maybe
I’m wrong, I thought there was pretty much agreement on this thing, and I guess that was only
agreement on the tabling motion. You never did, although the motion, wasn’t there a motion made
that was a positive motion?
MR. CUSTER-I think it was tabled. There was a positive motion in regard, there was an original
structure there, a porch.
MR. STONE-Right, taking off the porch, taking off the cabin.
MR. CUSTER-And bringing that back to be just an office area.
MR. HAYES-But that’s not what he’s proposing. You’re proposing the full canopy, right? No,
you’re not.
MR. MINARCHI-No.
MR. THOMAS-No. What we talked about was just the office and not put the canopy up.
MR. MINARCHI-See, when we were discussing this, and I think it was Brian suggested that if we
did away with the canopy and just had the office, because there’s an existing porch , there was an
existing roof over the porch, like I told you, Mr. Stone, and that was how we left it, and we said,
well, if that’s all we can do, then that would be okay, too.
MR. CUSTER-And you were going to come back with new design work or something then?
MR. MINARCHI-I had something laid out here for a porch or an office on the porch, where the
existing porch is now, and that’s about it, and it wouldn’t change hardly any. You would still have
your windows, your doors, and like I told you, Mr. Stone, where the State was going to put their
entrances, and that’s the reason why I’m doing this. It’s not for show on the road. I’m being
forced.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s why I was confused. You did have a positive motion, and you voted in
favor of it, except there weren’t enough votes, without the canopy.
MR. HAYES-I thought he was still going for the whole thing. Well, if it’s just for the modification
of the porch as so applied, then I would be in favor of the application. I think it’s minimal and I
think.
MR. STONE-No, he’s putting a building in. He’s putting an office, and then a porch which is
going to be out further.
MR. THOMAS-No. He’s putting the office where the porch is now.
MR. HAYES-Correct, in that footprint.
MR. THOMAS-On the end of the building, in that same footprint, there’s a porch at the end of that
building.
MR. STONE-There’s no porch there now.
MR. THOMAS-That’s because of the snow.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. STONE-You mean a deck, thank you. I’m sorry.
MR. THOMAS-There was a covered deck at one time.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you submit anything, Mr. Minarchi, since the?
th
MR. MINARCHI-No, I have not. When we left that night the 19, what actually Mr. Custer
suggested in reference to the canopy being too close, and then he said, well, look, would you accept
just where the porch is and have that office there, and I said, well, that would be helpful, because I
know I’m going to have to move the sign. I know the sidewalks are going in and the curbs, and I’m
trying to centralize where the office should be instead of in the back, it would be in the front.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understand your application then now, you’re looking just to build on that
eight foot deck, eight foot wide deck?
MR. MINARCHI-That’s it. Eight foot by the width of that.
MR. MC NALLY-And according to your plans, there’s going to be a 31 foot 6 inch setback from
the road? Did I read that right from the drawings?
MR. MINARCHI-It should be.
MR. HAYES-So basically the Staff notes are incorrect. They list the canopy as still part of the
application, Chris.
th
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, these are the Staff notes from the 19.
MR. CUSTER-And the only reason why we didn’t move further, we didn’t have enough votes.
MR. THOMAS-Didn’t have enough votes to go one way or the other.
MR. CUSTER-Right.
MR. THOMAS-So we had to table it, because there was only five of us here, and it was a three to
two. Nobody was going to change their vote either way so we could have a majority. So we had to
th
table it. The Staff notes were just past, you should have Staff notes for the 19 of November, and
on Page 25 is the motion made by Jamie Hayes, seconded by Brian Custer, as to what we were
going to do.
MRS. LAPHAM-And I abstained.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you abstained because you hadn’t seen the site.
MRS. LAPHAM-I hadn’t seen the site. I couldn’t. I saw it, but I didn’t see the right thing.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, the only thing, Mr. McNally, would be the eight foot by the width of the
existing building that’s there now is what we discussed and agreed upon, and that was what,
hopefully, would be resolved tonight.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, if that’s your application, you’re modifying your existing one to that
extent, I don’t think I have a problem with it.
MR. STONE-Having raised all this, I would agree. The only thing that I would like to see, and I
know you told me, Mr. Minarchi, what the State said they’re going to do, is there any kind of paper
work, in terms of curb cuts and so on?
MR. MINARCHI-He was supposed to get back to me, and there was a lot of if this and if that. So
finally I called Albany to talk to him. He told me that his boss told him to put everything on hold.
The work was going to be started at Exit 19, as they told me they would. This additional work,
when it comes to the sidewalks, is going to be started this Fall. I cannot do anything until the
sidewalks go in, the curbs go in and then I have to move that sign over to the center, and that’s why
the office, it’ll be right in the center of that office facing the road.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. STONE-So the sign will be no closer to the road than it is now.
MR. MINARCHI-No, sir.
MR. STONE-It’ll just be moved north slightly.
MR. MINARCHI-Yes, sir, and I mentioned to you I would have to build a planter around the sign,
because this is where the traffic flow is going to be. Because now I’m going to be limited to two
openings, one next to Apple Annie’s, or Remington’s, and the other one next to Pete’s, as it is now.
MR. STONE-And the way the motion read from the last meeting, I would have no problems with
it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie, did you have a chance to go out there and look at it?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and I do understand now. I would have a problem, definitely, with the
canopy. I don’t have a problem with the office, as long as it’s on the footprint of that porch.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s what the motion did read.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I mean, I wouldn’t have any problem going along with that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The same here, with me. Does anybody else have any other questions? If
not, I’d like to ask Jamie to read his motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 BROWN’S WELCOME INN
MOTEL
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
932 Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of an office area, and an entrance canopy, but
this motion is in reference to the office area only, specifically. To do so, the applicant would
request relief from the setback requirements of Section 179-23, and 179-28, the Travel Corridor
Overlay. Specifically, the applicant requests relief in the amount of 18 feet from Section 179-23,
and 43 feet from Section 179-28, the Travel Corridor Overlay, which requires a 75 foot setback.
The benefit to the applicant would be to allow him to construct the office addition only, specifically
excluding the canopy. The feasible alternatives are limited due to the nature of the property, and
the problems created by the additional, or a change to the curbing of the property as the applicant
has set forth in his explanations. I believe that the relief is substantial, but I believe that it will not
impact the neighborhood negatively, and in that way I would move for the modified approval. The
proposed work to be done by New York State Department of Transportation as presented by the
applicant, for the curb openings and sidewalks. They were going to limit his curb cut to two 50
foot openings, with a 100 foot opening, or a 100 foot curb in the center, and the sidewalks that
were going to be back seven feet from the face of the curb.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go, the office only on the existing footprint. Okay?
MR. MINARCHI-Sounds good. Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-It took two months to get it, but.
MR. MINARCHI-Well, good things take time.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-98 ALDI, INC. APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE
DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT A RELIEF OR
SCULPTED DEPICTION OF THE ADLI’S CORPORATION LOGO ON THE NORTH
FACADE OF THE FACILITY IS A SIGN AS DEFINED IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY SIGN ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 240). TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 WEST
OF HANNAFORD’S GROCERY STORE ON QUAKER ROAD
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
BARBARA POND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. POND-My name is Barbara Pond. I’m the Store Manager. An hour or two ago I was
presented this paperwork from Lew Kibbling, who has to be in Syracuse at 7:30 for another
meeting of a problem with the store. So I’m really out of my element here, and I just read this
while I was sitting here. We do want to, however, comply with everything that the Town wants.
What they were asking, though, is, because it is like a sandstone etching, it would be very difficult
right now to do that work without bringing in, I guess, a heated tent, and it would tie up traffic by
the handicapped area that is over to the left of that building, and we would like to have time, I
guess in May is when the weather is permitting to be able to do that without the cold, to maybe
have that work done then and maybe to waive the fine. I read in here I guess it’s $250 a day, and
the reason why the sign was put up in the beginning is our contractor, who Lew had been dealing
with, we hadn’t received the Sign Ordinance yet, and he was using a contractor that was supposed
to have been aware of all the regulations. We received the Ordinance after the fact, and now he
has all that information, and we want to comply totally with it, but we’re asking for Spring to do
so.
MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Chris? Well, you’re on the other side of the fence. You sign
the letters.
MR. ROUND-Yes. All the Town is looking for is compliance with the Ordinance. We thought the
point of contention was that they didn’t interpret it as a sign. If they’re agreeing that it is
interpreted as a sign, we can show that on the record, and that they will be compliance, and we’re
more than happy to extend them the courtesy until May, in order to bring that into compliance.
MR. THOMAS-There was a letter that came in from Aldi’s, or that you wrote to Aldi’s.
MR. ROUND-Well, that was just to give you some background, because we don’t typically give
you a lot of information. I guess you could read it into the record, just to clarify what the
discussion is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s part of the application. So it has to be read into the record.
MRS. LAPHAM-Should I do that now?
MR. THOMAS-Well, wait until Chris gets done talking.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. ROUND-But, basically, if you’ve seen the site, our Sign Ordinance reads that anything, it’s a
very, very broad definition of what signs are, for better or for worse, and it came to our attention
that there was a corporate logo on the building. They already have what they’re permitted. The
Ordinance permits two signs on the property. They’ve got a freestanding sign and a wall mounted
sign. This would be a second sign. They could either apply for a variance for this additional sign,
or remove the sign, and I said, well, you also have the option to contest that you don’t believe it’s a
sign, and I thought that was, you know, I gave them all the options. They chose this route, but now
if they choose to bring the store into compliance, we don’t have a problem.
MR. STONE-Chris, don’t we have to rule on the appeal, though, since it’s a formal?
MR. ROUND-Yes, I would. I mean, I don’t know if this is what Ms. Pond, if she’s withdrawing
the appeal, then it’s not necessary. I think that’s what I’m hearing, is that they don’t contest that
it’s a sign.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you know, if you would like, you can withdraw the appeal, and then you and
Chris.
MS. POND-And the reason they were under the assumption it wasn’t was because of the
contractor they said they were dealing with.
MR. ROUND-I don’t have a problem, whatever the issue is.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MS. POND-And they do really want to comply, and they’re going to take that one down, versus
the one that lights up because of the reasons there, and they just said that it would be a little more
difficult right now to do that.
MR. STONE-This was the subject of a variance application back when the signs were to be put
up, for the size and number I think it was, wasn’t it, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Right. Previously the same location.
