1998-11-18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
PAUL HAYES
LEWIS STONE
DANIEL STEC
ROBERT MC NALLY
MEMBERS ABSENT
BRIAN CUSTER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 TYPE II LI-1A GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING
VIOLATION OF BUFFER ZONE AND EXPAND AREA OF FILL AND OCCUPATION
OF THE BUFFER ZONE CROSS REF. SPR 71-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7.16 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-72
GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-Do you want me to read the tabling motion?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, read the tabling motion, please.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following
request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: October 28,
1998 Variance File No. 52-1998, Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 52-
1998 Glenn Batease, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by
th
Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES:
Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs.
Lapham, Mr. Custer”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-1998, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: November 18, 1998
Staff Comments:
“ The enclosed additional information (submitted 11/10/98) does not contain all
of the items requested at the original meeting. This addendum is merely a map showing existing
contours and conditions on the site including areas of stockpiling. Mr. Batease has been informed,
both in a letter dated August 20, 1998 and by phone messages on October 16, 19, and 21 that
additional data needs to be submitted in order for the ZBA to continue review of this application.
Specifically, proposed contours and a slope stabilization plan addressing the proposed slopes and
the protection thereof needs to be presented. Without the proposed contours, which are the basis
for this variance, no consideration of relief for disturbance of the buffer zone should be considered.
The impact of the proposal on both the protected stream off site and the “year round flow” on site
may be substantial and without the proposed grading plan it is impossible to determine the impact.
Further, if any relief is granted a condition of such relief may include only the placement of a
stabilized fill in the buffer area. This condition would be consistent with the definition which calls
for “…no parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the
property… Additionally, if any relief is granted, the limits of this should be delineated in the field
by a qualified party. This demarcation will allow for an accurate monitoring and enforcement
Description of Proposed Project:
action.” “Project Location: 71 Big Boom Road Applicant
proposes to maintain the existing occupation of the buffer zone and to expand the limits of filling to
Relief Required:
include more of the buffer zone. Applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
requirement for a 50 foot buffer zone, Section 179-72. The applicant’s lot abuts residential zones
therefore a 50 foot buffer is to be maintained. The definition of Buffer Zone, Section 179-7 does
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according
not allow for disturbance or occupation.
to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
maintain the existing conditions and expand on same in order to create areas to develop in the
2. Feasible alternatives:
future. Feasible alternatives may include filling in compliance with the
3. Is this relief substantial
buffer zone requirements and acquisition of additional property.
relative to the ordinance?:
50 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
substantial. Substantial effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. There is a Department of
Environmental Conservation classified stream in the vicinity which would be affected by this
5. Is this difficulty self created?
action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 71-96 res. 11/26/96 addition of
courier service and site work SP 33-94 modification res. 7/22/97 site grading and access drive
SP 33-94 res. 10/27/94 placement of 3 buildings SP 71-96 modification res. 8/25/98 tabled -
Staff comments:
pending variance Substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The adjoining residential zones, SR-1A and WR-1A may be significantly affected by the
placement of this substantial amount of fill in this area, given the change in elevation from the
proposed level of fill to the existing elevation. The toe of the slope, even at a severe 1/1 slope,
SEQR Status:
would encroach onto the neighboring properties, at least 50 feet. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Batease, you gave us the maps here that were drawn up by Van
Dusen and Steves, and we also have a cross section that was given to us by Craig Brown of
Community Development. Do you see where that cross section goes through, it’s where that
streams comes off your property. Okay. Is that about what you propose to do?
MR. BATEASE-Well, actually, what I’d like to be able to do, I’d like to be able to fill out to the
property line. I mean, the way it was when I originally got the property, that ravine that went
down is a steep ravine, and I would like to be able to fill out to the property line, and there’s a flat
area between the, you know, I want to stay away from the stream. I don’t need to get into that at
all, and there’s a flat area between the stream and Okay. Is that about what you propose to do?
MR. BATEASE-Well, actually, what I’d like to be able to do, I’d like to be able to fill out to the
property line. I mean, the way it was when I originally got the property, that ravine that went
down is a steep ravine, and I would like to be able to fill out to the property line, and there’s a flat
area between the, you know, I want to stay away from the stream. I don’t need to get into that at
all, and there’s a flat area between the stream and my property, so I could fill out onto that flat
area, and I have a letter from O’Connor stating that, if I fill up to the line or a little bit over the
line, it really doesn’t matter to them. There’s a big ravine between us, and whatever, it may be a
steep slope on the bank, but whatever, if soil and water conservation suggested I do something with
stabilization fabric or stone or whatever, I could give them whatever they need. What I want to do
is fill the property, but I want to keep the grade running back toward the road, so if I need to put
any catch basins in, you know, off the road, the water wouldn’t be running toward the back of the
property and then down over the hill, creating erosion. So what I can do is keep the grade coming
back toward the road, so I’m not having a problem with the washouts down the back side.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. What’s the DEC say for the setback from a stream, was that 100?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know what the DEC’s regulation is from their stream, but the Town doesn’t
allow any filling within 50 feet of the stream, except by Planning Board review and approval.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So there’s a portion of it, if Mr. Batease fills the way he wants to, to the property
line, obviously, the toe’s going to go over the property line. It would definitely come within 50
feet, and that would be something that needs to be approved by the Planning Board, that
encroachment of 50 feet, placement of fill.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s the Planning Board’s, it’s not ours.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Ours is just strictly the buffer zone.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-And what he fills it with belongs to the Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-I would think that would be right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So here again, it’s just the technicality of the buffer zone, of encroachment
within the buffer zone.
MR. BROWN-Right, whether or not you want to let him occupy the buffer zone or disturb it, or
store materials, vehicles, whatever in the buffer zone. That’s what you’re doing.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and everything else is the Planning Board’s, right?
MR. BROWN-As far as the site plan, the slope stabilization. I think it would be beneficial for you
to make a decision, if you have that information, you could determine what effects it might have,
the placement of that amount of fill, but that might be something that would be determined by the
Planning Board, also. It would definitely be addressed by them.
MR. THOMAS-Well, if that’s what they’re supposed to do, we’ll let them do it, depending on
what happens here. Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Batease?
MR. STONE-I’ve got two or three. On the drawing that you prepared, Craig, where you show the
existing going down from 370 down to 220, did you take the material out of there? You’re saying
there was a ravine there.
MR. BATEASE-There was a ravine.
MR. STONE-But in some places it gets closer to the property line than the particular place, it
seems, unless I’m reading this wrong. It’s more gradual. I take it back. It’s more gradual. Where
is the fill, where would the fill come from, and how long would it take you to fill this piece of
property?
MR. BATEASE-It all depends on what’s going on. There’s some concrete that comes in every
once in a while. Road jobs going in, they bring blacktop in, just regular fill, Aviation Mall, they
may have that job coming in. So there’ll be some sand there. It’s just, Town of Queensbury, they
have material, they come over there and dump, and it’s just, material from all over.
MR. STONE-It’s an approved C & D disposal area?
MR. BATEASE-It’s clean fill. There’s no wood debris.
MR. STONE-I’m hearing construction. I’m hearing, I mean, road, pieces of road, pieces of
concrete.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, well, blacktop and road material, that’s considered clean fill, in the State of
New York. It’s not stumps. It’s not wood, it’s not demolition as in houses coming down and what
not. So it’s basically just dirt, concrete, blacktop.
MR. HAYES-By your drawing, even if he goes with the 1.5, that toe’s going to be in the stream?
That’s what it looks like from this drawing, actually in the stream.
MR. BROWN-Across the stream, at that one point. It’s unlikely it would happen at that point,
because there’s also a 50 foot setback required from that little spur stream you see coming from his
property line. So that’s something that the Planning Board would have to address, the placement
of fill within 50 feet of that little spur stream. So at that point, chances are the fill wouldn’t be
there. This is kind of illustrated to show how big the slope would be, how big the toe would be if
the placement of fill went right to the property line.
MR. STONE-So that gully, if you will, or swale, which is more than a swale, would stay there, as
that stream gets onto Mr. Batease’s property.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-I mean, it shows it, if I look at the contours, it’s probably 30 feet into the property,
wherever it starts.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-The ravine at the beginning of the little stream?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Is that really a stream, or is that just a runoff of Mr. Batease’s property?
MR. BROWN-It’s both. At the point where it crosses the property line Bill Lupo from the DEC
made a determination that it’s basically a year round flow. There’s water in it year round.
MR. BATEASE-The one that’s over on O’Connor’s.
MR. BROWN-The one that starts right at the property line and goes onto O’Connor’s, right. So
the setback from that would have to be maintained, just like it would from the main stream.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Batease?
MR. STEC-What’s the setback requirement, Craig, for a stream?
MR. BROWN-No placement of fill within 50 feet. In this zone that he’s in, the Light Industrial,
the setback from the stream for buildings is 75 feet. So it depends on what you’re talking about. If
it’s fill, it’s 50 feet. If it’s a building it’s 75 feet, and that’s also subject to property line setbacks,
if they’re greater.
MR. STONE-And you’ve tried to show that on this line, you say line of cross section you’ve tried
to show the 50 feet from all parts of the stream on his side, that curved following the stream
contour, or stream bed. Okay.
MR. BROWN-But what I also did, I don’t know if it’ll help, I colored up a map, basically, that
shows the 50 foot buffer, a 50 foot line from the stream and a 75 foot line from the stream, that
would kind of give you an idea of where those limits of fill could go within 50 feet, and where the
75 foot building setback line is, if you’d like to see it.
MR. THOMAS-We might as well.
MRS. LAPHAM-It’s easier to visualize it that way.
MR. STONE-But in addition to that, you still want to go, if you had your druthers, forgetting that
little stream, which has a certain problem, but on the rest of the property, you’d like to go the 370
feet to the property line?
MR. BATEASE-I’d like to be able to make the property all (lost words) and fill out to the property
line.
MR. STONE-So you want it approximately 370 elevation at the east property line, as much as
possible, keeping in mind the stream has it’s own.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, we don’t need to get into the stream with all that material flowing down into
there by any means.
MR. STONE-I understand, but from this point, over to here, you’d like it to be 370, with the
exception of this, or as close as possible. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-How do you plan to use that area in the buffer zone, if you fill it to a height of
370 feet?
MR. BATEASE-How do I plan on using it?
MR. MC NALLY-You said you wanted to use your property.
MR. BATEASE-Well, right now if I need to, right now it’s a ravine. Later down the road if I need
to put some building, you know, I’d like to develop that area. So I’d like to put some more
buildings back in there, along the road front.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but I’m asking for the buffer zone. What are your plans for using the zone
itself?
MR. BATEASE-Well, you know, if you need to park some vehicles out the back side. If you had
an office building and you need some parking off the back, you could use it for that. I don’t really
need to store anything in that area. I’d like to make it usable, to drive around the building or park
off the back side.
MR. MC NALLY-So you would use it for like a roadway or for cars or things like that?
MR. BATEASE-Yes. If you have a building and then there’s a ravine down the back side, you
really couldn’t even drive around the back side of the building.
MR. STONE-As I understand it, and let me just see if I understand it, because as I look at this
drawing the 50 foot setback from the stream only impinges on your property, a small amount. In
other words, this 50 foot only impinges on your property maybe here, forgetting this part, the other
little stream, and up here a little bit, but you want to, as I understand, fill it to here and 370, or
whatever it takes to bring it up to here.
MR. BATEASE-Well, here I wouldn’t. That goes off behind, I would stay away from this area. I
don’t need to fill right up to the line here. I’m just basically concerned about this area.
MR. STONE-So to the north, the north part of the property.
MR. BATEASE-Fill in here a little bit, to make this a little more usable back in here, but I don’t
need to go out onto the line here. Here’s what I’m concerned about. Like in here, here I’d stay
away from this.
MR. STONE-So about the 320 contour.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, fill in more back here to make this property more usable here, but I don’t
need to go out to the line.
MR. STONE-But as I said, this 50 foot buffer you can’t build in anyway, right?
MR. BATEASE-But I’d like to be able to fill it in, so if I do have a building here, you have a way
to get around behind the building if you wanted to park some vehicles back there for a parking lot.
I have no idea what types of buildings we’re going to put in, if it’s going to be office or, but I have
the property. I have one building on it now, and I would just like to be able to have all the property
usable.
MR. STONE-But in the interim, it would benefit you to be able to use it to put fill from your
construction.
MR. BATEASE-Well, most of the fill that comes in is not even off my jobs, just, like I say, the
Town of Queensbury dumps in there (lost words) Kubricky’s got a job going up on Route 9, they’ll
dump some stuff in there from time to time.
MR. STONE-They pay you for this privilege?
MR. BATEASE-No.
MR. STONE-They don’t?
MR. BATEASE-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re getting the benefit of the fill to improve the land.
MR. HAYES-Increasing the overall table (lost words).
MR. BATEASE-That’s what I want to do, because this was all ravine here when I started, and
actually the only usable spot was this part here and this little piece here, and everything else was a
ravine.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-I thought there were more buildings, or are they down here?
MR. BATEASE-Well, Seeley’s building’s here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BATEASE-And O’Connor, it really doesn’t matter to them. They have a letter in here
saying, you know, if it’s close to the line or over it, there’s a big ravine, and it really doesn’t matter
to them, and if I did have a building here, and we had a parking lot here, I mean, it’s not like
there’s houses right behind here looking at your vehicles parked, because it’s just a big ravine
between. They say it’s residential, but, you know, they have the driving range back there, so is it
really commercial or is it residential?
MR. STONE-Well, a driving ranges can come and go pretty quickly. I’ve seen golf courses come
and go.
MR. BATEASE-But even if they did put a housing development in here, it’s going to be close
because this ravine goes way over into here.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I do believe I left the public
hearing open, since the August meeting. Is there anyone who’d like to speak in favor of this
application, in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any
correspondence? Well, we already read the one letter from Mr. O’Connor into the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I guess it’s time to talk
about it. Lew? I’ll start with you.