MR. THOMAS-So, if you’d like to make a statement withdrawing the notice of appeal, then we
can, everything’s said and done, and you and Chris, you can fight it out as to when it’s got to come
off, and he can send a letter.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’d be happy to, that it’s our understanding that it will take place during the
th
earliest construction schedule, and we can set a date, whether it’s April 15 or the month of April
is typically the start of construction season, and give you a time line. All right?
MS. POND-Okay. So I just withdraw the appeal?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Just state that you would like to withdraw Appeal No. 1-1998.
MS. POND-Okay. I’d like to withdraw the Appeal No. 1-1998.
MR. THOMAS-There you go. It’s close enough.
MR. ROUND-If you’d give me a call, give me a call tomorrow.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1998 SEQRA TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH OF ROUTE 9L,
DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,320 SQ. FT.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-60 AND SECTION 179-16.
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 1/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 4-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES
SECTION 179-60, 179-16
JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. ROUND-Before the application is read in, I would like to correct the application. We had
indicated that as part of the application for variance he was requesting two principal buildings on a
piece of property less than two acres. We’ve been given information the property’s approximately
three acres, and that aspect of the variance is not applicable to tonight’s hearing.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. ROUND-Did you follow me on that?
MR. THOMAS-Got it.
MR. HAYES-It’s just setback issues, then?
MR. ROUND-It’s just the setback issues, correct.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-1998 John Salvador, Jr. Kathleen A. Salvador, Meeting
Date: January 21, 1998 “Project Location: Route 9L Dunhams Bay Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 12,320 square foot single family home on a lake
front property. Relief Required: Applicant requires relief from: the front yard setback
requirements of §179-16, the required setback is 30 feet, the proposed is 5 feet; the shoreline
setback requirements of §179-16 & §179-60, the required setback is 50 feet, the proposed is 1
foot; construction of the single family home also requires relief from the density restrictions of
§179-16A(1) & B limiting density to 1 principal building per acre. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant
would be allowed to construct a single family home at a desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
Regarding the setback relief requested, it is feasible the applicant could downsize the proposed
home to reduce the amount of relief requested. Regarding the density restriction, the applicant may
acquire additional property to increase the parcel size to 2.0 acres, or discontinue/demolish the
existing beachouse structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The setback
relief requested may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
It is anticipated that the proposed project would have visual/aesthetic impacts on the shoreline and
adjoining properties. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-
created on the basis of the amount of relief requested. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): The subject parcel is currently utilized as a marina, with approximately 30
slips and 20 parking spaces. An application was previously submitted for construction of a
boathouse. Staff comments: As indicated above the subject property is currently utilized as a
marina. Operation of the marina requires 20 parking spaces. Continued operation of the marina
will require replacement of the parking spaces at an alternative location on the applicant’s land
holdings, or a request for a variance from the parking requirements. The existing beachouse is
interpreted as a principal building in the Adirondack Park. The WR-1A zone allows for 1
principal building per acre, the parcel is 1.99 acres, therefore relief is required from the density
requirements. The setback relief is interpreted as substantial and construction at his location
presents several environmental concerns. On the basis of the proposal, the Board may consider
referring the project to the Planning Board for review. The project will be reviewed by the APA,
LGPC & Warren County. SEQR Status: Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14 day of
January 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of a 12,320 sq. ft.
single family dwelling was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to:
Disapprove Comments: Excessive relief under the Ordinance.” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier,
Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Before Mr. Salvador gets started, I’d like to point out to the Board that since
Warren County has denied this application, that it takes a super majority of this Board, which is
five votes in the positive, to approve this application. Having said that, Mr. Salvador, you’ve got
the floor.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. Good evening, Mrs. Lapham and gentlemen of the Board. I am
here this evening seeking a variance from the Town Zoning Ordinance known as Section 179 of the
Town Code. More specifically, I appear on my own behalf seeking relief from the requirements of
Section 179-16F, front yard setback in a Waterfront zone, and Section 179-60 of the Shoreline and
Wetland Regulations. Before we proceed much further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that
after you have opened the public hearing this evening, that you allow it to remain open until you
and the Board are ready to vote. In this manner, I feel there will be no infringement upon the free
speech rights of our neighbors or any other parties for that matter. Normally at this time, I would
request that Mr. Stone recuse himself, for the same reasons stated at previous ZBA hearings with
the residential development of our waterfront lands. However, the granting of variances tonight,
although not directly related to area variance granting criteria, may well turn on the issues of
reasonable use, property values, and reasonable return on investment. Mr. Stone’s service on the
Town Board of Assessment Review, and his knowledge and ability to evaluate these interrelating
issues will be of more value to the ZBA and far outweigh any of his preconceived notions, which
might be prejudicial to our application. At first glance, this application may appear to support the
development of a very complicated residential project. The variance request before you is tailored
to be quite straightforward, in that the variance relief requested is either no greater than, or even
somewhat less than setbacks of nonconforming uses which presently exist on our parcel, and even
on neighborhood parcels, for that matter. In this regard, we do not contemplate requiring any other
variances from the present Queensbury Town Zoning Ordinance, except for the Department of
Health agreement that the use of an alternate wastewater treatment system be utilized. The
residential use of lands upon which we are seeking these setback variances goes back some time.
Originally, this tract of land is purported to have supported an Indian settlement. I have here the
Town’s Heritage Trail Map. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but you’ll see here on this
map, Site Number 125 is our location on Dunham Bay. In the Code, the Key for 125 reads
“Indian settlement”. To substantiate that, I have copies of this. I have here three Indian
arrowheads that we have discovered during our tenure at Dunham Bay Lodge.
MR. MC NALLY-How is the Indian settlement relevant to your application for the setbacks?
MR. SALVADOR-I presume that the Indians were there for residential purposes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that has to do with your application?
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly, because we are trying to further a residential development.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-My point is it goes back a long time. Presently, the lands on which we are
seeking these variances were part of a 210 acre tract of land we purchased in 1973. At that time,
all of the lands we purchased were zoned residential, and all of the nonconforming uses were
allowed to develop in accordance with Special Use Permit procedure. The zoning has always been
basically residential, and so it is to this day. We sit here tonight by design, not by accident. To
reinforce my claims that we are, in fact, the victims of a grand design, I would like to read a few
sentences from the Town’s May 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The major issue in this area, North
Queensbury, is the conversion of seasonal residences to year round, and the addition of rental
properties to lots already overdeveloped. Further, these two changes in property use are further
overtaxing the carrying capacity of the land, increasing septic failures and subsequent lake and
land pollution. Our residential development will not overtax the carrying capacity of the land, as
defined as 22% of the lot to be developed. Our development is a mere 6.17% of the lot size, less
rd
than 1/3 that allowed, and when completed, will reduce the paved area by some 50%, meanwhile
maintaining the green area at better than 89% of the parcel size. There can be no septic failure on
this waterfront lot because there is no septic system anticipated on tax parcel 4-1-11. It is not a
seasonal conversion to year round residence, on a lot already overdeveloped. It is an allowable use.
It is not intended to be a rental property. It is to be used as a single family residence. Again, from
the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 1989, as it pertains to North Queensbury, increased
commercial activity in general is changing the character of the neighborhood. The growth of
nonconforming pre-existing uses in residential neighborhoods, in spite of zoning controls resulting
from increased tourism and population growth should be controlled, and focused into specific areas
to service the neighborhood, while encouraging sound environmentally responsive residential
development. Continued vigilance to the growth of nonconforming uses is essential to maintaining
the integrity of the residential zoning in this neighborhood. Our residential development is not
intended to be commercial activity, is not of a nonconforming pre-existing use in a residential
neighborhood, is sound and environmentally responsive by meeting all design codes and
regulations, is designed to maintain the integrity of the residential zoning in our neighborhood. The
lands on which we proposed to build this 12,320 square foot residential single family dwelling are
presently zoned Waterfront Residential One Acre. The parcel to be developed lies north of State
Route 9L and comprises about three acres of land. These lands have not supported any residential
use, in modern times at least. In fact, starting in 1946 or thereabouts, all of the present
nonconforming uses had their beginning, and they include, as you know, the marina and a resort
facility. We had about given up hope that we could ever develop our Waterfront lands when it
occurred that the Town’s local Board of Health was granting variances to the Town Code which
would allow the use of septic holding tanks for year round residential use. The DOH and the DEC
have continually denied commercial establishments with year round use of septic holding tanks.
We have recently been advised by the DOH that for this project a waiver from the Department of
Health standards for individual household systems can be issued, providing we demonstrate that
the site conditions make it impossible to comply with the standards, that we can demonstrate that
the proposed design will not create a health hazard or environmental contamination problem, and
that we can demonstrate that this approval will result in a significant hardship. You will recall, I
won’t dwell on that. We would now like to address the details of this variance application which is
limited to requesting relief from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement as well as relief from a
50 yard shoreline setback requirement. It should be noted that the greatest depth of property on
this parcel is in the order of 70 to 80 feet. On the layout that you have, that occurs in this area.
Do you see the right-of-way line? That is the line from which we are required to set back from, the
shoreline is here, the elevation 320.2 is the other line that we require a setback from. So this throat
in here is about 80 feet, just about the sum total of the two setbacks. So regardless of where we
locate, and regardless of what we locate, we need substantial relief. The primary reason for our
variance application dealing with wastewater had to do with setbacks also. It was the same
problem. In addition, we have yet to locate and site a source of safe drinking water, which will be
required, which would require additional setbacks. As regards to the front yard setback, the 30
foot requirement, as it might be termed an encroachment on the right of way, is not presently being
met. In recent years, permits have been issued by the Lake George Park Commission which allow
nonconforming uses in this neighborhood to continue operating within the 30 foot setback zone.