MR. STONE-Thanks. Well, I feel a little better about this, particularly if we get Mr. Batease,
would be willing to stipulate that we’re only talking fill north of what I would say is the 320
contour line north of that center line that we put in, in other words from about a third of the way up
the property to the end. I’m still very concerned, however, on putting fill on somebody else’s
property, even if they say so. I mean it is a piece of property, it’s got problems. No piece of
property is perfect. It’s got some constraints, and is this a way to, is this the right way to make
this property more usable than it might be if you put fill in and followed the requirements that
we’re talking about. I mean, as I see it, there are places, even on your property, where you can’t
go to 370 feet, within the 50 foot of the stream, and yet, and even forgetting that, if you grade the
thing down, you’re going to come awfully close to the stream. In many cases, it’s probably within
the 50 foot if you put it in at any reasonable slope. I’m concerned, obviously, other people are
going to get involved even if we do approve it, but I guess I want to hear some more.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with a lot of Lew’s concerns. In the case of an Area Variance, which
this is, we’re presented with a balancing test, and as I look through the criteria, obviously there is
some feasible alternatives to this current plan because, while sympathetic with development and
business, it certainly is an aggressive fill plan, to say the least. The relief is substantial. Fifty feet
of a fifty foot, you know, buffer zone is as substantial as you can get, and effects on the
neighborhood and community, based on some serious implications with the certified stream, it’s
hard to say that there isn’t possibly some negative impacts on the neighborhood, and as far as the
self-created difficulty, I believe this property was purchased with more difficulty than it even has
now, and some of that has already been alleviated, but I think that it is a self-created difficulty. So
I’m like Lew. I’ll listen and I can keep an open mind, but it seems like this may be a little far, as
far as the test, as far as weighing both sides.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree that you have to balance Mr. Batease’s needs to develop his property to
the maximum extent possible, with the community’s needs to have a buffer zone between his
property and what may, in the future, be a residential zone. I was disturbed, when I went first
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
down there, that a portion of the buffer zone was already filled in, as far as I could tell, and a road
was built into the buffer zone down into that gully. I mean, seeing that the purpose of the buffer
zone is to allow some kind of area between different zones where there won’t be a conflict between
the two uses where there’d be some screening from commercial uses, like the piles of asphalt and
concrete and what not that are on the property. It’s difficult, at such an elevation, to do anything
that’s going to screen something like that, but the buffer zone is defined as an area that’s to be
inhabited by natural woody plants. It’s not to be used. It’s not to be used for parking. It’s not to
be used for a roadway, and it’s being used like that now as we speak. If the applicant is allowed to
fill the ravine, exactly up to his line, you know that that’s going to invite a more intense use.
There’s no way around it. So I don’t see it as a viable alternative. He could develop his property,
though not as intensely, and in compliance with the buffer zone requirements as they currently
exist. Mr. Batease could acquire new property if he wanted to. Fifty feet relief from a fifty foot
buffer requirement is substantial relief. There’s going to be an effect on the neighborhood. We
had neighbors here at the first meeting opposed to it. Mr. O’Connor may not be opposed to it, but
I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.
MR. BATEASE-Who was opposed to it, at the first meeting?
MR. MC NALLY-I think, in the Town Board, I think at the Town Board, they made the decision
to put the buffer in, and we should keep it, and I do see something of it’s being self-created. This
is not something that has to be done, which would allow the property to be developed. There’s a
lot of space there, not as much space as you could have if you developed it all the way. There’s
also effects, I think, on the stream and the other adjoining property owners. So I’m not terribly in
favor of it.
MR. BATEASE-You’re saying wooded. From my property line, over across the ravine, it’s like
500 feet of wooded area that couldn’t be built on anyway because it’s a ravine. So that gives you a
wooded area to block my property.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t understand what you’re saying.
MR. BATEASE-Well, you’re saying that 50 foot, it’s been clear, we’ve been using that property
since ’94.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t doubt it.
MR. BATEASE-So, back then, I was not told it was a no touch, no cut. We’ve been using it, and
now they just, this is all coming about, that I’m in my buffer zone.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. I mean, there’s always been a buffer zone, if not mistaken, since you
purchased the property, whether or not you were aware of what you could or could not use the
property for.
MR. BATEASE-Was that in effect, back in ’94?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, and you know it’s kind of a strict interpretation. We’ve had a lot of people
try to develop buffers as parking areas or what not, and I think in other applications we’ve denied
it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have.
MR. MC NALLY-So I don’t know how we could justify approving such a wide variation here.
MR. STONE-I would even read the rest of the definition in, the whole, at the beginning of it, just
so that it’s in the record.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, if you look at Section 179-7.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m reading the definition again of buffer zone.
MR. MC NALLY-A buffer zone. It says “an unpaved, natural area, without buildings, designed to
reduce the possibility of any adverse impact on land, on water quality, and/or on conflicts of land
use between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind, or objects
associated with the use of the property is permitted on the buffer zone, and when not inhabited by
woody plants”, in other words, trees or shrubs, “sufficiently to visually screen the adjoining areas
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
or zones, such buffer shall be planted, re-graded, and/or fenced”. I think it’s kind of clear. This
isn’t minimal relief that we’re looking for of five, ten feet, that’s different. Fifty feet is total buffer.
That’s what I think.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I’m glad that, Bob covered what I would have talked about, myself. I was raised
to have a vast amount of respect for DEC classified streams, and I’m very hesitant to say, okay,
lets toss in the 50 foot buffer zone and put in this amount of fill all the way up to the property line.
I don’t think it’s fair to use your neighbor’s property as the buffer zone for your property, as is
suggested, and we’ve, the applicant has twice mentioned the intent to park vehicles and what not.
Maybe he hasn’t looked at the definition of “buffer zone”, but I think there’s three or four things
that are in this whole application that apply directly against the definition of “buffer zone” and I
think the request is excessive.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Between Bob and Dan, both of them together covered everything that I was
concerned about. I’m usually very hesitant to vote against buffer zones. The one time I did, I’ve
been extremely disappointed. So I’m re-thinking my whole way of looking at that, and so I would
not be particularly in favor of this.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I, myself, I wouldn’t be opposed to the applicant having the toe of the
slope at his property line and sloping back up from his property line up to the proposed 370 foot
level. That way he could get more property to the back of the property. I would not encourage, in
any way, letting any of that fill go over the property line onto someone else’s, and I would also not
want to see any fill within the setbacks of the stream, within 50 foot of the stream, but if he starts
the fill at the toe, or if he starts filling at his property line and goes on a one and a half on one, or
whatever he can come up with, through DEC and soil management, depending on what kind of fill
he uses, I wouldn’t be opposed to that. That way he could get some more use out of the back of
that land. Even though he is filling in within the buffer zone, it still would not be used, it still could
not be used, but as far as any encroachment within the buffer zone, like the Ordinance says, for
parking, roadways, storage of vehicles or installation of buildings, I would be opposed to that, but
if you take that one and a half on one slope that’s shown on Craig’s drawing, and where it crosses
the 320 foot line, if you took that and moved it back to where the property line starts, and went on
that same slope up, parallel to the one and a half over one up, I wouldn’t be opposed to that, even
though it is filling within the 50 foot buffer zone. It would give Mr. Batease more use of the land
in the back there, where he wants to, but he wouldn’t be able to fill right up to the property line.
MR. STONE-And there would be a buffer zone. It would be a slanted buffer zone.
MR. THOMAS-It would be a slanted buffer zone, and, you know, as Craig had mentioned before,
depending on what kind of fill it is, if it was, what they call a slag type fill.
MR. BROWN-Yes, broken stone, broken rock.
MR. THOMAS-Broken stuff like that, you could probably go a one and a half or maybe even a
one on one.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-So if you’re looking between 320 and 370, that’s 50 feet. He would be able to fill
that entire buffer zone from bottom to top within that 50 feet with a one on one slope.
MRS. LAPHAM-I have a question. If you have to stay within the buffer zone, but the buffer zone
can’t be used for anything. It can’t be used for parking. It can’t be used for buildings, then why
would you?
MR. HAYES-It’s pretty steep. You wouldn’t be able to use it anyway.
MR. BATEASE-That’s about how it was when I.
MRS. LAPHAM-I mean, why would he get any more use out of it?
MR. THOMAS-He wouldn’t, but he’d get use out of this, here.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Is that the application in front of us, to go as you’ve suggested?
MR. THOMAS-No. The application in front of us is to the, it’s to fill to the property line. What
I’m suggesting is a modification.
MR. MC NALLY-And there would have to be some kind of accommodation for trees and planting
that would provide the screening.
MR. STEC-I agree.
MR. MC NALLY-If it’s slag, can you grow a tree on slag?
MR. THOMAS-Not that I know of.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, that’s the purpose, it’s to have some kind of screening.
MR. STEC-The definition says that the buffer area should be planted and re-graded and fenced.
MR. MC NALLY-Actually, there’s an obligation to plant this.
MR. THOMAS-Re-graded, planted or fenced?
MR. MC NALLY-And/or fenced.
MR. THOMAS-And/or fenced.
MR. STONE-But we’re going to re-graded.
MR. THOMAS-A fence or planting.
MR. STONE-Yes, or a combination of fence and planting.
MR. HAYES-Because it is a ravine, there is some vegetation that would provide a little, some
natural.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, between my property line and you go down through the ravine and up on the
other side of the ravine, it’s like 500 foot of wooded area.
MR. HAYES-Which is not in the buffer zone technically, but it is a screening.
MR. STONE-But some of that is something you have no control over. You’re saying it’s on his
side.
MR. BATEASE-O’Connor’s, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-See, the point is to let the buffer zone grow up, so that if someone builds a
residential development on those 500 feet, then there would be a screening.
MR. BATEASE-If we could fill like he was talking about, with rock, and if we had some soil put
down over the top of that, where you could get some vegetation to grow on it, and we could put
some up on the top side, up at 370 or whatever, we could put more trees up on top, we could re-
plant that.
MR. THOMAS-Does everyone on the Board understand what my suggestion is?
MR. STONE-Starting at the property line and going up, and it’ll probably be at least 50 feet that
will be unusable, if you will.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, depending on what is allowed for a slope, depending on that depends on the
fill. So what Mr. Batease would be doing would be filling in the buffer zone with whatever, and
maybe if you put, you know, some kind of soil on top of vegetation would take, and then if Mr.
Batease planted trees, like he just mentioned, at the 50 foot buffer line.
MR. STONE-What you’re proposing, Chris, is no relief granted by this Board.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STEC-I think it’s still relief. You’re filling into the buffer.
MR. THOMAS-There’s still relief, because it’s filled within the buffer zone.
MR. STONE-Some of it, we’re going to have to be a very difficult definition of how much relief
we’re giving, because it changes at every spot on the land.
MR. THOMAS-No, not if you go from the property line.
MR. STONE-Yes, if you look at the contours, he’s going to 370. I’m saying, it’s going to be
different, the amount of relief. If you say you can build.
MR. THOMAS-I didn’t say anything about building.
MR. STONE-If you can start the toe at the property line, I understand what you’re saying. I’m
only thinking in terms of a motion, how you, when we get very precise in terms of what relief we’re
granting, we’re granting somewhere between 50 and zero feet of relief for fill. It’s got to be zero
here, but at this point over here, it’s going to be 50 feet. Over here it’s going to be 10 feet, that the
slope is going to have to be, because this is a 360 contour.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but we’re only talking about granting relief to fill through the buffer zone.
MR. THOMAS-That’s all.
MR. STONE-Okay. I have no problem if we can do that.
MR. THOMAS-And it just depends on the slope, as to how much fill goes in that buffer zone.
We would grant relief to put fill in the buffer zone. How much he puts in there, what he puts in
there and the slope and everything else, that belongs to the Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-But I think that what Craig is saying is that all we have to do is grant him relief to
go into that buffer zone to put fill, just to disturb that buffer zone.
MR. STEC-But as you’re wording it, though, Chris, if we grant the relief to start the toe at the
property line, we’ve granted 50 feet of relief.
MR. THOMAS-You’re granting 50 feet of relief.
MR. STEC-Right, and then we’re hoping that the Planning Board is going to know that we meant
to start the toe there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it will be very well worded in the motion.
MR. MC NALLY-We are relying on their good graces, and the applicant’s good graces, when we
grant relief without more limitations than simply that he can fill up to his property line to a
maximum of 50 feet. That, theoretically, would allow him to fill 50 feet at the property line.
MR. STONE-No, with an acceptable gradient, in other words, acceptable to the Planning Board,
Soil and Water, and DEC and everybody else.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because they have.
MR. HAYES-So objective standard, then, as far as the pitch.
MR. THOMAS-As far as the pitch.
MR. MC NALLY-You would say that the elevation at his property line, for the amount of grade
that he puts into the buffer, cannot be more than the 320 foot elevation?
MR. THOMAS-That’s right.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. MC NALLY-And to work back to his property, he’s going to have to have an acceptable
slope?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And it’ll be planted, or at least allow vegetation to be grown.
MR. THOMAS-Well, depending on what kind of fill he puts in there. If he puts slag in there, like
Craig said, you can’t grow on a slag, but imagine if you put some kind of fill in there and put
landscape netting over it to hold the fill there, then the grass would eventually grow through and
maybe hold. I don’t know. I’m not a landscape engineer.
MR. STONE-All right, but by all of this, we’re kind of saying that this is in violation now of the
buffer zone definition because it hasn’t been planted. It’s whatever was there or whatever nature
put.
MR. STEC-It says if there isn’t woody plants, you can plant them or put up a fence or both.
MR. STONE-Yes, if there isn’t sufficient to visually screen, then you’ve got to do more plantings.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, if he plants up on top, at the top of the slope, at the 370 foot level, that
screens, right, that screens his property from the surrounding property. Does everybody agree to
that?