Activities within the DOT maintenance jurisdiction are allowed on a selective basis. Facilities have
been maintained and new construction allowed within the DOT right-of-way along Route 9L in the
absence of work permits as well as use and occupancy permits. I believe that if the New York
State DOT was of a mind that traffic safety standards were not being met, they would move to
enforce their regulations, as these regulations control the work within and the use and occupancy of
the right of way. Site safety investigations conducted by Region One of the DOT after two back to
back accidents in less than a year, which resulted in automobile passengers being rescued from the
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
waters of Dunham Bay wetlands, the speed remains unchanged at 45 miles per hour, and worse, no
additional signage or guiderail construction was deemed necessary. There appears to be little or no
concern for safety along this system of highway. Our single family residential development is
positioned so as to maintain a passing site distance of at least 500 feet, while not encroaching upon
the New York State DOT right of way. This site distance is considered adequate for vehicular
traffic traveling 45 miles per hour. There are no bikeways, footpaths or sidewalks along this road,
nor are any contemplated. The issue of traffic safety along this stretch of State Route 9L was
called into question in 1990 when the Dunham Bay Boat Company was before the Town Planning
Board for a site plan review to allow the expansion of their boat storage facility on tax parcel 10-1-
19.2. I addressed letters of concern to the County Planning Board as well as Queensbury’s
Planning Department and the Planning Board. My pleas for a traffic study went unanswered. The
County and Town both felt that the traffic record and conditions did not warrant such a study.
Since that time, the Town Board elected to change the traffic, for traffic safety reasons, the traffic
pattern from normal two way, to one way on Dunham Bay Road. I believe they did this in the
interest of safety. The Town Board sponsored a public hearing, the purpose of which was to
consider the restriction of vehicular parking and private occupancy of the right of way of
Dunham’s Bay Road. The Town Board proposal of traffic restrictions on Dunham’s Bay Road
failed to carry in the face of a public outcry, which added up to, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There
is a continuous guiderail running along Route 9L between the location of our proposed dwelling
and the roadway paving. We are not concerned that the traffic on Route 9L will in any way cause
a hardship for us having that residential dwelling there, and I don’t think the actions of the State
DOT who are responsible for traffic safety indicate that they think there’s a concern. The siting of
proposed single family dwelling will not make for more adverse traffic safety considerations
because adequate site distance remains for the 45 mile per hour traffic in both directions,
continuous guiderail between the dwelling and the roadway exists. Egress and ingress from Town
road is controlled by Town Board designated one way traffic on Dunham Bay Road. Mail delivery
to this dwelling will not be from Route 9L, in other words no additional stopping on Route 9L.
School bus already stops at the corner of Route 9L and Alexy Lane. No public transportation
snarls. There is no public transportation. With regard to adverse health or welfare impacts, as a
result of the setback, the 30 foot setback on Route 9L, we just don’t see that there are any. If these
can be identified, you can be sure we’d be prepared to mitigate them, providing it’s within our
purview. We can’t control the traffic on 9L. We can’t enforce the vehicle and traffic laws on 9L.
That’s not our job. So I believe in summary the five foot setback, if you consider it within, in the
neighborhood, what’s going on there, how is this road used? The protections we have, we have
guiderail construction. We have signage. The first thing that should be done, if we’ve got an
unsafe condition in a residential neighborhood, is to reduce the speed limit, and I can’t tell you how
many times we’ve been on the doorstep of the DOT and they don’t think it’s justified. They have
the experts. As to shoreline setback, there is a pre-existing, nonconforming building on the
property with a one foot shoreline setback. The proposed conforming structure is holding this
same one foot setback. There is no increase in nonconformity. As to the shoreline setback, we
wish to point out that our shoreline is an ever changing location, particularly since the flooding
which took place in the early 1800’s. I have a map here that shows the shoreline. It’s a crude
map, I’ll agree, but this was done in 1811, and this shows the shoreline of Dunham Bay and the
marsh area, and that area of our development. Those great lot lines running across there are
running through a marsh area. The next mapping that took place was around 1930 when Warren
County appropriated land on which to build State Route 9L. What I’d like to show you here is the
close proximity of the shoreline to the road. You see it here, the shoreline? As opposed to today,
that’s that road line you see here. See it, right here? That’s that same line that’s on that map, and
look where the shoreline is today. The point being our shoreline is not stationary. It’s not fixed,
and it’s been moving over the years. This is a 1930 map. This is the same map, color coded, the
blue being the water. Now this was done in ’66. It’s the same scale you saw before, but you’ll see
now the growth, the fill, the movement of the shoreline out from that same road. This is ’66. This
is a map that was prepared, this map was commissioned by the New York State legislature,
prepared in 1958, and it was done specifically to locate the shoreline. Now the interesting thing
about this map is it shows the 320.2, which is the elevation of the shoreline where the water level at
320.2 intersects the land is shown on this map. You see the close proximity of that line to the road
here. Okay. This is a photo copy of the tax map. I can’t tell you when it was first drafted. You’ll
see here the shoreline, and this is Lot Number 11 that we’re speaking of. You see how much
everything has grown out here on that, you see that line across the top? That’s this line.
MR. STONE-Right, John, but this is still water today.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. SALVADOR-Some, not as much. Okay. This dock here is, on that map I showed you, was
all water back here. This was all water.
MR. STONE-Okay, but your lot line is still out?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s here. That doesn’t change.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-That doesn’t change. The point is the flood land is being reclaimed. The lands
that have been flooded are being reclaimed.
MR. MC NALLY-You feel that’s important for what reason? What point does that demonstrate,
that you’re trying to make?
MR. SALVADOR-The shoreline is not a stationary thing, okay. If we’re going to measure from
some reference in which you’re going to establish the location of a building.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand your point. I just was curious what the.
MR. SALVADOR-Our property boundaries are fixed. They’re fixed. Our shoreline is an
imaginary line. It’s here today. It’s there tomorrow. Here’s another photograph. This was
around late 1960’s, I’d say. You see this area back here where we’re planning to build the
residence? That’s all water there. See it? That’s this area here. That’s all water. Notice the
airplane at the beach area.
MR. STONE-Yes. Is that yours, John?
MR. SALVADOR-No. Maybe it was Fred’s.
MR. STONE-Just a guest. Flew in for the day.
MR. SALVADOR-Staff’s notes mention the fact that the Lake George Park Commission would be
jurisdictional in this regard. In response to our inquiry, we are in receipt of a correspondence from
the Lake George Park Commission of January 8, 1998. The construction of a single family
residence in the Town of Queensbury does not require a permit from the Lake George Park
Commission at this time. This could change should the Commission assume stormwater
management in Queensbury. Now this is very important. It’s essential that our development, if
it’s going to come to fruition, meet this stormwater management ordinance from the Commission,
or the Town, and I’ll tell you why. It’s the imposition of the regulations by the Commission which
means the gathering of stormwater and conveying it to storage area until it can be infiltrated into
the ground water. We cannot use this tax parcel for this activity. This is why. According to the
model ordinance, a minor project qualifies, and by the way, this would normally be a minor project
because it represents less than 15,000 square feet of disturbance, okay, but minor projects qualify
as major projects because no usable soil above high ground water level exists, and that’s the
condition on this site. The high groundwater level is at grade. There is no usable soil above it, and
therefore, for purposes of that model ordinance, now under consideration by the Town, we cannot
infiltrate stormwater on this lot. Okay. Now, the other restriction in that model ordinance is, you
can’t pump water. Pumping’s not allowed. So what do you do with it? You don’t do anything
with it. You don’t develop. This lot is not developable under the terms of that model ordinance,
for that reason, or they mention, or you wait for the regional stormwater facility, going to collect
stormwater now, stormwater sewers. Also, if the soils for, the soils have a high potential for
overland or through soil pollutant transport. You’re not kidding. That road sheds right across that
lawn area right down across the beach, right into the lake. It’s high potential for overland. That
throws that parcel into a major project, and then of course they say, if there are any anticipated
environmental impacts, and also any lands that are within or contiguous to a Critical
Environmental Area. That’s one. The wetland, that’s one. Stream corridor, that’s one. Habitat
for wildlife area, plant species. I’m sure that’s one, and a scenic, historic, or nationally significant
site. I’m sure we’ll get nailed. Now when that model ordinance goes in, whoever puts it in, the
Commission or the Town, the way it’s written, that land is useless, and there’s a lot of other land in
North Queensbury that is going to be useless. So it’s essential that we beat that promulgation
process. We talked about, earlier the point was made that maybe this situation is self-created, the
hardship is self-created. We could maybe build something smaller. Something you should know.
The assessed valuation of land, the land portion of this lot, is presently $770,000, lets say three
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
quarters of a million for round numbers. I’ve looked at the tax records in North Queensbury, a
number of lots, and the ratio of total land value to, excuse me, the ratio of total value to land value
is about three to one, plus or minus, but that’s where it is. Now there’s no way that anybody is
going to realize a return on their investment, in the three quarters of a million dollars worth of land,
unless they build a pretentious dwelling, something like a 12,320 square foot dwelling, and at $100
a square foot construction cost, you’re looking at a million and a quarter, and if you take the three
quarters of a million and add it to that, you’ve got yourself a $2 million operation, and that’s
what’s justified. You don’t take a three quarter million dollar piece of land and build $100,000
home on it. You just don’t do it. Banks won’t finance it. Insurance companies are loathe to insure
it. So the ratio of what we’re trying to do here, I don’t think it’s fair to say that our hardship is
self-imposed. It’s something we’re forced into by market conditions, and look at what’s going on
in North Queensbury, the Cantanucci house, the McCall house, the Morse house. That’s the wave
of the future. It’s because the land has such a value, what you put on it has to have that
corresponding value as well, and that’s why we’re forced into this. We also have an appraisal
prepared by the Town’s Appraiser that said that these lands are presently being used to their
highest and best use. It’s a statement a town consultant has in his work, and of course the question
arises, why isn’t it zoned that way, but we feel that the character of the neighborhood will not be
impacted. It’s zoned residential. What we’re trying to accomplish is a residential development,
and that’s in keeping with the policy of I think the Town and other agencies that are promulgating
regulations in our area. In summary, we feel that although the front yard and shoreline variances
being sought for this development may be considered substantial, when viewed as separate
independent entities, the degree of relief is in keeping with existing conditions in our neighborhood.
Existing illegal highway right of way use and occupancy encroachments, which if considered a
negative impact on traffic safety, could be made to be discontinued. Our development will not add
to these illegal uses. If this Board should conclude that highway traffic safety is indeed a serious
condition which requires mitigation, we, as project sponsors, can agree to implement an in-depth
traffic study. This Board may require and even finance the capital costs of those recommended
traffic control devices which are deemed necessary to ensure everyone’s safety. This could result
in a traffic light at the corner of Alexy Lane and Route 9L. I don’t think we’d mind at all. Public
health issues as result of our residential development, I can’t think of any. If you can, I’d be glad
to address them. Public welfare issues, certainly we would broaden the tax base. Construction of
a dwelling like this would increase employment in the area. Materials purchases brings in sales tax
revenue, and we’re not the kind of people that look for tax abatements. I’d be glad to answer any
questions you might have.
MR. STONE-May I make a statement, Mr. Chairman?
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. Mr. Salvador, I have listened to your very erudite presentation, and I
appreciate the care and diligence that has gone into it, but I do not regard nominal support for the
current 179-16 requirements as a preconceived notion. That is the law of the Town of
Queensbury. That’s why we sit here, to decide whether or not to grant variances from that, and I
do not believe that keeping that as our guiding principle is a preconceived notion.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
MRS. LAPHAM-I just have one at the moment. What would happen to your marina if you get the
variance and build this residence?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, in the long run, we’re going through this Class A Marina permitting
process with the Lake George Park Commission now, and what we’re intent on doing is preserving
this area here where the beach is and the lawn. We’re intent on preserving this area to go with the
lodging facility for its water base recreation. This Class A Marina Permit the Park Commission
gives out is less a marina permit than it is a recreation uses permit, and that’s the thing we’ve got
to preserve is our ability to sell recreation to the public. That’s what Dunham’s Bay Lodge is all
about. You can get a room any place. Recreation, that’s the key. So we would preserve that in
this area. In this area, this could very well stay here, and if this sort of dockage here that continues
over to the bridge could enhance the value of a dwelling here, this whole operation could be what
the Lake George Park Commission calls a Class B Marina. That’s a residential dwelling that rents
out docks. You could do that here very easily, and that would be a nice cottage industry for this
dwelling. Everybody does it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Even people that have $2 million residences bother with marinas, or little docks?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I mean, they would begin to go together.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, you made a case for this three quarter of a million dollar lot as
having, you’d have to build a very big house on it to make it pay, but could you function as a
resort without this lot as you currently utilize it? It certainly seems to have a great deal of value to
this resort that you talk about.
MR. SALVADOR-How can a nonconforming use have value?
MR. STONE-Because you’re using it in a way that supports the recreational provisions that you
give to your guests, that you actively use to promote tourism.
MR. SALVADOR-But I think I can enhance the value of this land by using it in a residential
manner.
MR. STONE-I’m not denying that. I’m only going to the point that you kind of said, you didn’t
say it, that this lot is worthless without being used as a residential property. You talked about this
three quarters of a million dollars you needed to run your resort. Is that true?
MR. SALVADOR-I just said that we could do this.
MR. STONE-No. Right now you need that lot, we’re talking one lot. You need that to run your
resort, I mean, is that true?
MR. SALVADOR-It works, the whole system, you’re absolutely right, today works, but we’re
looking to the future. Okay. The question was, what would happen to the marina if a permit were
granted.
MR. STONE-That’s her question, but you brought in the fact that this is assessed at three quarters
of a million dollars, and kind of implied that to make it worthwhile, you’ve got to build a million
and a half dollar home, when right now it’s providing a great deal of value to you, as the owner of
the resort across the street.
MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to deal with conforming uses. This is, it’s zoned residential, okay, and
I just can’t believe that, if the zoning is proper, I can’t believe that you can get any more value out
of a piece of property than the way it’s zoned, otherwise, it’s spot zoning.
MR. STONE-I’m not getting into that yet. I’m only saying, you have said to me you need a lot to
run your resort. That’s what I’ve heard so far.
MR. SALVADOR-As is presently run, but it could very easily be parceled off. Okay. It’s within
the framework of the Park Commission’s permitting process. You know that.
MR. STONE-I understand that, John.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-I had a couple of questions. If I understand your property layout, sir, the lake is
to the north of the lot you wish to build on?
MR. SALVADOR-Lake George is to the north of the lot which we want to build on. There is
water on the lot on which we wish to build on. Those we term the flood waters of Lake George.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but if you actually look at the structure in your plans, the Lake George is
actually to the north of the structure you’re intending to build, and to the east of that would be
Dunham’s Bay Marina? Is that the next adjacent parcel to the east?
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Schriner is technically the adjacent parcel to the east.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Schriner is the next one? And what’s the use of his property?
MR. SALVADOR-Residential.
MR. MC NALLY-And the next parcel over is Dunham’s Bay Marina, after Mr. Schriner’s?
Okay, and you own the Dunham’s Bay Lodge, and what is that?
MR. SALVADOR-It’s a recreation resort.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Hotel, motel banquet facilities, that kind of thing? And is that just south of this
proposed lot?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it is.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s on the opposite side of Route 9L?
MR. SALVADOR-And to the east of Alexy Lane.
MR. MC NALLY-I see, and what’s to the west of the parcel you’re proposing to build on?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s a parcel purported to be owned by Frank Parillo.
MR. MC NALLY-Now you said that this property is in a residential neighborhood?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It’s zoned one acre Waterfront Residential.
MR. MC NALLY-You also said this property has not been used as a residence since 1946, if I’m
not mistaken?
MR. SALVADOR-I said the commercial activity started at that time.
MR. MC NALLY-But this particular lot you’re planning on building on, is it my understanding
it’s not been used residentially since 1946?
MR. SALVADOR-In 1946, it was just waterfront property. There was nothing going on on it.
MR. HAYES-So the Indians were the last ones to use it for residential purposes.
MR. SALVADOR-Residential.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understood from your testimony earlier, you said, basically, in 1946
something happened, and since then it’s been used as commercial, for marina and the hotel?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s it’s current use?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Nonconforming.
MR. MC NALLY-And you continue to use that as a commercial business?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And do you rent out those dock spaces?
MR. SALVADOR-Now and then.
MR. MC NALLY-I take it they’re seasonal rentals throughout the year?
MR. SALVADOR-It varies, seasonal, weekly, daily.
MR. MC NALLY-There’s a beach house that’s shown on your diagram. Do you sell gasoline?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And do you sell the gasoline to the public?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Do you sell anything else at that beach house, marina supplies, that kind of
thing, food, snacks?
MR. SALVADOR-Mostly recreation, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that beach house that’s pictured on your drawing the building that is one foot
from the shoreline that you told us about earlier?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And what’s the square footage of that beach house, ballpark?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I measured the footprint, not including the four foot roof soffit, at 612
square feet. We call it a water sports center.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you make any effort to determine what kind of aesthetic impact your
building’s going to have on the lake?
MR. SALVADOR-I believe that we can bring forth a design that will add to our neighborhood. It
will have a great aesthetic impact, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And what do you base that belief on, sir?
MR. SALVADOR-There’s an example. Remember, white is an earth tone.
MR. MC NALLY-And that beach area that’s shown on your map is what’s used by your hotel?
The residents of your hotel.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, as well as our marina.
MR. MC NALLY-Is the beach lot part and parcel of the hotel parcel?
MR. SALVADOR-They’re separate tax parcels. They are all encompassed in one deed.
MR. MC NALLY-When did you purchase the land that you’re going to build on?
MR. SALVADOR-1973, February.
MR. MC NALLY-And you purchased the hotel at the same time, sir?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you bring any documentation regarding your finances with respect to the
property?
MR. SALVADOR-Finances of our?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-I have the tax bill, to show the.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m talking about what income and expenses you have for the property.
MR. SALVADOR-Right now there is absolutely no income from residential use on that property.
MR. MC NALLY-But there is income from your hotel?
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely.
MR. MC NALLY-And from the use of the building as far as selling of gasoline, and snacks and
things and rental and what not?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Did you ever consider, as a feasible alternative, reducing the size of your
building?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, again, we’ve got to come up with a building that’s going to have some
value in the market place. That’s understandable. If we were to go for financing, you can’t come
up with an abortion. So we think the proportion, the bulk, layout of what we have there fits the lot.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you bring that appraisal you referred to the Town having done on the
property today?
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t have it with me. I have it at home.
MR. MC NALLY-You have no separate appraisal of your property?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, we do.
MR. MC NALLY-And is that part of the record tonight?
MR. SALVADOR-No. It’s part of Town record in an Article 7 we’re engaged in.
MR. STONE-I thought that was settled, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-First round, Lew.
MR. STONE-First round, but what is the current assessment that was agreed to in the current
Article 7 for which you just got some refunds?
MR. SALVADOR-The judge did not change the assessment on this parcel.
MR. STONE-He did not change the assessment on this parcel. Okay. I just want to be sure.
MR. MC NALLY-So, if I understand it, then, you are involved in a long standing battle with the
Town regarding the assessment as to this parcel?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Would you be motivated in part bringing this petition tonight because of any
problems you’ve had regarding the valuation of the submerged land?
MR. SALVADOR-That petition stands on its own. There are different criteria for evaluating it.
Zoning is not an issue in that petition.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re not trying to make a point or anything by bringing this application
tonight?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m trying to make a point.
MR. MC NALLY-Related to the assessment problem?
MR. SALVADOR-No.
MR. MC NALLY-Who did your drawings, by the way?
MR. SALVADOR-I am in a partnership with a fellow who operates an architectural engineering
firm.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, I’ve had several, I think a couple of applications made in front of
us, and they’ve never had a marking or seal on them.
MR. SALVADOR-They’re not required for residential.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand that, but who does them?
MR. SALVADOR-I say, a college classmate of mine. We’re in a partnership, in an architectural
engineering firm, and that’s where the drawings are made.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. MC NALLY-You mentioned the Warren County sewer project. What is your opinion as to
the status of that project?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’d like to think that it’s on the fast track, but I have some difficulty
sometimes.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t it true it’s basically been stalled and stopped, and that there is no project
as it currently stands?
MR. SALVADOR-I can’t say that the record shows that. I think we have an engineering firm,
O’Brien and Gere, that should be working post haste and doing what they have to do to evaluate
some alternatives, optimize a design and get on with the project.
MR. MC NALLY-On your drawing, there’s an elevation of 320.7. If I look at the definition of the
mean highwater level for Lake George, it’s 320.2.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-Why does your drawing show .7?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we’re going to elevate. That’s the finished grade. We’re certainly not
going to locate a building in the water table. We’re going to get up above the water table.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any drawings showing where 320.2 feet is with respect to your
property?
MR. SALVADOR-320.7.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that on the elevation you’re looking at?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, right here. That’s the elevation of the parking area.