MR. STEC-Yes, that is true.
MR. THOMAS-And that’s the definition in the Ordinance.
MR. BROWN-I think by the definition of buffer zone, the whole buffer zone needs to be inhabited,
not just at the 50 foot line from the property line, at the 370, the entire buffer area, is my
interpretation of this.
MR. MC NALLY-And you can’t keep cutting roads across that way, I mean, if trees start growing
on it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, within the buffer zone. You can’t cut anything in the buffer zone once
it starts growing.
MR. STONE-But it also has to be planted, and/or fenced, the whole buffer zone.
MR. THOMAS-So if it goes to a two on one, instead of going back 50 feet, it’ll go 50 feet beyond
the buffer zone, would be where the 370 would be, if he could get a two on one with whatever kind
of fill.
MR. BROWN-I would recommend, having read through this information packet, Mine Land
Reclamation Program, put out by the Department of Environmental Conservation, they recommend
a slope of one on two for fine sand, silt and clay, which is comparable to the type of material that’s
going to be required to stabilize the slope with any kind of vegetation.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, one on two.
MR. BROWN-So that the final material on the slope is going to be needed for the vegetation. So
that should probably be the demanding slope requirement.
MR. THOMAS-So he’d have to go back 100 feet from the property line to get his one on two.
MR. BROWN-Right, if it’s 50 feet of fill in height.
MR. STEC-He’s 80 now. He gains nothing if we do one on two.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STEC-Because he needs 100, and he’s only got 80.
MR. MC NALLY-Each line segment on your drawing, Chris, is 20 foot.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-The heavy ones are 10.
MR. BROWN-Each line is two feet. The solid lines are 10 feet, the contours.
MR. MC NALLY-These are 20 feet apart. That’s the 50 foot buffer. This is another 50, one to
two would be like that, which means 70 feet more off the back of his land than he has today.
MR. THOMAS-Right, if it’s a one on two.
MR. STONE-It would give him more land, you mean.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’d give him another 70 feet, 70 feet back from the existing 370 foot level.
MR. STONE-At that particular point, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, at that particular point, from the 370 foot point, or one on two.
MR. STONE-It rises one for every two feet.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Horizontally.
MR. MC NALLY-If he plants it and doesn’t use it, I could live with that.
MR. STONE-Yes, I could live with that.
MR. STEC-One on two. Yes, I could live with that.
MR. STONE-Because what you’re looking at, the one we were looking at, the worst case scenario,
that’s the worst spot.
MR. BROWN-That’s the worst spot.
MR. STONE-And that’s the worst spot on the lot.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the worst case scenario right there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I could live with that, as long as there’s no cars and what have you in the
buffer zone.
MR. STEC-That is a good compromise.
MR. THOMAS-It’s still a lot of relief, but.
MR. STONE-It’s a reasonable compromise.
MR. HAYES-I think so. He needs to amend the application, though.
MR. THOMAS-No, he doesn’t need to amend the application.
MR. STONE-Does he want what we’re going to grant?
MR. THOMAS-Do you understand what we’ve been talking about?
MR. BATEASE-Now you’re saying to go to a one on two slope, from the property line up?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, from the start of the property line up.
MR. STONE-Which will give you considerably more land, particularly on the, where it’s higher.
MR. HAYES-Technically, it’s considerable relief, too. Not technically, it is.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is, but there’s no encroachment into the buffer zone by any, it is by fill, but
then again, that fill will be planted, which the Ordinance says we should do, that’s re-grading and
planting, and/or fence.
MR. STEC-Yes, I think you did a good job, Chris.
MR. BROWN-And I also think that any relief that you may consider would be subject to the
Planning Board’s review of fill within 50 feet.
MR. THOMAS-Sure.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, I could live with that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you see what we’re saying?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-So you would start at your property line, and two on one, or one on two, for every
one foot you go up, you’d have to go back two feet to the 370 foot mark.
MR. STONE-If that’s the number you’re looking for, 370?
MR. THOMAS-370 is what you’re looking for, right, because you said you didn’t want it to run.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, I don’t want the water to runoff onto the property. I want it to run off
toward the road.
MR. THOMAS-Right, and so 370 will make it run toward the road, right?
MR. BATEASE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’re agreeable to that compromise.
MR. BATEASE-Yes, I’d be happy with that.
MR. THOMAS-That you can fill into the buffer zone, but you won’t be allowed to park any
vehicles, put any roads, and that you’re going to have to plant it, you know, put plantings on it.
You wouldn’t be able to go into that 50 foot anyway, because you’re going to be, it’s going to be
filled anyway and it’ll be sloped. So he wouldn’t be able to use it.
MR. STONE-Certain places won’t be very steep at all.
MR. BATEASE-Right, up on the southern end of it.
MR. STONE-I mean, it won’t be very long. It’ll be just as steep. It’ll be a very short.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, and like Lew said, the worst case scenario will be right where that stream
comes down through. That’ll be the worst, but you will have to maintain the 50 feet away from
that stream, as it goes around that arch, from your property line toward the road. Do you
understand what we’re talking about on that?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-And that to be determined by whoever looks at that stream, because that’s going to
go both north and south a little bit, that 50 foot from that stream.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions? Are there anymore comments? Would
somebody like to make a motion?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I think in absence of any proposed grading plans that haven’t been
submitted, if you think it’s a reasonable condition, to ask for a proposed grading plan showing this
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
relief, would aid in any inspections or enforcement of this, any motion that might be made, a
proposed grading plan showing the two on one slope from the property line, prepared by a qualified
individual that would delineate where the top of the slope would be and how far back from the
property line it would end up.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else? Does anyone else have any other questions?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 GLENN BATEASE
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
The applicant proposes to maintain the existing occupation of the buffer zone and expand the limits
of filling to include more of the buffer zone. Specifically, the applicant requests 50 feet of relief
from the required requirement of 50 foot buffer zone, Section 179-72. That Section requires that
the buffer zone may not be disturbed or filled in any capacity. Contingent to the approval to fill
within the 50 foot buffer zone, up to the property line, is the following contingencies. One, that the
toe of the proposed fill does not exceed the property line. It starts on or before the property line,
and regresses at a one on two slope toward the existing property, the ratio of the height to the
horizontal distances. Such grading to be demonstrated on a plan from a qualified personnel, a
professional engineer or somebody that can provide a plan that will meet enforcement as well as
quality needs and issues that this resolution is trying to address, showing that exact grade as well
as exclusion of that fill from the 50 foot area surrounding the stream, so designated on the survey.
So that the contingency specifically requires for an actual plan provided that will demonstrate that
the fill meets the proper slope and also is placed properly within the buffer zone as this variance is
allowing. That the slope within the buffer zone will be planted, as well as screening at the
beginning of the buffer zone at the 370 foot elevation mark, which definitely would be the highest
of that slope. Further, that the contingency would be that the definition of the buffer zone would be
maintained to full integrity, being that there would be no buildings, road cuts whatsoever, or any
other item not permitted within the buffer zone specifically by the Code, and that would include the
ones that are there now. They would have to desist. The benefit to the applicant would be that he
would be permitted to maintain the fill that’s already been placed within the buffer zone and he
would be allowed to even expand up into the property line, as described earlier in this motion. The
feasible alternatives in this case would be to not fill in the property, and/or acquire additional
property, but in this particular case, Mr. Batease is trying to develop his property, so that’s his
goal. Acquisition of additional property is not feasible, due to a DEC stream. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it is. Fifty foot of relief from the fifty foot
requirement is substantial, but we’ve limited its impact in that the 50 feet that will be filled will be
filled in a way that will make the property unusable and there will be vegetation and screening if
the required plantings are met. The effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe that by
changing this application, that there will be an impact on the neighborhood, but they’d be
mitigated, particularly if the 50 foot setback from the stream is maintained as I’ve already outlined.
I believe that the impact would be less severe. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe it is self-
created in that Mr. Batease wants to expand the use of the property, but I think the nature of this
slope and the fact that there is a ravine there does contribute to the situation, and there’s an
obvious want to get the most usable space on the property by Mr. Batease for his business. That
the buffer zone must be honored, even when no fill is used. For example, up in the northern most
part it’s basically up to 370, but that still has to be a buffer zone in that area, even where no fill is
used. The plan should be submitted prior to placement of any additional fill. The re-vegetation
should take place as soon as possible, after the time that the toe of the slope reaches the property
line, instead of waiting for the entire area to reach the property line then re-vegetate.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. THOMAS-The one thing I’d like to add, under the feasible alternatives, that acquisition of
additional property is not feasible due to a DEC stream. I imagine if he could buy some property
from Mr. O’Connor, he would, but it wouldn’t do him any good because that stream is there and he
can’t fill within 50 feet of that stream. All right. You’ve heard the motion, is there anything you
want added to it?
MR. BROWN-A couple of suggestions, maybe. Did you ask for the plan to be submitted prior to
any placement of additional fill?
MR. HAYES-No, but I’d like to stipulate that.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-And also that the re-vegetation should take place as soon as possible, after the time
that the toe of the slope reaches the property line, instead of waiting for the entire area to reach the
property line then re-vegetate. Kind of a maintenance re-vegetation.
MR. MC NALLY-As an on-going process.
MR. BROWN-An on-going process, right.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s going to take him time to make this completely filled.
MR. BROWN-Exactly. So at the point in time when a portion of the fill reaches the property line,
that would be the time to start re-vegetating that area, while he could be filling in other areas,
rather than leave it all bare, until such time as it’s all done.
MR. HAYES-I can live with that. That makes sense.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question? When you say a one to two slope, is that sufficiently
understood, you could confuse it with two to one.
MR. HAYES-I could stipulate that the one to two slope as recommended, is it the DEC that
recommends that, as so recommended by the DEC?
MR. BROWN-Yes, they’re kind of guidelines. I can’t speak for what their requirements are.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, if it’s two foot horizontal for every one foot vertical.
MR. MC NALLY-The motion can just reflect what Lew suggested, then, that the one to two ratio
is the ratio of the height to the horizontal distances.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Okay. Do you understand everything that we’ve gone through? I
mean, it’s a little complicated and a little difficult, and a lot’s been said and added to it, but it’s
basically what we’ve talked about. In fact, it’s exactly what we talked about.
MR. BROWN-Did you want to be specific on where it could be placed, the fill? Any place in the
buffer zone, north of the stream, south of the stream, any place?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I don’t see why it couldn’t be, as long as he follows the guidelines as set
forth in the motion.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Well, according to your map, the green area is the only area that, by the stream, that
it would impact.
MR. THOMAS-And Mr. Batease has said that he did not want to do the southeast corner, but I
don’t see why he couldn’t do it, following these same guidelines, if, in the future, he wanted to.
MR. BROWN-Based on the condition for a proposed grading plan, I’m assuming that all proposed
areas would be shown on that grading plan.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the Town’s going to need that grading plan, as described in the motion.
MR. BROWN-Prior to any additional placement of fill in the buffer.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, before you can fill in there.
MR. HAYES-I guess, is a qualified individual specific enough, or should I tighten that up?
MR. BROWN-Yes, you might want to say P.E.
MR. HAYES-Certified engineer, then?
MR. THOMAS-By a certified professional engineer.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I would think so.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. HAYES-Well, it might aid in any undue complications. Yes, I’d like to stipulate that by
qualified individual, I meant a professional engineer or somebody that can provide a plan that will
meet enforcement as well as quality needs and issues that this resolution is trying to address.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any question on the motion from any of the Board members, from
Staff, from the applicant?
MR. BROWN-Just basically if Glenn understands, it’s from the property line, where the toe starts,
two on one back to the top, removal of all equipment and debris, storage of anything within 50 foot
of the property line. That’s basically what it’s about right now.
MR. THOMAS-One on two. Okay. Everybody understands the motion? Okay. I’ll ask for a
second.
MR. STONE-Second.
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. BATEASE-Thank you. Good night.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A HOLLYWOOD VIDEO
OWNER: JOHN NIGRO, NIGRO COMPANIES 735 STATE ROUTE 9 (UPPER GLEN
STREET) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF OVER-SIZED SIGNS AND
REQUESTS RELIEF FOR SIZE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS FROM THE SIGN
ORDINANCE, SECTION 140. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/14/98 DENIED
TAX MAP NO. 102-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION 140
MR. THOMAS-They have withdrawn their application. Sign Variance No. 76-1998 has been
withdrawn by the applicant.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1998 TYPE II RR-5A SFR-1A KENT M. PHILLIPS
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 39 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 85-
1-3.4 LOT SIZE: 7.21 ACRES SECTION 179-20
KENT PHILLIPS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-1998, Kent M. Phillips, Meeting Date: November 18,
Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “Project Location: 39 Old West Mountain Road
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of a 677 square foot detached garage.
Applicant requests 8 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement of the SFR-1A zone,
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town
Section 179-20.
Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct a garage in the
2. Feasible alternatives:
desired location. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to site
3. Is this relief substantial
constraints, however, a downsized proposal may be considered.
relative to the ordinance?:
8 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
moderate. Minimal effects on the neighborhood
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
are anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created, however, given the site conditions, the difficulty may be attributed to the
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
slope and the position of the existing house.
etc.):
BP 91-370 - 5/30/91 construction of a deck BP 98-599 construction of a garage - pending
Staff comments:
Minimal impacts on the community are anticipated as a result of this action.
SEQR
The proposed area appears to be the only feasible area for a detached garage of this size.
Status:
Type II”
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Phillips, is there anything else you want to tell us about?
MR. PHILLIPS-That’s about all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The application says it’s a 677 square foot garage. What’s the dimensions
on it?
MR. PHILLIPS-It’ll be a 32 by 21, it’s a monolithic slab.
MR. STONE-Yes, because the application had some different, some other numbers.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I think it was scaled down. It was a 20 by 32 originally.
MR. STONE-It was 896, yes.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, it’s been cut.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that house has been there for, what, six years, seven years?
MR. PHILLIPS-A lot longer than that. 1979 the house was constructed.
MR. THOMAS-’79.
MR. STONE-Did you build it?
MR. PHILLIPS-No.
MR. STONE-You’re the second owner, third?
MR. PHILLIPS-Third.
MR. THOMAS-And there was never a garage on that property before?
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-There was never one underneath the house?
MR. PHILLIPS-There was one underneath the house.
MR. THOMAS-There was?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-And it’s been filled in?
MR. PHILLIPS-Actually, what happened is the house is on a very steep slope, and the house was
moving, and so we back-filled all that. That’s been all filled, and poured concrete where the slope
used to be for the entrance of the garage to stabilize it (lost words) with rebar, and that’s the reason
for the new garage. The position of the garage is really based on when Steve Britton blasted.
That’s where the seam of rock was, and that’s where it just seemed to work out. That’s what
mandated that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s ledge rock up in there.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-And you couldn’t go back any further into the slope because of the ledge rock. If
you started digging back in there, you’d have to put up a retaining wall to hold that.
MR. PHILLIPS-Right, it’s due to cost. My initial intention was to go back, if you saw the stakes
at the top of that map, we had intended to blast that far, but due to expense.
MR. STONE-That would have even been closer to the property line.
MR. PHILLIPS-That’s correct.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant from anyone? 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? Any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? All right. We’ll start talking about it.
Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I was really interested to see if the neighbors directly to the north, the most
clearly impacted neighbors, the Palmers, would have any reservations, and barring that, I don’t
have any. This is a situation where the applicant needs a garage. I have a garage. I need my
garage, and it seems like a logical place to put it, and it certainly would probably be a compliment
to the neighborhood. So really enough said. I don’t have any problem with it at all.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have any problem with the application, either. It’s a reasonable place to
put it, and I think it’s a reasonable application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Yes, I agree with both Jamie and Bob that it’s a good spot for the garage, and I think
he’s certainly entitled to a garage, and I think his choice of location is very reasonable.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I agree primarily with what the other Board members said, and it’s just a
very difficult piece of property. I don’t see how you could put it, really, anywhere else, without
incurring a lot of expense or maybe even needing more relief.
MR. THOMAS-I just thought of another question for the applicant. According to the picture you
gave us with the application, this is what it’s going to look like, the barn?
MR. PHILLIPS-No, I submitted some pictures, but the construction style is a little bit different.
It’s a non laminated post and beam.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So there’s going to be storage above it?
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-No living space, just storage?
MR. PHILLIPS-No living space. Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s the only question I had. Lew?
MR. STONE-I think it’s a good project. I have no concerns.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I have no concerns, other than what the garage was going to look like.
The applicant has just told us, and there’s not going to be any living space above the garage. Only
storage space. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1998 KENT M. PHILLIPS
,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
39 Old West Mountain Road, Queensbury. That the Board approve the application to construct a
677 square foot detached garage on the property, and grant the eight feet of side setback relief from
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
the 20 foot requirement for that zoning, according to Section 179-20. The benefit to the applicant
is clear, that he’d have the benefit of having the garage that he lacks right now. The feasible
alternatives , there really aren’t a whole lot of good feasible alternatives that wouldn’t incur a
significant amount of cost or result in moving the garage closer to the property line. Is this relief
substantial? Eight feet is not excessive. It’s a fair amount of relief, but certainly not a tremendous
amount. The effects on the neighborhood or community, again, citing no opposition to the plan and
the character of the neighborhood, that there’s extremely minimal effect in the neighborhood, and
as far as being self-created, yes and no, given the limitations of the topography of the site. So I
move that we accept and approve the application.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-There you go. Go down and get your building permit.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DAVID DUFRESNE OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 24 BRAYTON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED AN ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO UPGRADE THE EXISTING
SEPTIC SYSTEM TO CONFORM TO CHAPTER 136 AND THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-1A ZONE AND SHORELINE AND WETLAND
REGULATIONS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79,
179-67
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1998, David Dufresne, Meeting Date: November 18,
Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Applicant has
Relief
constructed a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition to an existing two story camp.
Required:
Applicant requests 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback
as well as septic compliance relief from paragraph (G.) and relief from the floor area ratio
requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Applicant also seeks relief for the expansion of
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
a non conforming structure, Section 179-79.
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be
2. Feasible alternatives:
permitted to complete the proposed addition and occupy same. Feasible
alternatives may include downsizing the addition and no construction. Consideration may be given
to reconfiguring this addition to be a screened porch and not an enclosed porch. This
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
reconfiguration would not require septic compliance.
ordinance?:
The relief from the area requirements may be interpreted as moderate, however, the
4. Effects on
relief from the requirement for septic compliance could be interpreted as substantial.
the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result
of this construction, however, substantial environmental impacts in regards to a non compliant
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
septic system should be considered. The difficulty may be
Parcel History
caused by the pre-existing non conforming nature of the parcel and buildings.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable. Minimal impacts on
the neighborhood and community, in relation to the relief from the area requirements, may be
anticipated. The addition of floor area requiring a building permit obligates the applicant to
comply with the septic requirements. The definition of Residential Floor Area
excludes….porches… An enclosed porch; (windows, doors and insulation) cannot be excluded as
it constitutes habitable living space which is interpreted as an increase in Floor Area.
Reconfiguring the construction to that of a screened porch would not require septic compliance.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project
Name: David Dufresne Owner: Same Queensbury Area Variance 81-1998 County Project
November 98-14, Current Zoning: WR-1A Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
construction of an enclosed porch addition to existing building and seeks relief from the setback
requirements of the WR-1A zone and shoreline and wetland regulations as well as relief for
expansion of a nonconforming structure Site Location: 24 Brayton Road Cleverdale Copy of
drawing attached Lot of .12 acres requires variance for any construction. It appears structure will
be approximately 15 feet from the lake. Recommend discussion Local Actions to date, if any:
NONE Public Hearing November 18, 1998 County Planning Board recommendation: Approved
with condition that no enclosing of remaining open porch takes place. Also recommend that local
Board impose a fine as this project was completed before requesting approval.” Terry Ross,
Warren County Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Dufresne, is there anything else you want to add, talk about, tell us
about?
MR. SCUDDER-Charlie Scudder is my name. I’m representing Mr. Dufresne, or trying to assist
him here. The deck, which is pre-existing is 34 feet from the shore. I think you were at a smaller
dimension.
MR. STONE-The County resolution.
MR. HAYES-The County resolution is incorrect, then, you’re saying?
MR. SCUDDER-Incorrect.
MRS. LAPHAM-When I read it it said 15, right.
MR. HAYES-It’s actually 35, right?
MR. STONE-Just about what I paced off.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-It’s true that Mr. Dufresne went ahead to enclose part of his deck and make a
porch out of it without a building permit. He tells me that he bought the place last year and didn’t
know that he needed a building permit to do what he’s doing, or has done. It seems to me that the
whole issue of the septic system comes down in respect of the fact that he’s enclosing the porch and
putting in windows and so on, whereas if it were just a screened porch, that would not be the case,
or it wouldn’t invoke any question of the septic system. Speaking of the septic system, that’s
recently been inspected by Mr. Condon, who, as you may know is a local contractor who does
septic tank work of all kinds, cleaning and constructing and so on, and he has carried out an
inspection of the system with photographic equipment that allows him to get right down inside the
pipe and inside the seepage pit, and even in the septic tank, and he has submitted a bill to Mr.
Dufresne for his work. He says that the septic system’s in very good shape, that it’s been well
maintained, cleaned every year, cleaned this year, that the seepage pit is in good order, that there’s
substantial unused capacity in the leaching pit and so on. Now this is probably because this is a
part season house and is used what would you say, 50 days a year, thereabouts. Okay. So, it’s a
pre-existing, nonconforming situation. The survey shows that the septic system is about 84 feet
from the lake shore. I think if you have a seepage pit, under current standards, it has to be back
150 feet. It’s a tile field, 100 feet, these requirements are impossible on this lot. It’s a little over
5,000 square feet of space. You have some other correspondence. You didn’t read all the
correspondence tonight.
MRS. LAPHAM-No, I haven’t gotten to that part yet.
MR. THOMAS-That will be read in the public hearing.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. Mr. Dufresne also have some photographs which you may or may not be
interested in. My principal concern is in relation to whether the Zoning Board will grant a variance
on the septic system, so that Mr. Dufresne can complete his porch, enclosed porch to be sure, with
windows, sliding windows, with screens. It’s living space, but it isn’t going to add any population.
It isn’t going to add any bedrooms. The home is used primarily by Mr. Dufresne and Mrs.
Dufresne. Sometimes it has a couple of guests. So I don’t think the addition of a porch, enclosed
porch, is going to add any load to the wastewater system. That’s the point, but it does invoke the
requirement that we come to you and ask for a variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-Is this porch going to be insulated and with heat vents and so on and so forth? Is
the house year round now? Does this house have year round capacity now?
DAVID DUFRESNE
MR. DUFRESNE-It has a capacity it could, but it’s not.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I mean, you don’t, but somebody could if they wanted to because it’s
winterized?
MR. DUFRESNE-It’s winterized, yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Is the porch going to be enclosed and winterized also?
MR. DUFRESNE-The porch will be enclosed.
MRS. LAPHAM-Will it have heat runs, will it have insulation?
MR. DUFRESNE-It won’t have any heat ducts out there. There’ll be electric out there for lamps.
MR. HAYES-Not electric heat, though?
MR. DUFRESNE-No electric heat, no.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have photographs?
MR. SCUDDER-This is before the construction started, and the deck. This is looking at it from
the shore. This is inside of his house looking out toward the porch, and that’s also in the house.
So he retained part of the deck out here, I think six feet, and this is the new construction on the pre-
existing deck. This is what the inside looks like on the porch
MR. MC NALLY-There’s a stop order on this, or this is finished?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, no there is a stop order.
MRS. LAPHAM-Do you intend to insulate the porch?
MR. DUFRESNE-I’d like to insulate it so I could use it a little bit more in September, but not to
heat it.
MR. STONE-Is there a leach field for the septic system?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, there’s a septic tank.
MR. STONE-Where?
MR. SCUDDER-Don’t you have a copy of the?
MR. STONE-It says approximate septic. Is it between the garage and the camp?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, 84 feet back. You see that dimension.
MR. STONE-Right, and there’s enough area, enough run in there, on the leach field?
MR. SCUDDER-Enough capacity you mean?
MR. STONE-Well, it’s got to be a certain length, I believe. Does it not, Craig?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s a seepage pit.
MR. STONE-It’s just a seepage pit?
MR. SCUDDER-It’s a leaching pit. A septic tank followed by a leaching pit.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-All right. I’m not familiar with that. That doesn’t say it’s wrong or right. I just
don’t know.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s a different way of doing it.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-A common way, but a different way.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Yes, are there any living quarters above the garage?
MR. DUFRESNE-It’s a recreation room above the garage.
MR. STONE-No bathroom, no sink or anything?
MR. DUFRESNE-There’s a bathroom and a sink, yes.
MR. STONE-What do you need to be habitable, a bathroom and a sink, or do you need a kitchen?
MR. BROWN-A complete set of living quarters.
MRS. LAPHAM-You need kitchen, bath and heated and so forth.
MR. BROWN-Eating, cooking, sleeping.
MR. MC NALLY-How much does the septic have to change? I looked at Mr. Condon’s thing, and
it seemed as if it’s a 1,000 gallon tank already? Is there any indication how much it has to change?
MR. STONE-Fifteen hundred gallon. It’s got a 1500 tank.
MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s some of the additional information we tried to have submitted, what
would be a complying system for this structure, what the existing system is, to know if it’s even
close.
MR. MC NALLY-This is a permit application that Condon submitted, showing what the current
state is and what’s required.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I believe it only shows the size of the tank. It doesn’t give any dimensions on
what the leach field, tile field system is, and even at that, with all respect to Mr. Condon, he’s not a
P.E. He’s not qualified to design systems, and determine size and adequacy. So he might be able
to give you a suggestion on the condition of it, but even that, is he qualified to do that? He’s not a
P.E.
MR. STONE-And the dye test is only so good as, it’s not the best test in the world, for a septic
system, a dye test. A dye test to determine whether the system is not working correctly. If you
don’t see it, you don’t necessarily know that it’s working properly. If you see it, you know it’s not
working properly, but if you don’t see it, you don’t necessarily know it’s not working properly.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, he could testify to what he sees.
MR. STONE-I understand, and he did.
MR. SCUDDER-What he sees is that apparently it works okay. It’s in good condition but it’s pre-
existing and non-conforming. He doesn’t say that.
MR. STONE-When was the last time this house was occupied?
MR. DUFRESNE-It’s been occupied this summer.
MR. STONE-I know, but what was the last flush of the toilet?
MR. DUFRESNE-I was up probably about two weeks ago.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-But that wasn’t regular use. He looked at it on 10/19, didn’t see any effluent on the
property, but that was after probably a month or so of very little use.
MR. SCUDDER-He looked inside the seepage pit, the leaching system, and he found that to be in
good order. He maintains the septic tank, cleans it. He finds that to be in good order. So, you
know, that’s what he found.
MR. STONE-Okay. I understand that. It’s just that I’m just saying, it’s probably a month to a
month and a half from rigorous use.
MR. DUFRESNE-It never gets rigorous use.
MR. SCUDDER-It’s Mr. Dufresne and his wife, primarily, who go up there for recreation.
MR. STONE-Okay, for weekends.
MR. DUFRESNE-During the week, it’s a get away.
MR. STONE-But what we’re doing, what you’re asking is that we make this more livable and
therefore, ostensibly, could be used more often. That’s just a consideration. I’m not saying you
will or you won’t. It’s something that we have to think about.
MR. HAYES-The variance runs with the property, not with the owner.