MR. MC NALLY-Wouldn’t you agree, sir, that you’re proposed building is well within the 50 feet
distance from 320.2 feet?
MR. SALVADOR-Is well within the?
MR. MC NALLY-Lake elevation of 320.2 feet, 50 feet? Let me re-phrase that. Wouldn’t you
agree that the building portion facing Lake George is closer than 50 feet from 320.2 feet elevation?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. In fact, we’re saying within one foot.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have any other questions.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Salvador? No one? All right. 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
FRED ALEXY
MR. ALEXY-My name is Fred Alexy, and my wife and I are the owners of the property, the
proposed property, or the building across the street from our apartment house, and if he were to
construct that building, it would be right smack dab in the front of our building, and the building
was put there, the house was put there as a place where people could enjoy the view, and that
would be obviously right in the front of it. So we oppose it from that standpoint, and I think that
what he’s proposing is totally inappropriate for the land that he’s talking about putting it on. I
consider any structure there site pollution for anybody that wants to enjoy the lake as it presently
is, and for any motorists or tourists that come around and want to enjoy the lake. So I think it’s
totally inappropriate from that standpoint. All of this is being conducted without any discussion
with us, to see whether or not it would have any impact on us, which I think is wrong. Obviously,
if he were to propose it to us, we would object to it, and so we can publicly object to it now. I have
a question, however, about the appraisal of how this assessment has been arrived at and his so
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
called “ratio” about putting a building on available land. Is this going to be a separate lot? If it’s
not going to be a separate lot, and if it’s part of the whole, then his ratio has to include the balance
of the buildings that he has on the balance of the property. So the ratio has got to include those
factors, so then you could re-appraise his so called “ratio” on the basis of that. If he were to put
that building in front of us, it would only serve to decrease the value of our property, which isn’t
fair, and I think that a building of that size would be more appropriately called a castle rather than
a house, and probably be conducting his business from that operation, conducting his marina
business, which is certainly a possibility. So it may be a business establishment, if not now
conceived, but possibly in the future. So I vigorously oppose it for those reasons, and probably
some I haven’t even thought about yet because it’s brand new to me. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed?
ALLEN STRACK
MR. STRACK-My name is Allen Strack, and I have a residence on Dunham’s Bay, so we’re
neighbors of John and others. I’ve written a little note, just thinking very quickly, and I just got
back into Town, but I penned this up. On receipt of the notice of this meeting, I said I went to the
Planning Office to see what issues there might be. To say that I was astounded would be a serious
understatement. I hardly know where to begin to comment on the outrage being proposed by the
applicant. The proposed structure would sit at the water’s edge of Dunham’s Bay, not unlike the
large battleship at dockside, broadside to the Bay. The height and length of the proposed family
dwelling would be greatly out of character with quaint neighborhood of Dunham’s Bay. As a
resident of Dunham’s Bay, we wish to go on record as vehemently opposed to the siting of the
proposed dwelling because of setback or any other large number of other considerations. I guess
I’ve heard the comments that Mr. Alexy said, and I guess I agree with most all of them. We’re at
the lower end of Dunham’s Bay, and this would be out, this castle would be right in the middle of
our purview. This residence would make the sky line of people entering the Bay, people coming to
visit us, it would totally change the character of the neighborhood, and it sounds like the lot is
mostly at water’s edge, if not in the water. The land around there, we’ve been filling in gradually
over the last several years. So the place on which he’s proposing to put this thing is almost a
submerged lot to start with. Anyway, I think there are a lot of technical considerations why this
would be an inappropriate place to build, and so I guess I’m registering our opposition.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed?
CHARLIE ADAMSON
MR. ADAMSON-I’m not, I’m conditionally opposed. May I tell you the conditions?
MR. THOMAS-Go right ahead.
MR. ADAMSON-Okay. My name is Adamson. I know the property well. I think I would be
opposed, and I would be opposed strongly, if Queensbury would stop taxing Mr. Salvador for his
underwater property. I think that’s highly improper. I think you or the State or somebody should
take that property and, with adequate recompense to Mr. Salvador. It doesn’t make sense for you
to be collecting good American dollars on property that he cannot use. I think maybe I would
certainly be very strongly opposed if you settled that issue, if the Town were to settle that issue. I
know this is above and beyond your responsibility, but this has bothered me for a long time. I
don’t see why it’s so difficult to see what the solution is. As I say, there is a thing called eminent
domain. Unless you know something that I don’t know about they’re going to lower the dike at the
other end of the lake and let the water level down so John can use it. How would you like to be
taxed? I wouldn’t like to be taxed on under water property. I would expect the State to make some
settlement for me. How this came about I don’t know. I’ve never seen an explanation as to what
obviously had to do with a dam at some point, and I don’t know how Mr. Salvador feels about
what I am saying, but I’m just saying that it’s a waste of everybody’s time and money, and it’s
certainly highly unfair to Mr. Salvador. So, that being said, I would hope you would go back to
the Town Board and push. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed?
JOHN SCHRINER
MR. SCHRINER-I’ll be in the same boat as him. My name is John Schriner. I own property over
in this same area. I’m going to state right now. I’m not either for or against this, but I want to
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
speak on it. I would like to know, in the past, has this Town, I don’t know the right words, making
people exempt from this 50 feet or 30 feet or whatever? Have other people been allowed to build
with this exemption?
MR. THOMAS-Not as much as Mr. Salvador is asking.
MR. SCHRINER-I don’t think it makes any difference how much, but in the past, then you have
the right to issue, make someone exempt over what your original rules are. Is that correct?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can grant relief from the law, is what it’s called.
MR. SCHRINER-Number One, I don’t believe this is fair to equal everybody. That leaves you
people, you could show partiality. If I’m a good friend of one of yours, you’re going to give me a
break. If the guy over here doesn’t have any friends, he doesn’t get that break. I don’t think that’s
fair, but this is my own feeling, I’ve got to say, and I know how Mr. Alexy feels about having the
view blocked. In this Town, the property that I own now was owned previously by a Mr.
Shortsleeves who left the property to me. He came to this Town when Dunham’s Bay Boat
Company wanted to build the boutique up there. Blocked his view of the whole east shore of
Dunham’s Bay. This Town didn’t care. They didn’t even give it a second thought. He brought
pictures in, showed them and everything, and they still were allowed to put up that extra story and
block the whole view. My camp right now, you cannot see the east shore of Dunham’s Bay
because this big high building is sitting in front of it. So those things, if they happened in the past,
then they shouldn’t be brought up in the future is what I’m saying. I can understand how he feels,
because we all felt the same way at the time, even though I didn’t own it. So I don’t see how this
Town can take that into consideration that it’s blocking somebody’s view to turn down this
application. As far as the setback, if you’d done it in the past, I don’t think you should use that for
a reason. You may have a lot of other reasons, I don’t know, but that’s all I’ve got to say. Thank
you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else?
JANE ALEXY
MRS ALEXY-I’m Jane Alexy. I’m part owner of that house that we’re trying to keep open for the
lake. I have one point to make, of this gentleman here. Dunham’s Bay Boat Company was there.
That was an existing building. They just went up with it. There’s no existing building there.
We’re trying to keep that building out of there. That’s all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
MR. ALEXY-Just one point. Is it clear as to where we are?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-To the west of Alexy Road, right across the street.
MR. ALEXY-Yes. Right, right on the corner of Alexy Lane and Route 9L.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think it’s stated on the drawing that Mr. Salvador has given us, the lands
of.
MR. ALEXY-It doesn’t show the building (lost word).
MR. THOMAS-Lands of Fred and Jane A. Alexy. Okay. If there’s no other public comment, is
there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No. There’s letters that have been written back and forth. Okay. Now, what
about this memo from John.
MR. THOMAS-No, you can’t read that.
MR. ROUND-The correspondence in there was just, it wasn’t a comment on the variance, it was
just communication between Mr. Salvador and our office.
MRS. LAPHAM-All right.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. ROUND-It doesn’t pertain to that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Then I would read this. Okay. This is a letter from John Salvador, Jr. to Mr.
John Goralski, Executive Director of Community Planning and Development. “Dear John: Thank
you for taking time yesterday to review those comments and questions you brought forth in your
letter of December 22, 1997 regarding our proposed single family residential development on Tax
Parcel 4-1-11. We offer the following additional information in answer to your concerns, so as to
narrow the scope of variances for which we may need to make application. As to Subparagraphs
Numbered One and Two, it is clear to us that we must seek an Area Variance from each of the
shoreline and front property line setback requirements as specified in the Town’s Zoning
Ordinance, WR-1 Acre. We intend to submit our variance application in this matter in time to
qualify for the January review and appeal calendar. We will be requesting that we be set for the
thth
Town’s scheduled ZBA meeting on January 28, since we will be away from the area on the 14 of
January. We attach to this letter a certified drawing showing that Tax Parcel 4-1-11 is, in fact,
three plus or minus acres. We trust this is sufficient to support a determination that the area of 4-
1-11 can be deemed to be greater than the two acre minimum requirement for a second principal
building. We are not planning to seek a variance from the requirement that a second principal
building cannot be permitted on a lot less than two acres in size. As we have discussed, the
requirements for parking should be considered in two parts. The part pertaining to the second off
street parking sites required for the proposed single family dwelling and a separate requirement that
20 or more off street parking sites needed to support the ongoing operations of a pre-existing
nonconforming use, namely the marina operated by Dunham’s Bay Lodge do in fact exist. We will
revise our site plan to show two off street parking sites to the far east of our property, and in a
location where we have constructed, in accordance with the Town Highway Department, approved
driveway access to a Town road, the Dunham Bay Road. The site plan will be submitted with our
variance request before December 28, 1997. The issue of off street parking to support the pre-
existing nonconforming marina activities being conducted on Tax Parcel 4-1-11 takes us back to
1981 and the DEC’s registration and permitting of marinas. We can continue to maintain the
required level of Town required parking for the ongoing nonconforming marina use. The required
20 or more parking spaces for the nonconforming marina use on this parcel can be met by relying
on the fact that we own ample acreage on Tax Parcel 10.-1-17.1 for which there is practically
unlimited parking capacity. We have parked cars, boats, trailers, cradles, motorcycles (Dr.
Barbara Chick), etc., of marina clientele on improved and unimproved parking surfaces for a
number of years. We attach a packet of information to demonstrate that as long ago as 1982
Dunham’s Bay Lodge received a permit from the D.E.C. to operate a marina based on having 75
spaces for marina customer vehicles. You will note that the application was made in the name of
Dunham’s Bay Lodge and that at all times since then Dunham’s Bay Lodge has conducted all sorts
of marina activities on Tax Parcel 10.-1-17.1 including customer parking. The D.E.C. permit is
based on furnishing “parking space for customer vehicles” which is based on our having 75 at that
time. Our 1981 application for 75 spaces did not include parking at our marina facility required
for employees, deliveries, maintenance, launching, (governmental inspections), emergency vehicle
access, handicap access, etc. More recently, the Lake George Park Commission, which took over
the administration of the 1981 D.E.C. marina registration and permitting program in 1987, has
included Tax Parcel 10.-1-17.1 as part of the Dunham’s Bay Lodge Class A Marina yet to be
permitted by the Commission. This Class A permit issue has gone unresolved since July of 1996
and we attach two self-explanatory letters directed to the Town which have gone unanswered.
Finally, we are sure you agree that marina activities and, particularly, customer parking have
always been conducted on Tax Parcel 10.-1-17.1. We don’t feel there is justification to consider
the environmentally friendly shift of marina clientele parking from Tax Parcel 4-1-11 to Tax
Parcel 10.-1-17.1, as might be required when the proposed single family dwelling is complete, an
expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use on Tax Parcel 10.-1-17.1. Please confirm! Yours
truly, John Salvador, Jr.” And then there’s a map attached.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. What other letters are in there?
MR. ROUND-None of them are public comment. They’re all correspondence between the Town
and John Salvador.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That looks like about it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I think so.
MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence in there?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so, no.
MR. THOMAS-Looks good to me. At the request of the applicant, I’m going to leave the public
hearing open. Is there anything else you’d like to say, Mr. Salvador, after hearing the public
comments?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. With regard to the setback, the shoreline setback, you’ll recall that about
a year and a half ago, the Town adopted changes to its Waterfront Zoning Ordinance where they
reduced the setback from 75 feet to 50 feet, okay, and the Town, in this process of adoption, they
have to answer the 20 question quiz involved in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, okay.
Now I have the minutes of that meeting here, just to give you an idea of the approach the Town
took to reducing the setback from 75 to 50. Remember, we’re taking advantage of 50 feet here.
We’ve come a little bit closer to being less than substantial. If it was 75, we wouldn’t have a
chance. We wouldn’t have a chance if the shoreline setback was 75, but in any case here, the
Town Board got into a discussion about the impacts of this Ordinance change and the setback, and
Mrs. Monahan, in answering the question, Will the proposed action affect any water body
designated as protected, and the answer was yes, and so they got into a discussion, and Mrs.
Monahan said, this is an attempt to lessen impacts on the water through strengthening of the zoning
process. Now, mind you, the Town Board has interpreted the reduction in setback from 75 to 50
feet to a strengthening of the Zoning Ordinance, and anyway, they go through and they conclude
that it’s, there’s a discussion between Mrs. Monahan and the Town Counsel, and Mrs. Monahan
says, to me, this thing is dumb. If you’ll pardon my saying so. Why would you want to mitigate a
positive effect? They were talking about mitigating impacts, and the interpretation is now that
going from 75 feet to 50 feet, it’s a positive move, okay. So Mr. Schachner says, you’re absolutely
right. The answer to your question is, it is dumb. In my opinion, the SEQRA law and regulations
should be re-worded so that it’s not only a significance of the impact that’s evaluated, but it is a
significant detrimental impact. Well, because they didn’t ask the question, is it a substantial
detrimental impact, they didn’t have to answer it. So the point I’m trying to make for the record
here and the zoning change is that the Town Board did not consider the reduction of setback,
shoreline setback, from 75 feet to 50 feet, to be a significant environmental impact. Well, I mean,
why didn’t we go down to 25 then? Or maybe down to one, and then we would be in conformance.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that somewhat of a sophomoric argument, though? You’re being
facetious, aren’t you? A one foot is a betterment?
MR. SALVADOR-I didn’t say this, sir. I’m quoting you.
MR. MC NALLY-Your argument is that it is, though.
MR. SALVADOR-It would have been beneficial to us if they had gone.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? All right, lets talk
about it. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, actually, I don’t think I could say it any better than Mr. Alexy down here.
I think it’s one of the worst cases of visual pollution that has been foisted on Dunham’s Bay, or
rather tried to be foisted on Dunham’s Bay, and it puzzles me as to why anyone would want to
build a two million dollar house with a marina in his front yard, which I said before, and if we are
going to consider any kind of granting of this, I would be totally, I’m just going on record as being
totally against it, and I definitely would be totally against both the house and the marina.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I think one of the points that Bonnie makes certainly is true. If you read
Article 179-60, Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, the purpose of the shoreline regulations is to
promote, protect the public health…, to promote economic property values, aesthetic and
recreational values and other natural resource values. If you look at that, putting this thing
certainly is going to destroy a great deal of the aesthetic values of Dunham’s Bay and Lake
George. Certainly as one who drives down 9L quite frequently, around that corner, I would even
question the safety aspects, because I know now, as I come around that corner, I can see all the
way to the bridge to Dunham’s Bay, to the wetlands, and putting this house there is going to
certainly have an adverse effect, but more importantly, Mr. Salvador brought up the setback
situation. One can make an argument why 50, with all of the other regulations that were put in
place in the new law, is a benefit to the community. There is no way that one can make a
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
reasonable and cogent argument that one foot setback from the lake is in any way a responsible
distance, and there’s no way that I could grant 49 feet of relief, as far as the lake is concerned.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-On balance, I think the fact that the relief is substantial and there would appear to be
some adverse effect on the neighborhood. I think that outweighs the benefit to the applicant in this
case.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-Yes, when I balanced the project out, you have to look at the three areas of relief
that the applicant is seeking, and the first one, the 50 foot setback, this is really, the parcel’s an
anomaly, I think. Probably only one of a handful around the lake because of this submerged land.
So I think there’s some ambiguity in the way the current law is written there, where there may be
some semantical differences. I’m on record as already stating my opinion there. So that I’ll stay
away from, but for the front setbacks, I think the amount of relief being sought is very substantial.
Again, the aesthetic value to the area I think needs to be taken into consideration, and regarding the
density, we just recently granted a variance to two principal dwellings on almost the exact same lot
size, but anyway, on a whole, on a balance, I oppose because of the relief and front setback.
MR. THOMAS-Robert?
MR. MC NALLY-I tend to be opposed to this. It seems to me that Mr. Salvador is going to have
to show, to my satisfaction, (lost words) exercise discretion, that his proposal is not going to have
an adverse and impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the
district. When I look at 179-60 and 179-16, it occurs to me that, as Mr. Stone indicated, lake
setbacks are there to protect property values and aesthetic and recreational values, and also to
protect, preserve, maintain and use the water courses in a way that’s going to minimize disturbance
to them. Mr. Salvador claims, in conclusory fashion, that his proposal is not going to have these
effects, but I don’t think any proof has been demonstrated to show that that’s in fact so. Putting
the property up a foot from the lake I think is a very irresponsible act, and while I take at face
value his assertion that he honestly wishes to do what he’s proposing, I don’t think that it’s going
to be of benefit to Town of Queensbury, with the neighborhood in which he wishes to site the
property. I don’t go along with this 50 foot setback deal. To me, I think the zoning code is quite
clear, as far as where the 50 feet is supposed to be measured. So for that reason, I certainly would
not approve the property, proposal. In addition, the setback from the rear along the road is far too
little. You can build all the guardrails that you wish, but it’s still detracts from the fact the Town
Board has decided there should be a setback for reasons, not only as to safety, but aesthetic,
environmental reasons, and it’s not appropriate where a building is right on the road to allow the
construction to exist as he’s proposing. I don’t think Mr. Salvador has really considered feasible
alternatives. Now he’s looking for a residential structure. When I look at his maps, I see a lot of
other places I think where you could site the property, site a house, which will have less impact on
the lake, and be further from the road, but would certainly have some impact on his business. If
he’s continuing to use this property as a business as he plans, since he’s filing for a Class A
Marina permit, then I can’t say that this application is appropriate. The other thing I don’t think
he’s done, in considering feasible alternatives, is to demonstrate to my satisfaction that he’s
considered alternative house designs. I see no reason why he needs a house of that size. I have no
problem with the size of the house, if he had the lot that went along with it. He doesn’t, and in the
absence of that lot, I don’t think he really considered alternative designs, and therefore, I would
turn this down for that reason also. I also find that the amount of relief is substantial relative to the
Ordinance. This is not just a minor variation from the norm in the Dunham’s Bay area. This is a
house essentially on the water, and I know that while we have granted relief in other occasions
from the 50 foot setback, each and every vote that I’ve been involved in where they’ve asked for a
house on the water within 10 feet of the water, I think we’ve turned them down, and I think there
are good reasons the Town Board has indicated in its zoning codes for this. It’s not
environmentally sound. It will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and on the district. I
would not accept it. No.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I think Mr. McNally has said it all. The benefit to the applicant versus the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I think that the health safety and
welfare of the community would be grossly affected by this project, and going down through the
other five criteria for granting this variance, what benefit can be achieved by other means feasible
to the applicant? Like Mr. McNally said, there’s other places he can site a house that large, on
other land holdings that Mr. Salvador has. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
or the nearby properties, definitely, by people speaking tonight at the public hearing, saying of
visual impacts and other impacts. Whether request is substantial, it certainly is. He’s asking for
49 feet of variance. Whether request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect,
definitely, because of stormwater runoff and sewer, or sewage, you know, holding facilities.
There’s been nothing shown as to how those problems will be mitigated. Is the alleged difficulty
self-created? Mr. Salvador is the one that wants to put the house on that particular spot where he
does have other land holdings. So I would say he definitely is self-created. So having said that, I
would ask for a motion.
MR. SALVADOR-May I comment? Mr. McNally, when you said that we could locate this
dwelling or something similar to it in another location, were you referring to tax parcel 4-1-11, on
that tax parcel?
MR. MC NALLY-My understanding, sir, is that you do have other places on that particular
parcel, and that you do have other holdings in the immediate vicinity.