MRS. LAPHAM-Plus in the future, if there should be a re-sale, then there may be a lot more
intense use.
MR. HAYES-Craig, do we know what should be there? I mean, by Code?
MR. BROWN-The sizing of the septic system is something that needs to be performed by a
professional engineer. We can, and the Building Department inspects plans that are designed by a
P.E. They don’t design systems. We don’t get into that. We inspect plans that are designed by a
P.E. So I’m sure Mr. Scudder could shed some light on that.
MR. HAYES-Are you a Professional Engineer?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir.
MR. HAYES-So you could probably tell us what probably should be there.
MR. SCUDDER-I probably could. I should say that Mr. Dufresne is willing to improve his
system, that is to say enlarge it, if you feel that’s necessary, but it’s still going to require a
variance, because there’s no way we can do it within the constraints of the present building code.
We can’t get the setback.
MR. THOMAS-We don’t deal with the setback on a septic system, do we? That’s the Health
Board. The only thing we can do is give relief from Section G of 179-16 Section G, there, that
says that they have to bring the septic system into compliance, but as far as the setbacks and
everything else, that’s the Town Board acting as the Board of Health.
MR. BROWN-With any additions or new systems, if you were to give relief from Section G of
179-16, that would be relief stating that they don’t have to bring their system into compliance,
meaning they can maintain their existing system. In this case, without knowing what the existing
system is, I don’t see any way to determine, you know, make a decision in favor of it. It’s your
decision, but without any information of what the current system is, other than the size of the tank,
that was determined by Mr. Condon, any sizing of the system is still a mystery, adequacy there of.
MR. THOMAS-And other than the tank, you don’t know how many feet of run there is?
MR. STONE-There is no run.
MR. THOMAS-It’s a seepage pit, right?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. He tells me it’s eight feet in diameter.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-What’s required for a two bedroom?
MR. SCUDDER-What is required for a two bedroom?
MR. BROWN-Is it a two bedroom, a three bedroom?
MR. DUFRESNE-It’s three bedrooms, two bedrooms.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you know, if you had water saving fixtures and so on, if you had the
minimal volume.
MR. DUFRESNE-I’ve got water saving showers. I’ve got water saving valves. I’m changing the
toilet to water saving toilet.
MR. SCUDDER-For three bedroom, I think at a bare minimum, it would be 270 gallons a day, if
you use the most conservative toilets.
MR. BROWN-Which would equate into what size seepage pit?
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t know, because I don’t know the characteristics of the soil yet, but.
MR. STONE-Apparently, our Code calls for 150 gallons per bedroom, as I look at this
application?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s based on standard fixtures, old fashioned fixtures, if you will.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-But we have new toilets that use only a gallon or a gallon and a half and so forth
and so on. The Code does make an allowance for water saving fixtures to reduce the volume of
wastewater.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, in the parcel history, there’s none listed in the Staff Notes, but was this
deck put on recently? From the pictures, it looks relatively new.
MR. STONE-The deck itself?
MR. BROWN-If it was, there wasn’t a building permit issued for it, lets put it that way.
MR. MC NALLY-But it’s within 50 feet of the lake, though.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it is.
MR. MC NALLY-Easily. When was the deck put on?
MR. DUFRESNE-I can’t answer that. I bought the house just the way it is, with the deck on it.
MR. MC NALLY-And when did you purchase it?
MR. DUFRESNE-We purchased it a year ago July. I think I took over the first of August last
year.
MR. STONE-And the deck was from where it currently approaches the lake all the way back to
where you’ve constructed, back to the house itself?
MR. DUFRESNE-Back to the house itself.
MR. STONE-So it was a fairly deep deck at that point.
MR. SCUDDER-About 17 feet or so.
MR. THOMAS-Well, as far as the septic system is concerned, if we don’t know what it is, we
don’t know what kind of relief we can give, that’s what I see.
MR. STONE-Yes.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. HAYES-This is relief whether you’re required to update it or not. That’s kind of, that’s the
question, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HAYES-It’s kind of like a yes or no thing, isn’t it?
MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, but if we don’t know what’s there, we can’t say yes or no.
MR. STONE-We have to know what’s there. I mean, he can say it functions well, but we need a
better description.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, and this isn’t a holding tank system either, like the other one we did up on
Glen Lake.
MR. STONE-I mean, it’s a system with which I’m not familiar, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a
good system. I just, I’m used to a run. I mean, with evaporation capability, I have no idea how
well this tank gets rid of water, not the septic tank, the other tank.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s a big chamber with holes in the walls to allows the water to flow out
into the soil. It’s called a leaching pit or a seepage pit.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now I understand, but it’s closer to the lake than such a device should be.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, correct. There’s no way to meet the current standard on setbacks.
MR. HAYES-So you’re saying it’s closer than any device could be then, not just a seepage pit per
se?
MR. SCUDDER-Correct. The lot’s only 120 some feet deep.
MR. STONE-126, 122.9 on one side, 126 on the other.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what do you think we should do with this, table it until we get a?
MR. STONE-At a minimum we ought to table it.
MR. THOMAS-Until we can get more information.
MRS. LAPHAM-More information.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, suppose we come back in another time, and certify as to what’s there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can do that. That’s probably what we’re looking for. I think the big
thing in this application is the sewage question. I don’t think it’s the building itself.
MR. STONE-Well, I do have a little concern that this area is so tight that I’m not sure I’d like to
do anything, but I’m most certainly willing to listen. Not being in that particular location until
today, and I was amazed how tight it is, in terms of houses on property lines, docks on property
lines. There are more variances required on those properties, I mean, you couldn’t possibly do it
today. Should we add to it is a question that I have to answer myself.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, what are you adding to?
MR. STONE-Well, you’re adding more livable floor area, by definition.
MR. SCUDDER-Exactly.
MR. STONE-And that’s the question, I mean, we have a very strong waterfront zoning right now
in terms of area. This is a nonconforming use. I’m not saying that I can’t be persuaded, but I
want to hear a lot. Certainly, I’ve got to get the septic system situation.
MR. SCUDDER-Right, but with respect to the discharge of wastewater, adding a porch isn’t going
to increase the wastewater volume, unless you added more people.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-Except I don’t know where the wastewater goes now. That’s what we’re asking.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, whether you know or you don’t, my point is, it isn’t going to change it.
MR. STONE-I understand. There are two issues here. One is the wastewater, and we’re going to
get an answer to that. The other question is, I have to satisfy myself that we are not increasing the
visual pollution, if you will, of lake front property, and that’s a question that we have struggled
with for some time over the years that I’ve been on the Board.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I appreciate that.
MR. MC NALLY-The other thing, too, is while these people may not have any intentions of using
it more than 50 days a year, if it’s a year round residence, and if that porch area could be
winterized, I mean, they can throw in some electric base board fairly easily, without any building
permit whatsoever. A subsequent purchaser or someone else could have it more intensive use. So
its compliance with the current Town health regulations is important, and it’s something that
certainly we’d consider, even though the Dufresnes may have no current intention of using it in that
fashion. That’s, I think, some of the concern.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing?
If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who’d like to speak in favor of this application?
In favor of? Is there anyone who’d like to speak opposed? Opposed? And I know we have some
correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Public Comment, from Mrs. Walter H. Arnstein, 12 Eagle Point Road,
th
Hampton, Virginia “I’m unable to attend the November 18 meeting, but as a property owner on
Cleverdale, I wish to strongly any relief from any Zoning Ordinance or Shoreline and Wetland
regulations, for David Dufresne of 24 Brayton Road. There are altogether too m any of these
requests and too many of them have been approved. Rita H. Arnstein” “To Whom It May
Concern: I own property at 22 Brayton Road, next door to 24 Brayton Road owned by Mr. and
Mrs. David Dufresne. I have no objection to the enclosed porch area. It will have no effect on me
th
or my property. Sincerely, Ken Piacente” From Lynn and John Higgins, October 18, “To Whom
It May Concern: We are the owners of 20 Brayton Road and are within 500 feet of the property
owned by Mr. & Mrs. Dufresne at 24 Brayton Road. This letter is to confirm that we have no
objections to the enclosing of the front porch on the Dufresne property. It will cause no negative
impact to our property or the “neighborhood” in general. Respectfully yours, E. Lynn Higgins
John M. Higgins” Lake George Boat Company, Secretary, Treasurer, Owner Dale Eherle,
th
October 18, “To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that I am one of the owners of the
Lake George Boat Co., and we are within 500 ft. of the property located at 24 Brayton Road
belonging to Mr. & Mrs. David Dufresne. The enclosed porch area would not effect us in any way
and would be an added attraction to their camp. It would not hinder us in any way in the conduct
of our business. David Eherle” Seton Health, from the desk of Joseph Monahan, M.D., October
rd
23, “To Whom It May Concern: David Dufresne is a patient of mine. It would be advantageous
for him to build an enclosed porch due to an allergic reaction he received to bug bites. Sincerely,
Joseph Monahan, M.D.” “To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that I have a summer
residence located at 30 Brayton Rd., and am within 500 ft. of 24 Brayton Rd. owned by Mr. &
Mrs. David Dufresne. I have no objection to the Dufresnes enclosing the porch on their property
which would have no adverse effect on me or my property. Elizabeth Miller”
MR. THOMAS-All right. That’s all the correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, would you be willing to
have this application tabled, until you can provide the information?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, because I have to make a motion to do that.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, prior to doing that, would you like to define exactly what
information you’re looking for?
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll define that in the motion.
MR. BROWN-In the motion? Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 DAVID DUFRESNE
, Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until no later than the January meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new
information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The
applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can
be met. The reason for this tabling is for more information relative to the existing septic system.
The Board needs to know the exact configuration of the system, including size, and we also need to
know calculations for what is required under the current zoning.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-How’s the December stacking up?
MR. BROWN-No applications, yet.
MR. THOMAS-None? If you can get us that information before the filing deadline for December
th
which would be the November 25, then we could get you on to the December meeting. If not, it’ll
have to go on to the January. Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1998 TYPE II WR-3A CEA JAMES DENOOYER OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE STATE ROUTE 9L, DARK BAY, LG APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A REMEDIAL ROOF ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A
NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-35.2 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-79
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-1998, James DeNooyer, Meeting Date: November 18,
Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “Project Location: State Route 9L, Dark Bay
Applicant proposes construction of a 196 square foot by 4 foot tall remedial roof addition to an
Relief Required:
existing single family dwelling. Applicant requests an addition 4 feet of relief
from the 28 foot height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16 and for relief for
expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79. Currently the structure is 30 feet tall in
the area of the proposed alteration. This application calls for a 34 foot tall finished structure.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1.
Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct a roof an eliminate a water
2. Feasible alternatives:
damage problem. This proposal appears to be the minimal amount of
relief necessary to achieve the applicants goal. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to re-
3. Is this relief substantial
construction of the existing configuration and no construction.
relative to the ordinance?:
The additional 4 feet of relief, resulting in a 34 foot tall structure may
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
be interpreted as substantial. Minimal effects
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
Parcel History (construction/site
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
plan/variance, etc.):
AV 110-1996 res. 12/18/96 roof addition - denied. BP 94624 - 11/28/94
Staff comments:
three car garage BP 94-164 - 5/6/94 Gazebo alteration Minimal impacts are
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
anticipated as a result of this action. A previous Area Variance; AV110-1996, called for the
addition of a room and roof to alleviate a water problem. The variance was denied and the
availability of another proposal calling for a minimal relief was discussed. The current application
appears to be seeking the minimal relief necessary to solve an existing water damage situation.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form, James
DeNooyer, Queensbury Area Variance 82-1998, County Project No. November 98-13, Current
Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Applicant proposes to construct a remedial roof
addition and seeks relief from the height requirements of the WR-3A zone and for expansion of
nonconforming structure. Site Location: State Route 9L, Dark Bay, Lake George Tax Map No.
1-1-35.2, Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing a roof cap to replace flat roof on a 14 x 14
section of existing building. Building height will be increased by 48”. Staff feels only local issues
th
are present. Local Actions to Date (if any): None. Public Hearing November 18, County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is Mr. Flynn here, Mr. DeNooyer or any representative? All right. I’ll
open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Anyone wishing to speak against? Against? Is there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, I think there was.
MR. THOMAS-Then after that I’m going to table it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, there are two. This came from Lionel Barthold, Woods Point Lane, Lake
George November 12, 1998, RE: DeNooyer Height Requirement Relief “We live next door to the
DeNooyers and would like to ask that you approve this variance request for three reasons: 1. The
DeNooyer house is built on a steep hillside lot. Consequently the roof is already lower than most
houses as viewed from 9L. It blends completely into the hillside when viewed from the lake, and is
not visible from either neighbor due to the intervening woods. Thus an extension of height is not a
visual problem from any vantage point. 2. The problems they have with their roof is a serious one
and cannot be fixed without altering the roof height. 3. The DeNooyer’s home has an architectural
style which is unobtrusive and well suited to its lakeside setting. They have taken pains to
maintain that architectural integrity with each modification they’ve made. Lionel O. Barthold”
This is from John Boomer, 23 Woods Point Lane, 11/16/98, RE: DeNooyer Variance Hearing No.
82-1998 “Dear Ms. Lapham: Thank you for notifying me of the hearing for the DeNooyer
variance. I have discussed the proposed roof modification with Mr. DeNooyer. I have no
objection to his proposal. Very truly yours, John N. Boomer” And this one is another one from
Lionel O. Barthold on November 25, 1996. This is really quite ancient history.
MR. THOMAS-What’s the variance number on it?
MRS. LAPHAM-82-1998
MR. THOMAS-Well, blow the dust off it and read it.
MRS. LAPHAM-All right. “Re: Roof Modifications - DeNooyer Residence on Lockhardt Loop I
have been asked by Jim DeNooyer whether we object to conversion of the flat built-up roof on the
uppermost portion of his house to a sloped roof with a pitch similar to that on the rest of the house.