MR. SALVADOR-The other holdings are not Waterfront Residential. They are not one acre. I
would be interested in a suggestion you have. I would be interested in an alternative. What relief,
what is the limit of the relief you can grant? Maybe we could live with it.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think it’s the function of the Board, necessarily, to suggest to you what
you could do, but if you have a proposal you’d like to present to us, we’d take it and consider it,
and that’s what we’ve done tonight.
MR. SALVADOR-This is my proposal, but you, sir, have stated that you are going to predicate
your decision on the fact that we have other locations on our land, on this parcel I would think,
where we could locate this dwelling or one similar to it, and I’m interested in knowing where, as an
alternate, and could you grant that same type of relief or something lesser in that location?
MR. MC NALLY-I think, for a start, I gave you quite a few reasons why I felt as I did. So the
fact that you might be able to place the house elsewhere is not going to be indicative of what I
would do in another instance. Secondly, I also commented about the size of the house and whether
or not I’d accept that size on somewhere else is certainly something I’d have to consider, but I do
think that there are other places, just looking at your map, sir. If you want to put down a house,
say from 600 square feet like the existing commercial business that is there upwards, I think there
are other places that you might do it, and you might have a greater setback from the actual
shoreline and the road, and that’s my point.
MR. SALVADOR-We gave that some consideration, and you’re probably referring to this area
here, where there seems to be a lot of land. This whole area is sheet drainage, from this State
Route 9L. When it rains and it snows or the snow drifts, it’s right in this area, and it drains right
across this lawn. You can’t walk on this lawn after a rainstorm, and not a very heavy one, okay.
It’s soaking wet . The water just puddles there. It sheet drains right across. Now if we were to
locate a dwelling there, we’re robbing ourselves of a stormwater catchment, and a natural
stormwater catchment. Over here, we don’t do that. The way we intend to construct this here, we
will preserve the stormwater catchment here. That’s why we’re doing it here, but this is almost,
for environmental reasons, both stormwater and wastewater, this is an impossible situation, just
from the groundwater.
MR. MC NALLY-You would preserve that catchment where the existing structure is proposed?
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely.
MR. MC NALLY-And how would you do that?
MR. SALVADOR-You were referring to the elevation of the building. We don’t have to disturb
that bottom level at all.
MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you do it over there?
MR. SALVADOR-Here?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, sir.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. SALVADOR-Because the footprint of the building, okay, would drop all that water, in
addition to everything else, right into that area, and then you’ve got a retention problem.
MR. MC NALLY-(Lost words) the location, sir, that building will drop a certain amount of water,
does it not?
MR. SALVADOR-Right, but this area is designed for it already. This fill that was put in here was
put in under permit from both the Army Corps of Engineers and the DEC. This fill was put in and
the layers and the size and everything has been put in to act as a filter and a catchment. It’s all in
place. We don’t have to disturb it, and we don’t intend to disturb it. That’s why I this area.
MR. MC NALLY-I would find in addition, though, sir, that you could also do the same thing on
that other end of your property. It may be somewhat costly, and it may require additional permits.
A lot of things you’ve suggested require additional permits and costs.
MR. SALVADOR-Remember, we can’t pump stormwater, the model ordinance. We can’t pumps
stormwater. Where are you going to put it? You can’t locate the catchment here because it has to
be above the seasonal high groundwater. You can’t, what are you going to do?
MR. MC NALLY-Where were you going to do it in the place you’re proposing? How are you
going to do that without pumping?
MR. SALVADOR-We don’t have to. The catchment is here already.
MR. MC NALLY-And why can’t you put a catchment elsewhere?
MR. SALVADOR-Because it would have to be above the seasonal high groundwater level.
MR. MC NALLY-Could you do that, though, by putting fill in to make it above the seasonal high
groundwater, again at cost and with permits?
MR. SALVADOR-I doubt that you could put fill in.
MR. MC NALLY-I feel otherwise.
MR. SALVADOR-Not for that stormwater.
MR. MC NALLY-I disagree.
MR. SALVADOR-You don’t want fill for stormwater catchment, space. You want space. You
don’t want to fill it out. You’ve got to have a place for the water to go.
MR. MC NALLY-And the space is, in the existing proposal, where?
MR. SALVADOR-Is in the voids of this fill material.
MR. MC NALLY-So in other words they (lost word) the building, the soil consists of gravel and
stone and soil which will absorb the groundwater?
MR. SALVADOR-All there. It’s all in place, and that, that was done in consultation with the
Freshwater Institute, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Federation.
We paid dearly for their consultation, to get that permit. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And what would prohibit you from doing that same thing on the other side of
the property?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we have this restriction now that you can’t do anything, okay, below the
seasonal high groundwater level. The seasonal high groundwater level in this area is above grade.
The purpose of the model stormwater ordinance, believe me, is to shut down development on these
lousy soil lands. Do you understand? That’s the purpose of it, and that’s the problem we have
here. Mr. Thomas mentioned the fact of stormwater and wastewater?
MR. THOMAS-Right.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t seem to me that this operation should take those into consideration.
We’re involved here with setbacks we will mitigate the problem of stormwater in accordance with
the rules, regulations. We will take care of stormwater. That’s an obligation we have, and we will
take care of the wastewater. That’s in the design. If you talk about aesthetics, okay, when the
Town decided to zone these lands residential, that’s one of the issues they had to address, the
aesthetics of residential development on these lands adjacent to the lake, and they said in that 20
question quiz it would have a minimal to insignificant impact.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they weren’t talking your parcel in particular. They were talking in the
zone itself.
MR. SALVADOR-All parcels they were talking about. Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-If they thought, in their process, if they thought that residential development
was going to have an adverse aesthetic impact on their rule making process, they were supposed to
so state and in the regulations, you’re supposed to mitigate those impacts. I shouldn’t have to
worry about, okay. That should all be taken care of in the zoning, and in the regulations.
MR. STONE-That’s why we sit here as the Zoning Board of Appeals, recognizing that no zoning
law can be perfect, and that’s why we sit here in judgment deciding whether or not, using our
judgment and the guidelines we have, whether or not we should grant a variance.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Alexy is concerned about this blocking his view? I think that’s been taken
care of in the regulations when you say 28 feet is the height limitation. That’s been addressed. It
used to be 35.
MR. THOMAS-But where you propose to put that house, you just stated that that was all put in in
accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and by putting a structure there, aren’t you
taking away from that filtering action?
MR. SALVADOR-No, no, as long as the water can get to the filter, and we’ll provide for that in
the design.
MR. THOMAS-So you want, this water’s going to flow under this house?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-There’ll be no compression of this thing from this house? You’ll build it in such a
way that?
MR. SALVADOR-This’ll have to be a piled structure. There’s no way it’s going to rest on fill.
You don’t build that way. Now the Harris Bay Yacht Club has done the same exact thing we’re
doing here. They filled their land first. They filled it and then they piled it and then they built their
Clubhouse on it, but they filled it first, and then they set back from the shoreline. The exact same
thing we’re going to do here, and every time the Harris Bay Yacht Club puts four inches of gravel
on top of their parking lot in the spring, every time they do that, they’re filling the lake. They’re
moving the shoreline every time. That’s what’s happening, because that subsurface strata is not
stabilized.
MR. STONE-I suggest, as a citizen, Mr. Salvador, that you take that up with the Town.
MR. SALVADOR-I did, sir. It’s on the record, and Mr. Martin ruled that wasn’t a problem. So
that’s all been done.
MR. STONE-Okay. There’s us and there’s the courts.
MR. SALVADOR-There’s only so much you can do in life. There were some other questions, but
I fail to see how whatever the setback is of a building, that it somehow impacts the health and
welfare of the community. I don’t see, I’d be glad to, you can measure those. You can tell me
what the problem is. We can mitigate it, and environmentally, I’ve got to tell you that when I look
around Dunham Bay and I see all of the dwellings and other establishments with buildings on the
water, in the water, beyond the shoreline, okay, if they were seriously impacting the environment, I
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
should think they’d be shut down. Really. Nobody is allowed to do that sort of thing that you
claim this will result in. They should be shut down and they should vacate.
MR. STONE-Well, apparently we’re trying to shut it down before it starts here.
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company permit that Mr. Schriner refers
to, they got a permit that allowed them to build their structure piled 20 feet beyond the shoreline,
20 feet beyond the shoreline. That was their permit.
MRS. ALEXY-May I say just one thing?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the public hearing is still open.
MRS. ALEXY-Two wrongs never made a right, and that’s exactly what’s happening. It’s not only
our view, but he’s worried about being taxed for that property that he’s filled in. He went to the
Corps of Engineers. They didn’t come to him. I’m sure of that, and he filled it in with this idea in
mind. Fine, but in the mean time, now he’s paying taxes on that. He’s got about 50 docks along
there that he rents. He makes a lot of money on facility. I’m sure it takes care of those taxes and
then some. That’s neither here nor there. In the mean time, if he’s allowed to put a building up
there, it’s going to lower our value of our property, and I don’t think that’s fair.
MR. THOMAS-All right. A motion’s in order. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1998 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. &
KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR
, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Lewis Stone:
The applicant proposes construction of a 12,320 square foot single family dwelling and is
requesting relief from the setback requirements of 179-60, the shoreline and wetland regulations,
Section 179-16, specifically the shoreline setback requirements for Waterfront Residential zones,
and I believe the particular Section is 179-16F. It would be difficult to state all of the reasons
stated by the members of this Zoning Board, why this application should be denied, and I will
attempt to summarize them to the extent that I can, I incorporate the comments of the Board
members made earlier. Suffice that the effect this variance would have on the character of the
neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community would be negative. The
property is currently commercially used, and to allow construction of residential building one foot
from the waterfront and some very short distance, I believe five feet, from the opposite side from
the existing road, would not be in conformity with the intent or purpose of the setback requirements
for the Town of Queensbury. In addition, the purpose of these shoreline regulations and setback
regulations is to promote and protect the public health, welfare, safety of the public, and to protect
the economic property values, aesthetic and recreational values, and other natural resources
associated with Lake George which is a unique asset and resource in the Town of Queensbury.