We own the house immediately west of his. We have no problem whatsoever with this
modification and the additional elevation it brings to the house profile. In fact I would strongly
support this method of repairing a construction flaw that we’ve had to confront at our own house,
designed by the same architect. The DeNooyers have made a number of recent improvements to
their house, all well designed and all architecturally consistent with the original house. Even
though their house is not visible from ours because of about 180 feet of woods separating us, we
wish more homes on Lake George fit in as well with the landscape. Their house, like ours, is a
subdued color and they too have taken pains to preserve as many trees as possible in its
development. I am aware that certain height restrictions apply to homes on the lake, but in order to
applying these to the DeNooyer house, one should view the house from both the Lake and from
Route 9L. It is on a very steep slope, so even from the lake, the topmost part of the house is seen
against a background of trees. That background extends upward many times the height of the
house. Route 9L is much higher than the foundation level of the house, so the sense in viewing the
house from 9L is one of looking down on it. I urge your approval of their request for a height
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
variance, particularly since it will have a very positive effect on the overall appearance of the
building. Lionel O. Barthold 10 Wood’s Point Lane Lake George, NY 12845”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That does it for the public correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-And I will re-open it at some late future date. We can do one of two things here.
We can either table it, or we can talk about it and vote on it, even though the applicant or his agent
isn’t here.
MR. STEC-I’d go for Option B, myself.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because they were notified. Well, since we don’t have any questions for the
applicant.
MR. STONE-Well, I do. I have a couple.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you go ahead and ask them. See what kind of answer you get.
MR. STONE-If they’re not eager, we should just table it, unless you guys want to approve it.
MR. THOMAS-Approve it or disapprove it.
MR. STONE-Well, I agree, we haven’t talked about it.
MR. THOMAS-Or table it. I’ll take a poll. Dan, table it or hear it?
MR. STEC-Lets vote on it. I want to hear it.
MR. MC NALLY-I’ll table it.
MR. HAYES-Table it.
MR. STONE-Table it.
MRS. LAPHAM-Table it.
MR. THOMAS-It looks like it’s going to get tabled.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1998 JAMES DE NOOYER
, Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until no later than the January meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new
information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The
applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can
be met. The reason for the tabling is for the applicant or his agent to show up to answer questions.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Stec
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that one.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA EDWARD ZIBRO OWNER:
ANGELA JOYCE ZIBRO 8 SEELYE ROAD NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A
NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/98 TAX
MAP NO. 16-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
EDWARD ZIBRO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-1998, Edward Zibro, Meeting Date: November 18, 1998
Description of Proposed Project:
“Project Location: 8 Seelye Road Applicant proposes
Relief
construction of a 186 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Required:
Applicant requests 10 feet of rear setback relief from the 25 foot requirement of the
WR-1A zone, Section 179-16 and for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1.
Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the preferred
2. Feasible alternatives:
garage addition. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
pre-existing non-conforming nature of the structure.
ordinance?:4.
10 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as significant.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created, however, any expansion of the garage portion of the structure would
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff
require relief. None applicable.
comments:
Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposal calls for
the expansion of a structure that currently does not meet the setbacks, the addition does not
SEQR Status:
increase the violation. Type II”
th
MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form, 16 of
November 1998, Edward Zibro Angela Zibro, Queensbury Area Variance 83-1998, County
Project No. November 98-22, Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: The applicant proposes construction of a garage addition and seeks relief from the
setback requirements of the WR-1A zone and for expansion of a non conforming structure. Site
Location: 8 Seelye Road North Tax Map No. 16-1-7, Staff Notes: See agenda Item 23 Local
Actions to Date (if any): None. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Terry Ross.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Zibro, is there anything else you want to tell us about, talk about?
MR. ZIBRO-No. I just built the garage the wrong way, the wrong spot.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The addition that’s going on to the front of the existing garage.
MR. ZIBRO-Yes, it’s coming out eight feet.
MR. THOMAS-What’s the dimensions of the existing garage as it sits now?
MR. ZIBRO-Like 21 and a half by 23 and a half, 21 and a half foot deep.
MRS. LAPHAM-You’re saying it’s going to come right out in the present driveway?
MR. ZIBRO-Straight out, yes, in the drawing, and we’re going to blacktop it. It’s a dirt driveway.
MR. STONE-Mr. Steves says 23 feet 4 inches.
MR. ZIBRO-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-So it’s going to come out to be 29 by 23.
MR. ZIBRO-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Did you build this house?
MR. ZIBRO-It was built in 1955. It was built by Vernon West.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that was the garage that he built.
MR. ZIBRO-It still has a dirt floor.
MR. THOMAS-It still has a dirt floor in it. Okay. Are there any other questions for the
applicant? If there’s no other questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any
correspondence?
MR. STONE-Just for the record, a question was asked here, the house is technically on Seelye
Road, because that’s the only Town road. So that’s why it’s a rear setback.
MR. ZIBRO-It’s a rear setback.
MR. STONE-It’s really on Seelye Road. Seelye Road North is not a road.
MR. ZIBRO-No. They just put a street sign up there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that was done for 911, probably.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
th
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. All right. On November 17, from J. George Russo, M.D., Town of
Queensbury, referring to Area Variance No. 83-1998, Ed Zibro “I, George Russo, for my own
property and for that of (POA) Sara Russo, have no reservation to granting of the said variance for
Zibro. I would, however, suggest that Rose Thorn (& son Rob) be located by phone (Florida Tax
address) as I stated to Craig Brown today to inform Thorn. Their property is 15 feet from variance
in question and they are unaware that Zibro now owns the house. They have not been to their
property in 1998—and most of ’97. They will not recognize the name Zibro or for that matter
perhaps Seelye Road “North” – a new road name. Sincerely, J. George Russo, M.D.” Glens Falls
Plastic Surgeons, this one is from Harold Kirkpatrick, M.D., received on 11/16 “Dear Mrs.
Lapham: Edward Zibro is my next door neighbor and I have no objections to his construction
plans - Area Variance No. 83-1998 Type II Thank you. Sincerely yours, Harold Kirkpatrick”
That’s it for public comment.
MR. THOMAS-Is that it for the correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I assume the addition is going to
look just like the existing house now, the same siding?
MR. ZIBRO-The way the house looks toward Seelye Road, there’s a gable. We’re going to come
out with the garage with the gable. So it’s going to improve the looks of the house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’re going to use the same garage door?
MR. ZIBRO-No. We’re going to put a 16 footer, Lew saw it today. It’s like an eight foot door,
you can’t even pull today’s vehicles into it. So we’ll put a 16 foot door in there.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-And you’re going to try to keep both those trees that flank it. You said you’d take
off one branch, you told me.
MR. ZIBRO-Yes. I’d take off one branch. Well, the one branch, if you back out of there now,
you run right into that branch. There’s a beautiful birch tree that’s the biggest birch tree I’ve ever
seen. I can’t put my arms around it. In fact, Dan was remarking on it.
MR. STEC-I was impressed with that tree.
MR. ZIBRO-So we’re going to take one branch down, because if you back out of the garage, you
back the car right into the branch that’s hanging out there, and we’re going to try and save a maple
that they’ve just about almost destroyed trying to save it, such a beautiful tree, and one other thing.
I did talk to Bob Thorn. Bob Thorn was up three weeks ago. George Russo didn’t know. George
talked to me this afternoon and told me how he made that note on his letter, and I told Bob what I
plan on doing, and he had no objection. In fact, I got his name and phone number in case anything
happens at their house, because Rose will be up next year. She hasn’t been up this year. She’s in
good health now, I guess.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no other questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. I’ll
start with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see this as a substantially significant change. It’s a moderate increase in
size, but given the placement of the existing house on the lot, and I think that if you had a detached
garage and you’re near the house it would require similar relief, or run into the septic field, and
given the fact that it’s such a large lot up in Rockhurst, I don’t think that an eight foot addition,
which is going to be the same distance from the lot line as the existing structure to the rear, is
really going to have any effect. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-Yes, I agree with Bob. I don’t think that the eight feet is a significant amount of relief
to grant, and I don’t think he’s got a whole lot of other feasible alternatives. He’s right. The shape
of the garage is kind of an odd shape, in that it’s wider than it is deep. So, I don’t have a problem
with the application at all.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with this one. I think it’ll add to the house, and certainly
add to their space they need.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-This is a good variance, as far as I’m concerned. There’s really no problem. It’s a
positive addition to a nice piece of property, and is not going to encroach anymore on the adjoining
lands than it currently does now, except it’ll be out further. It’ll extend further, but it’s still no
problem.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s minimal relief, and the applicant’s need, in this circumstance, to have a
working garage has been demonstrated and proven, in my mind, and I think feasible alternatives
are limited based on the leach field. So, again, I agree it’s a good variance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the rest of the Board that this is very minimal in the request,
and according to the map there, it shows that the proposed addition is farther away from the back
property line than the existing building is, and as everyone else has said, there’s no, really, feasible
alternative, other than to maybe tear it down and re-locate it somewhere else on the property, but I
think a variance would be required for that, too. I don’t see where, anywhere else on the property
that’s within the vicinity of the house it could be built. So, having said that I will ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1998 EDWARD ZIBRO
, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
8 Seelye Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 186 square foot garage addition to an
existing single family dwelling. The applicant requests 10 feet of rear setback relief from the 25
foot requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and for expansion of a nonconforming
structure, Section 179-79. In effect, the new addition will be one foot further away from the line
than the garage currently is. In considering this Area Variance, the following were considered.
The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the
preferred garage addition. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to pre-existing
nonconforming nature of the structure, and the location of the septic field on the opposite side of
the house, the south side as it were. Ten feet of relief from the twenty-five foot requirement might
be interpreted as significant, except in this case the garage is already within 10 feet of the, at one
point, it’s already within15 foot of the property line, and actually the front of this garage will be
one foot further away from the line. Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a
result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, because the garage
was in place prior to the application, any expansion of the garage would require relief, and the
relief is not really significant.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. STONE-Mr. Zibro, one of the things you told me this afternoon, this is nothing to do with
this, you told me that your neighbors have approached you about putting a community leach field
on your septic, and I heartily encourage that because that certainly would improve the condition of
the lake, if any problems occurred from your neighbors.
MR. ZIBRO-My son-in-law is Bob Flansburg, he’s an engineer. He’s designing it right now.
MR. STONE-Great.
MR. ZIBRO-Because Ron Taylor thinks he wants to do something with his house, but knows he
can’t do it unless he has a better septic system. Phil Monihan’s got the same problem. The Enz’s
have got the same problem, and George Russo has got the same problem, and so have the Thorns.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re the only one with some property there.
MR. ZIBRO-Yes, I’ve got property. It’s something to mow. You need a bunch of billy goats.
Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1998 TYPE II SR-20 OLD SFR-1A CURRENT GARY
HAMILTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 8 PLEASANT LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 SQ. FT. SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-20 ZONE; OLD ZONING SECTION
4.020e (179-20). TAX MAP NO. 93-5-80 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-20
GARY HAMILTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-1998, Gary Hamilton, Meeting Date: November 18,
Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “Project Location: 8 Pleasant Lane Applicant has
begun construction of a 144 square foot storage shed and wishes to complete the same in the
Relief Required:
current location. Applicant requests 6 feet of rear setback relief from the 20
foot requirement and 2 feet of side setback relief from the 10 foot requirement of the SR-20 zone,
Section 4.020e. This zoning classification was in place at the time of the approval of the
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
subdivision in which this lot is located.
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to
2. Feasible alternatives:
complete the desired shed in the preferred location. Feasible
3. Is
alternatives may include relocation of shed on property to conform to setback requirements.
this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
6 feet of rear setback relief and 2 feet of side
4. Effects on the neighborhood or
setback relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate.
community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction, site plan, variance, etc.):Staff comments:
None applicable Minimal impacts are
SEQR Status:
anticipated as a result of this action. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Hamilton, would you like to say anything, tell us about it?
MR. HAMILTON-I’m sorry I started it. I did come to the Town requesting permission, and what
I needed to do to put up a garden shed. Not telling anybody what size it was, they told me I didn’t
need anything. So I started. That’s why it’s started already. I didn’t realize that there was a 10 by
10 maximum building size.
MR. THOMAS-Hang on a second. Back when this subdivision was approved, back in ’85 or ’86 I
believe it was, what was the stipulation for an accessory building, do you remember? You don’t
have it written? Because I know there were some subdivisions where you could have a 200 square
foot building.
MR. BROWN-You’ve got me on that one. I don’t know that.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-There were setbacks like this. It was 20 feet from the rear line, and it was, I think
it was five feet from the side line, in one of those subdivisions at a certain time, but I thought
maybe you would have gotten the regs back then.
MR. BROWN-I got a copy of the regs that were in place there. Under Permitted Accessory
Structures, they say storage shed, but there’s no size.
MR. STONE-Well, 179-67 says 100, of course.
MR. BROWN-That’s the current.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the current.
MR. STONE-That’s the current, I understand.
MR. THOMAS-Right, but back when the subdivision was approved, that’s what we go by.
MR. STONE-I agree. I can tell you, this thing was amended in ’91.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because I know that, I had a lot in there back in ’86 or ’87, that I divested
myself of. So I know it was a subdivision before ’87. Because ’86 is when I had the lot. We’re
really not concerned about the size of the storage shed. It’s just for the setbacks, right?
MR. BROWN-Well, the size requires it to meet the setbacks. If the size is over 100 square feet,
it’s required to meet the setbacks. If it’s under 100 square feet, it could be as close as five feet.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but so the 144 square feet, they don’t need relief from that.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it has to be five feet from the lines.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-But because it’s larger, it’s got to meet the setbacks for the principle structure.
MR. THOMAS-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-A question, the drawing that you submitted, with your name on it, with the stamp, it
says proposed house, but that’s exactly where it is?
MR. HAMILTON-No. The house is a further back than that drawing is. That’s the drawing that I
received from Greg. I didn’t have a drawing at the time.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAMILTON-If you notice, there’s a foot marker in the front. I put a correct foot marker
there.
MR. BROWN-Sixty-four?
MR. HAMILTON-Yes, I believe 64 is the correct, I mean, I think the original said 35.
MR. STONE-Sixty-four you wrote here.
MR. HAMILTON-Yes, that’s the correct setback.
MR. STONE-I didn’t go in the back. Is there anything in the back besides the?
MR. HAMILTON-There’s two trees, basically, which are drawn on the map, which I’d have to cut
one of them down in order to move it. There’s also a fence back there, and it would be about one
foot from the fence in order to get the.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STEC-They’re about eight inch in diameter pitch pines, the two. They’re right where he’s got
them drawn.
MR. HAMILTON-It could be moved, but it is extremely heavy. The entire building is made of
two by eights.
MR. STONE-I was wondering if you could, using my terminology, clock the building so it was at
least parallel to the property line, but doesn’t look parallel to the house, though.
MR. HAMILTON-No. It’s parallel to the fence.
MR. STONE-It’s parallel to the fence in the back.
MR. HAMILTON-And the house.
MR. STONE-It is? I didn’t look it to me, from the street, it didn’t look that way to me.
MR. HAMILTON-Yes, it is parallel to the house and to the fence. I have pictures of what it
should look like when it’s done, if you’d like to see those.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’d like to see it.
MR. HAMILTON-This is what I propose it to look like. That’s an actual size building that I was
going to purchase, but I figured I could do it cheaper.
MR. STONE-Okay. Where’s this fence you’re talking about, in the back of the property?
MRS. LAPHAM-Right in the back there.
MR. HAMILTON-It extends directly behind the house, the fence.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, the chain link fence, I see, excuse me. This is the second time tonight I’ve
heard of seepage pits. You seem to have them.
MR. HAMILTON-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. STONE-Well, according to the drawing, there are seepage pits.
MR. HAMILTON-In fact, that’s not even in the back yard. It’s the front yard.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAMILTON-I didn’t do it. They did it.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STEPHEN & KIRSTIN PREUSS
MR. PREUSS-My name’s Steve Preuss, and this is Kirstin Preuss. We live directly behind Mr.
Hamilton. Our address is 25 Maple Drive. I guess our concerns, as was mentioned earlier in some
statements as to the better visual effect, in terms of the setback, obviously, there’s a conflict there
with us in that we’re behind Mr. Hamilton’s property, not in front of it. So from our perspective,
the visual effect is not, you know, it’s not made better by the setback relief. We first were aware
of the building when the materials arrived and the concrete blocks its built on were put in place and
were kind of curious, and as we saw the building being constructed, we actually called to inquire
about any sort of restrictions, because it seemed like a rather large building for the development,
and the character of the development and so forth and that’s, I think, when this all moved forward
and was pursued in terms of violations to the zoning laws and the setback regulations and so forth.
At this point, some of our major concerns involve just the visual impairment to the view in our
backyard, and the size of the structure, and I was curious if I could see the pictures of the finished
effect, because it is a rather rough exterior, at this point. That would be helpful to see.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. HAMILTON-I am planning on also putting, what kind of trees were they called?
MR. STEC-This morning I swung by and we talked a little bit, the cedar.
MRS. LAPHAM-Cedars grow very quickly. They’d screen it completely and they grow very
quickly.
(Discussion ensued)
MR. STONE-Just a point. I mean, I hear you and I hear your concern. If this were 100 square
feet, he could be five feet from your line.
MR. PREUSS-Right. I understand that.
MR. STONE-I mean, that’s the thing that we have to wrestle with, I mean, the fact that it’s too big
and therefore it has to be 20 feet, but if it were 100 feet, it would probably, it could be 5 feet.
MRS. PREUSS-My concern is that the neighborhood we live in and the type of houses and the
type of yards and where we live, this size building and where it’s located, to me, it’s obtrusive to
our property and to our view, and I feel like it devalues our property because we have trees in the
back of our property. The property line runs through the trees. So if we look out our back, we
have four doors, French Doors, two back doors and a kitchen window in the back. If we look out,
this structure sits right at the edge of that tree line. So it looks like it’s right up against our
property, and the width of it, it runs the expanse from the edge of his house to the next yard. So
whereas that was an open yard before, now there’s a home with a chain link fence behind it, a
trailer next to the home, and this shed that runs the whole expanse from the house to the next yard,
and I’m just concerned about the amount of other things besides a home that are on the property,
and the look of it and the size of it, and when he said it was a garden shed, I was surprised by that,
because the other garden sheds in our neighborhood do not look like that. Most of the garden sheds
match the color of the homes, they’re small, they’re tucked in some place where they’re not visible
to other people. This is extremely visible to our yard, and I find it disturbing, the location of it and
the size of it, and I feel it takes away from the visual effect in our neighborhood. So that’s what
my concern is. Even though it seems like it’s a distance from our property line, the way that our
back property line is, it looks like the shed’s right up against it, because there’s trees, and when I
heard him say he was going to take a tree down, that concerned me even more because I appreciate
that, the way our back yard is, that we do have trees, and we did have a view through to West
Mountain, and now it’s just full. The houses were staggered so that our house looked out in
between two houses, and now there’s a straight line of no break between the houses because of
where it’s located.
MR. HAYES-What’s the maximum size on an accessory structure in that area, do you know what
it is, square footage wise?
MR. STONE-Well, shouldn’t they be asking for the 44 square feet, too?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MC NALLY-Accessory structures can be more than 100 feet, I think. It’s just that if they are
more than 100 square feet, then they have to meet the building setback requirements.
MR. BROWN-It’s not classified as an accessory structure unless it’s over 100 square feet. If it’s
under 100 square feet, it’s only regulated.
MR. HAYES-So this is an accessory structure?
MR. BROWN-It is an accessory structure.
MR. HAYES-But there’s no maximum height on an accessory structure?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. It goes up to the 900 square foot for a garage.
MR. HAYES-If you had an attached garage, then you could build an 800 square foot accessory
structure here?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-Well, as long as you don’t store vehicles in it, it can’t be called a garage. So it’s an
accessory structure.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this SFR-1A?
MR. HAYES-No, it’s SR-20.
MR. THOMAS-It’s SR-20.
MR. BROWN-It’s an old SR-20.
MR. THOMAS-It’s an old SR-20, and that’s what we go by.
MR. BROWN-Right. Current zoning is SFR-1A.
MR. PREUSS-When we first contacted the Town about it, it was after, I think it was after the four
walls were up, and I inquired because I didn’t know if there was an issue there, if there was
anything that could be done about it. That’s why I inquired about the Town, because I needed to
find out whether there was an issue with this at all, and I also understand that, you know, Mr.
Hamilton has the ability to build a structure, you know, as large as he has, or he could build a
structure 100 square feet, you know, closer to our property line, but seeing that it’s 144 square
feet, and I think it’s probably 10 feet tall or so at the maximum. I think what we’re trying to do is
to at least provide a minimum impedance upon our property as we can, given the size of it, and I,
too, wish that this could have been resolved before the building had been built, because I have a
couple of questions about that, too, in terms of the removal of the tree that would be required to
move it and so forth. I don’t know if that can be addressed here or not, but that was something I
hadn’t thought about before, in terms of having to have one of the trees taken down, because I
think both of us value those trees as a nice aesthetic to our backyard.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hamilton, how tall is this building?
MR. HAMILTON-Slightly over 100 inches.
MR. STONE-One hundred inches, eight and a half feet.
MR. HAMILTON-About that.
MR. STONE-At the top, the very top?
MR. HAMILTON-Yes, the very top.
MR. THOMAS-Is that from the ground up, I mean, does it sit up on blocks?
MR. HAMILTON-It sits up on blocks. That’s from the bottom of the building up.
MRS. LAPHAM-How high are the blocks, four feet?
MR. HAMILTON-Four inches.
MR. STONE-Four inches. So that’s 104 inches.
MR. HAMILTON-About that, yes.
MR. THOMAS-So, what’s that, nine?
MR. STONE-It’s a little less than nine feet.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Nine’s one hundred and eight.
MR. STEC-Mr. Hamilton, you indicated a willingness to, well, your intend is to side the shed,
right? I mean, what they’re seeing right now is not the finished product?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. HAMILTON-No. It will be sided, either with T111, like the pictures are, or with vinyl
siding, whichever. I haven’t decided yet.
MR. STONE-And what color would it be, would it be the color of the house?
MR. HAMILTON-The same color as the house.
MR. STEC-And then, yes, you and I had talked about your desire to put a cedar hedge behind.
MR. HAMILTON-A cedar hedge along the back, also.
MR. STEC-I mean, I think that’s a really good idea, as far as compromise goes, to keep everyone
happy.
MR. HAMILTON-Well, whether it’s moved or whether it’s small or whatever, there’s still going
to be a cedar hedge across there anyway, either way.
MRS. LAPHAM-Have you had any objections with your next door neighbors, they would be to the
west, because that’s the one I think it really effects.
MR. HAMILTON-That’s the one that’s closest, you can barely see it from their yard, because
there’s four trees.
MRS. PREUSS-They have a large line of pine trees at the edge of their yard. We don’t have pines.
MR. STEC-That corner where all those lots intersect, there’s a clump of woods right there, it’s not
a very big clump, but that corner’s got a lot of trees on it.
MRS. PREUSS-But from our yard, it’s right out my kitchen window, and it takes the whole
distance from their house to the next yard. So there’s no land that I can see behind the house. It’s
his house, this structure, and then the next line of trees. So, to me, it ruins my back, the visual
effect of what we get out of the back of our house.
MR. STONE-You’re on the bias part of the back yard? I mean, it goes at an angle away from his
house?
MR. HAMILTON-I have two people. I have two neighbors behind me.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying.
MR. PREUSS-We’re directly.
MR. STONE-You’re 5-70, 93-5-70, tax map?
MR. PREUSS-I don’t know our tax map number, but it’s.
MR. STONE-I’m sure it’s that one.
MR. PREUSS-The rear side of the building is, you know, I think we get the full effect. It’s not
angled at all. 93-5-70.
MR. STONE-Okay. You actually straddle both properties behind you.
MRS. PREUSS-We just, there’s a row of pine trees, the property, and then just that little corner
there. So we don’t really look into their houses. They’re staggered, which I really like, the two
houses are here.
MR. HAMILTON-My neighbors are the Ryans, and there’s a complete row of trees behind there.
There’s no possible way you can see through there.
MR. STEC-So they’d be 81, right?
MR. STONE-81 is Ryan, right.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STEC-Right. It’s closest to 81, on the side there. I see what you’re saying, that the way it’s
oriented to the house, their house is laid out, they’re not looking at it. They’re looking at the shed,
through their backyard.
MRS. PREUSS-I can see from the front of my house, because we have so many doors and
windows.
MR. STEC-It would be most visible from their house.
MR. HAYES-I guess one of the questions, with the development at Hidden Hills, I mean, because
the houses are closer together there, basically, you still see out of your front, theoretically, fine,
okay, but when I looked through Hidden Hills, there’s a lot of people that have kind of like back
view issues, too, because the houses are fairly close together in that development.
MRS. PREUSS-But they’re mostly staggered, so that you don’t look right into somebody else’s.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. PREUSS-Yes, I think our thought in requesting that the setback not be relieved was to
hopefully minimize the effect by getting it further from our property.
MR. HAMILTON-What if I was to put a privacy fence? Am I allowed to do that, a six foot
privacy fence?
MRS. PREUSS-We talked about a fence, but the height of the structure, it’s very high.
MR. HAMILTON-It’s only 78 inches in the back.
MR. THOMAS-So you can have, what, a six foot fence, right?
MR. BROWN-Six foot.
MR. HAMILTON-You could only see the roof.
MR. STONE-Would that be more objectionable?
MR. PREUSS-Yes, personally, I would like the cedar hedge. The cedar hedge, I think, would be
preferable to a fence.
MR. STEC-Personally, I think a cedar hedge will look nice, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-That would soften the lines a bit.
MR. STEC-It would really soften everything.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of cedar hedge were you thinking about? Are we talking about these
one inch little?
MR. HAMILTON-No, I was looking at some six foot height, just to put right in, so I have
maximum coverage right off the bat.
MR. MC NALLY-So six foot height plants.
MR. HAMILTON-They’re between five and six foot high.
MR. STEC-Two, three years, they’ll be up to eight, nine feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And how far apart?
MR. HAMILTON-I would have to find somebody who could tell me how far to plant them. If you
tell me the distance, that’s the distance I’ll plant them.
MR. STEC-Two, three feet, and you’d have a thick hedge. You wouldn’t have to plant them any
closer than that. I’d say three feet, maybe even four.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. MC NALLY-And how far behind your shed were you going to plant them?
MR. HAMILTON-In the tree line.
MR. MC NALLY-On the property line?
MR. HAMILTON-We have eight feet of trees back there right now, in the property line.
MR. STONE-So this is six feet from the trees?
MR. HAMILTON-No, it’s four, five feet.
MR. STONE-You said you had eight foot of trees. You’re 14 feet from the property line.
MR. HAMILTON-Well, I believe some of the trees are on your area.
MR. PREUSS-Yes. Our property line runs through the.
MR. STONE-To the middle.
MR. PREUSS-The small grove of pines.
MRS. PREUSS-So the building is farther from the property line than it looks, because the trees,
you know, (lost words).
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. HAMILTON-I would have put the new trees in with the existing ones.
MR. STEC-Because my thinking is if you keep the shed the size that it is, and you could say, well,
you’ve got to move it further away to conform to the setbacks. You’re going to start cutting down
bigger trees.
MR. PREUSS-Can you tell us a little more about that, just so I understand why he’d have to lose
one of his trees to move it? I don’t understand that.