The purpose of these regulations is also to provide protection, preservation and proper maintenance
and use of that water course and to minimize disturbance to them, to prevent damage from erosion,
turbidity, siltation, loss of wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of natural habitat. This
project is going to do that. There are also feasible alternatives that either have not been considered
or otherwise available. These include relocating the property, the proposed building I mean, or
changing the proposal such that it does not cover such a large area and might better fit within the
shoreline setback restrictions of the Town Ordinance. It is our finding that the relief is substantial
relative to the Ordinance, in the fact that Mr. Salvador has self-created his own problem in electing
to build this structure in the location where he has and in the manner where he does. His proposed
setback variances would have an adverse impact and effect on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood, and for these reasons, I move that the project be denied.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-The application is denied.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. CUSTER-John, do you want your blueprints?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, if you don’t need them.
MR. STONE-You can have them.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1998 SEQRA TYPE II SFR-1A CHRISTOPHER D. HOY
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 55 WILLOW ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED
A TRELLIS/PERGOLA ATTACHED TO POOL/GARDEN SHED. APPLICANT IS
REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-
19. TAX MAP NO. 90-8-23 LOT SIZE: 0.95 ACRES SECTION 179-19
CHRISTOPHER HOY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1998, Christopher Hoy, Meeting Date: January 21, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ 55 Willow Road The applicant has
Relief Required:
constructed a trellis/pergola as part of a pool house. The applicant requires
relief from the side setback requirements of §179-20. The required setback is 15 feet (per the
Criteria for considering an Area
approved subdivision) the proposed setback is 11 feet.
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant
2. Feasible alternatives:
would be allowed to maintain the existing structure. Feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
alternatives are limited to removal of the structure.
ordinance?:4. Effects on the neighborhood or
The relief may be interpreted as insubstantial.
community:5. Is this difficulty self-
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated.
created?Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Yes. The applicant was issued
Staff comments:
a building permit for the poolhouse strucure without the pergola/trellis details.
SEQR Status:
Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Type II
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dr. Hoy, is there anything else you want to tell us about?
DR. HOY-Not really. We didn’t realize that in putting it on, we were violating the Ordinance. We
just were trying to make it more attractive and allow plants to grow on it, and it was only that it
came to be inspected that they informed us that because it was part of the structure, it therefore
violated the original planning decision. So it was certainly self-created, but I didn’t know what I
was doing.
MR. THOMAS-Boy, that’s not a good thing to say.
DR. HOY-I’m sorry, that’s true. I throw myself on your mercy. I’ll take it down if you don’t like
it.
MR. CUSTER-That’s what we wanted to hear.
MR. STONE-Is the fence right on the property line? The fence sits to the east?
DR. HOY-The fence is about six inches or a foot in from the property line. We had it surveyed to
make sure that it was inside the property line by, and I think it’s either a foot or six inches in. I
don’t remember.
MR. STONE-Okay. I couldn’t get back there today because I didn’t have my muckle lucks with
me.
DR. HOY-Sorry about that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Obviously, your neighbors don’t seem to have a problem. Or have they spoken
to you privately?
DR. HOY-Well, the one who would have had a problem moved away at the beginning of
December.
MR. STONE-That back area is the swale. Is that your property or is that the easement, the water
main easement? Because it seems to go down in the back.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
DR. HOY-No, that’s my property.
MR. STONE-That’s your property.
DR. HOY-You mean the dip in the ground?
MR. STONE-The dip in the ground.
DR. HOY-That area was originally, I’m told by the guy who built it that that whole lot was
originally almost the same level as the creek, and they filled it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
DR. HOY-So that it would be up on, it’s less than an acre. So it doesn’t have to meet the.
MRS. LAPHAM-What’s in back, I mean, this doesn’t have any bearing on your application.
DR. HOY-Glens Falls Watershed is back there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I was just curious.
MR. STONE-I was surprised, how do you get out of there? I was curious.
DR. HOY-Get out of where? I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-Your home. How do you get to a road that can go somewhere?
DR. HOY-I can go either out to West Mountain Road, just through Pinewood Hollow. I don’t
know if you know.
MR. THOMAS-That’s where I live.
MR. STONE-That’s where you live.
DR. HOY-Mr. Thomas is right around the corner from us.
MRS. LAPHAM-Or you can go over to Kiley.
DR. HOY-Or you can go down to Kiley, which is what most people do.
MR. STONE-Yes. That’s the way I came in.
DR. HOY-Yes. That’s how most people go.
MR. STONE-But what is the land between you and Aviation?
DR. HOY-That’s Glens Falls Watershed.
MR. STONE-The whole thing.
DR. HOY-We’ve been told. That’s what the originally, they just voted on recently to keep it
permanently, or make it more difficult to sell it, or whatever they were going to do, develop it.
MR. STONE-So there’s nobody behind you, in a sense. Your neighbor to the east is not here.
DR. HOY-Yes. Again, if he objected, I would take it down. I’m not going to argue for this. It’s
purely decorative.
MR. STONE-We can go through our speech, guys.
MR. CUSTER-Lew, you do it and I’ll just ditto it.
MR. STONE-That’s all right. You do it and I’ll ditto it.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. CUSTER-It’s either you or me.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ve got to open the public hearing. Does anybody else have any more
questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Correspondence?
th
MRS. LAPHAM-January 7 letter to applicant, re: meeting date. I don’t think we need to worry
about that.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Is there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-Who built that thing? Did you build it, or did a builder?
DR. HOY-No, actually, the builder added it on. We had a friend who’s an architect help us design
the thing, because putting the pool in was a bit of a, sort of a spontaneous thing, or quickly done,
and so we put the pool house in, because I needed something, a garden shed.
MR. MC NALLY-And who was the builder that put the pergola on, whatever it is on?
DR. HOY-Schermerhorn did the original house. Jeff Inglee.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not. Go ahead, Brian.
MR. CUSTER-At 9:30, after the last applicant, timing is everything.
DR. HOY-I could go on.
MRS. LAPHAM-No, brevity is appreciated.
MR. CUSTER-The speech goes something like this. Generally speaking, we don’t like retroactive
variances, but knowing the condition of the property, the structure, and not hearing any opposition
from the neighbors, I’m not going to belabor this position at all.
MR. STONE-We’re looking for the perfect one, but you’re not it.
MR. CUSTER-We’re going to make someone tear something down some night, but this isn’t it.
MR. THOMAS-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-To steal Lew’s thunder, ditto.
MR. THOMAS-Lew?
MR. STONE-Absolutely ditto.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’s going to be very attractive with the plants and flowers and vines
creeping up, and so I don’t want to have to have them tear it down, either.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Insubstantial. I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with it whatsoever, and since there’s no public opposition to it,
I don’t see where it impacts any of the neighbors in any way. It is not a living structure, where
someone would be occupying it.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. STONE-We do commend the zoning person who noticed it, however, for bringing it to our
attention.
MR. ROUND-Mr. Hatin.
MR. THOMAS-Having said that, I will ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1998 CHRISTOPHER D. HOY
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
55 Willow Road. The applicant has constructed a trellis/pergola as part of a pool house. The
applicant requires relief from the side setback requirements of Section 179-20. That requirement is
15 feet. The proposed setback is 11 feet. So the applicant specifically is requesting a four foot
relief. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to maintain the existing
structure as built. The only feasible alternative would be to remove the structure. I believe that the
relief is insubstantial and that the effects on the neighborhood, if any, will be positive, and that it’s
a very nice piece of property, and that it’s actually an improvement in aesthetics, and I do believe
the difficulty is self-created. Having that in mind, I would move for approval.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go, Doctor, you’re all set.
DR. HOY-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
MR. STONE-Sorry you had to wait quite so long.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You got to hear John Salvador.
DR. HOY-It was interesting.
MR. THOMAS-We have a few more things we have to talk about, the first being we need to make
a recommendation to the Town Board for a Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MRS. LAPHAM-What’s wrong with you?
MR. THOMAS-Nothing’s wrong with me, that I know of.
MR. STONE-I move that we suggest Christian Thomas be Chairman for 1998.
MR. HAYES-Second.
MR. CUSTER-I want to caucus this.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Go ahead. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other
nominations? Any other nominations?
MOTION TO SUGGEST THAT CHRISTIAN THOMAS BE CHAIRMAN FOR 1998
,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
MRS. LAPHAM-I didn’t realize we had to do this every year.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, every year, the first meeting of the year. Now we have to have a nomination
for a Vice Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Lewis Stone, Esq. for Vice Chairman.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other
nominations?
MOTION TO NOMINATE LEWIS STONE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN
, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone
MR. THOMAS-So Mr. Stone is the Chairman of vice for the Zoning Board of Appeals for 1998.
Now we need nominations for a Secretary. I will nominate Bonnie Lapham for Secretary. Any
other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other nominations?
MOTION TO NOMINATE BONNIE LAPHAM FOR SECRETARY
, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-So the recommendation to the Town Board is for the Chairmanship has to be
passed by the Town Board at their next meeting, or has to be appointed at their next meeting.
MR. CUSTER-Are we going to run through these minutes, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we are. Because we don’t want to get behind, like we did that one other time
and screwed it up.
MR. STONE-Did we?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we got screwed up, and bad.
MR. CUSTER-Can we just nominate them en mass?
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 22, 1997: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any changes for October 22, 1997?
MR. STONE-No.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 22, 1997
, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
October 29, 1997: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any changes for the October 29, 1997 meeting notes? If not,
I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THIRD
REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 29, 1997 AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
November 12, 1997: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any changes for the November 12, 1997 Zoning Board of
Appeals first regular meeting minutes? If not.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR
MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1997 MINUTES AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
November 19, 1997: NONE
MR. THOMAS-The second regular meeting of November, November 19, 1997.
MR. STONE-I have an addition. I was absent. It does not so state.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So noted. Does anyone else have any changes for that meeting date, to the
notes?
MOTION THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR
MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1997 BE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED, WITH CHANGES
MADE BY MR. STONE
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Bonnie Lapham:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
November 24, 1997: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The special meeting, November 24, 1997. Does anyone have any
changes? If not, I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 24, 1997, AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/98)
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
MR. HAYES-Can we adopt it with three people?
MR. THOMAS-No, not legally, but I mean, if somebody wants to challenge it, we’ll worry about
it.
December 17, 1997: NONE
th
The first regular meeting of December, December 17, any changes? Okay.
MOTION THAT TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES AS PRINTED
, Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Has Super Shuttle moved?
MR. ROUND-They’re out of there.
MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn.
MRS. LAPHAM-Good idea.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
32