MR. STEC-The two big ones that are next to it, between his fence and where it is now.
MRS. LAPHAM-Between his fence and the building.
MR. PREUSS-Because our main concern is the rear setback, not the side setback.
MR. STONE-We understand, but he’s proposing to intermingle among the trees that are there
now, some cedars. Is that what you’re saying, Mr. Hamilton?
MR. HAMILTON-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-So that, then they’ll be there all year long because they’re evergreens, conifers.
MR. STEC-If he had to move this shed further from the line, he could keep it the size it is if he
moves it 20 feet from the line, but the only place that he could put it, if he moved it, he’d have to
cut down the larger trees that are on the property, which you’re also looking at.
MRS. PREUSS-So there’s no issue with the side?
MR. STONE-Certainly, he could ask for more relief from the side, but then, but we can’t do that
now, because then the neighbor has a right to know that he might want to do that, if he wanted to
go say, four feet forward.
MRS. PREUSS-Because one of my concerns, I guess that’s not the issue here, but the size, being
familiar with the neighborhood, the whole development of the neighborhood, I don’t see buildings
of that size on people’s property. People have very discreet sheds tucked in the corners and that
sort of thing. So that’s what concerns me, too, and I didn’t want to set a precedent for having that
size building.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. HAYES-It’s permissible within that zone, though, I mean, that size. That’s a Code issue.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. STEC-I looked down the back yards there, and I saw a couple of other sheds. They probably
weren’t quite as large, but I mean there were comparable structures, located in the corners of the
lot. That’s what he’s generally trying to go for here, but I can see where they’re looking right at it,
but there’s trees back there, and if he puts a shed in, they won’t see it.
MR. STONE-And in terms of harmony in the neighborhood, if we were to grant, I mean, with the
planting of the cedars, intermingled among the trees that are already there, which would be a year
round screening, would that be helpful to you?
MR. PREUSS-Yes, I think so. Yes, I’m all for harmony in the neighborhood as well. This is my
first experience coming to a meeting like this, and we sort of followed the course of the notice and
my phone call of inquiry and what not. I’ve learned a lot. I guess I’m very comfortable with the
idea of a hedge and perhaps that was in the game plan all along.
MR. STEC-And I think this particular hedge will be in the character of what you’re looking for.
It’s not going to be the, you know, suburbia square hedge. I mean, this hedge is going to have soft
lines. It’s going to look rural. It’s going to have the look that you’re looking for.
MR. PREUSS-Are they well supported? Because the pines in the backyard are, you know, high
pines that kind of take the sunlight. I’ve wondered, myself, what sort of high plants would grow
underneath the pine balcony or canopy.
MR. STEC-These will do all right there. My dad was a Forest Ranger, and he’s got a Forestry
degree. So I kind of, I inherited forest knowledge from my dad.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STEC-For harmony in the neighborhood and minimizing the impact of, you know, hey, lets
move this here or make it smaller, you know, because he has already started, although that’s
probably not a good argument, but, you know, as far as compromise, and what you’re looking for
to address your concerns, I think a hedge, you know, a cedar hedge will make everyone happy and
it’s fairly inexpensive.
MRS. PREUSS-And in terms of already starting it, it started going up over the weekend, and we
called like on Monday or Tuesday. So we felt badly that he had gotten it up, you know, that he
didn’t have a permit, and it wasn’t within (lost words).
MR. STEC-In his defense, he had asked and he was told he didn’t need one. He got some bad
information, maybe, and that’s not, unfortunately, that’s not a really good excuse for him.
Everyone’s trying to do the right thing here. So that’s a good sign.
MR. STONE-We don’t like people who build without permits, but in this case, the information,
apparently, that he got was it was a storage building. It was all right to build.
MRS. PREUSS-We just have one other question about the use of the building, if there was going
to be electric in it, any power tools being used in the building, or whether it was strictly a garden
shed, or is it going to have electric?
MR. STEC-Does it matter?
MR. HAMILTON-I haven’t crossed that bridge yet, but does it matter?
MR. STEC-I don’t know if it matters, myself.
MR. STONE-Obviously, it would have to meet the electrical code if it’s, which would mean either
a buried or.
MR. HAYES-If you know Dave Hatin, it’ll have to meet Code.
MR. THOMAS-So are we all in agreement here? Okay.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. PREUSS-I think we feel comfortable with, you know, proposed siding and finishing and the
living hedge to help with the visual. We appreciate that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, whoever makes the motion, we’ll make sure that they put that that in there.
Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it. We’ll start with Dan.
MR. STEC-I have no problem with it. I certainly understand the concerns that were raised, and
my first reaction when I saw the side of the shed is, gee, I hope he’s going to do something with
that, but we talked about that, and I think that the relief sought it minimal. I do, but I think that the
compromise that we talked about with the living hedge is certainly going to make everyone in the
neighborhood a little happier, and so I have no problems with the application.
MR. THOMAS-Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I feel pretty much the same way, in fact, when I, my initial reaction when I
looked at it was I hadn’t even thought of view. I thought of the people right next door, I thought,
that is really close, and then when they didn’t object or write a letter or show up, I was really
surprised that anyone did, but I think with the hedge, with the addition of the living fence, it would
be fine as far as I’m concerned.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes. I agree totally. I mean, it’s the kind of thing that if we can make both parties
happy, Mr. Hamilton gets his shed, which is slightly oversized, and we’re granting the variance for
it, and you get sight relief, if you will. I think it’s a good decision on all sides. I have no problem
with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Dan took all my time. So I’ll just agree.
MR. THOMAS-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-The effects on the neighborhood with the hedge is minimal. I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this, especially with the compromise as worked out
between the parties. Having said that, I would ask Dan to make a motion.
MR. STEC-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1998 GARY HAMILTON
,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
8 Pleasant Lane. To approve the relief that is requested, six feet of relief from the rear requirement
and two feet of side setback from the 10 foot requirement of the SR-20 zone, Section 4.020e be
approved. We considered the benefit to the applicant is that he would have a shed that he desires in
the preferred location. We considered some feasible alternatives, in that he could consider moving
the shed to a different location. However, that would bring about the removal of some trees on the
property, which would be undesirable. The relief is not very substantial, and effects on the
neighborhood, while being a little obstructive to the view to the back yard from one of the
neighbors, if we stipulate that the applicant add a living cedar hedge, or a living hedge, evergreen
hedge, in the rear side of the proposed shed, that the concerns of the neighborhood would be
answered, and whether the difficulty is self-created, well, it is, in the sense that he’s trying to put a
shed on a corner of his particular property, but I think we addressed that there weren’t a whole lot
of other suitable alternatives. That the structure is going to be completed in substantial conformity
with the photographs that we’ve received this evening from Mr. Hamilton, and that it should be
painted to match the existing primary residence.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. HAMILTON-Does it matter if it’s vertical siding, T111 or vinyl siding, does that matter to
anybody?
MR. MC NALLY-Is your existing home?
MR. HAMILTON-It’s vinyl sided.
MR. MC NALLY-Vinyl sided, fiber type style, to make it look like?
MR. HAMILTON-Yes, it’s horizontal.
MR. HAYES-And/or consistent with the home.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s in substantial conformity.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine.
MR. HAYES-It doesn’t matter to anybody, so I guess either one’s all right.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MRS. PREUSS-So we decided on the horizontal siding, the same color?
MR. HAYES-Or T111. Did you say or T111?
MR. HAMILTON-Do I have a choice, at this point? You tell me.
MRS. LAPHAM-This is with the vertical siding.
MR. THOMAS-The vertical siding, painted the same color as the house.
MR. HAMILTON-Right. As long as I conform to paint it the same color as the house or?
MR. THOMAS-I think the color is more important than what kind of siding it is.
MR. HAMILTON-Okay. I don’t want to have to come back here in the spring.
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-So there you go.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1998 TYPE II MR-5 MH OVERLAY SHERRIE BURTON
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 58 MICHIGAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 14 FT. BY 68 FT. MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MR-5 ZONE, SECTION 179-18. TAX MAP
NO. 127-3-13 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18
BRUCE BURTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-1998, Sherrie Burton, Meeting Date: November 18, 1998
Description of Proposed Project:
“Project Location: 58 Michigan Ave. Applicant proposes
Relief Required:
placement of a 14 foot by 68 foot mobile home. Applicant requests 8 feet of
Criteria for
front relief from the 30 foot requirement of the MR-5 zone, Section 179-18.
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to establish the desired mobile home in the preferred
2. Feasible alternatives:
location. Feasible alternatives may include a smaller home and no
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
construction. 8 feet of front setback
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
relief may be interpreted as moderate. Minimal
5. Is this difficulty self-
effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
created?Parcel History (construction/site
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
plan/variance, etc.):
BP 98-649 – 10/26/98 relocation of mobile home BP 91-175 – 4/10/91
Staff comments:
septic alteration Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. This
SEQR Status:
proposal is a relocation of an existing mobile home. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Burton, is there anything else you want to tell us, talk about, say?
MR. BURTON-Basically, not. I guess that’s pretty much everything.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The wood framing that’s on the ground there now, that’s where it’s going
to sit?
MR. BURTON-That’s where, on 58, that’s where it would be sitting.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because we’re just talking about 58 now. We’ll talk about 60 in the next
one, because they’re two separate parcels. We have to talk about them separately. That framing is
just for a cement slab?
MR. BURTON-Yes. Actually, it’s runners that go underneath the frame, which is what the Town
requires.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-The one on the two lots right now is the one that is going?
MR. BURTON-Yes, that’s the one that’s going to be going.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s on 58. We’re only talking about 58.
MR. STONE-But it cuts across both of them right now.
MRS. LAPHAM-And that’s why it’s going to be turned, right?
MR. STONE-Right. Yes. It’s going to be perpendicular to the road.
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-The septic system on the drawings, is that new or going to be new, or is that
existing?
MR. BURTON-That’s an existing septic system. It has a 1,000 gallon tank, and I believe it has,
th
the septic system was put in, the Town has it right here, October 15, in ’86 or something like that,
the Town looked it up. They’re the ones that gave me the copy of the map on it. I forget what date
it was on, but they approved it as being an accurate system for the home already, for that home.
It’s the same system that that home was using, exact same system.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay. Is this home going to be owner occupied?
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because I’m going to ask the same question in the next one, too. Are there
any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-When you say owner occupied, are you going to be living there, at 58?
MR. BURTON-No, we’re selling it.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re selling it to someone.
MR. BURTON-Right.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. LAPHAM-But they are going to live in it and not rent it, right?
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAMES DAVIS
MR. DAVIS-James Davis, 57 Michigan Avenue, Queensbury. This is my wife Evelyn, and it’s
going to be hard to talk about this as one lot, really because of what’s going on. I didn’t oppose
the way the trailer was sitting in there, you know, the way it has been, but re-locating this one, it’s
going to be too crowded, too congested in the area, and they didn’t make very good use of the
driveway as it was.
EVELYN DAVIS
MRS. DAVIS-I want to say we had a lot of problems with this piece of property in the last year.
I’d call his office to complain about the people that were renting it, where they damaged our fence.
They were tearing our driveway up, and we were told they didn’t own it. We came up here to the
Town. We asked who owned it. The clerk gave us the information. I called. They said, we don’t
have that property.
MR. DAVIS-That really has nothing to do with it. The point is that it’s going to be in that area,
it’s going to be too congested.
MRS. DAVIS-It’s going to be like a trailer park.
MR. DAVIS-That one trailer there was okay, and I’ve got nothing against trailers.
MRS. DAVIS-We used to own one.
MR. DAVIS-But to turn this, the way it was, it looked good.
MR. STONE-There was one trailer on two lots before.
MRS. DAVIS-Right.
MR. DAVIS-I assume that’s the way it was.
MR. STONE-The way it’s sitting now, kitty corner.
MR. DAVIS-Well, it was straight across.
MR. STONE-It was straight across, okay. They’ve turned it, and from what I’ve heard, they’re
going this way.
MR. STONE-He’s going to be perpendicular to the road, like this.
MR. DAVIS-You take the sewers that’s going to have to be in there for it, and you take the
driveways and the two trailers, that’ll be a pretty congested area, because their lot is no bigger than
mine.
MR. THOMAS-It’s 60 by 100.
MR. DAVIS-And I’m 57. I’m not sure just what mine is. I think mine might be a little bigger, but
I’m right across the road, but I wouldn’t even say there was room actually for two on my property.
MR. THOMAS-Well, there’s only one home going on this property, on this 60 by 100 lot. There’s
only one home going on it.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. DAVIS-60 by 100?
MR. THOMAS-60 by 100, yes. It’s a pre-existing, it’s 60 feet wide, 100 feet deep, and there’s
one home going on it.
MRS. DAVIS-But then there’s another trailer going on the other lot.
MR. THOMAS-On the other one.
MRS. LAPHAM-But they’re two separate pieces of property.
MR. DAVIS-Well, that’s why I oppose it, because there’s going to be one put there, plus one next
to it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s another 60 by 100 foot lot.
MR. DAVIS-Right, and the way they were setting is good. It gave us plenty of yard for whoever
lived there, nice front yard, there was plenty of room. By turning them around, that’s going to cut
everything right in half. You’re going to have.
MRS. DAVIS-Kids running all over the neighborhood.
MR. DAVIS-I don’t know. It depends on who buys it, but parking plus sewage facilities.
MR. THOMAS-That’s up to the Town to determine the septic system requirements.
MR. DAVIS-Because I know I just had a new sewage system put in myself, so I know what they
consist of, and that’s a pretty congested area for two of them, because the section between
Michigan and Illinois is not that deep, you know. If you stop and think about it, that’s kind of a
narrow block, and it’s not only them there, it’s what’s on the other side.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s a question, the septic system, in terms of whether there’s enough area,
that’s up to the people who take care of that.
MR. DAVIS-Well, this is my concerns about it.
MR. STONE-I mean, all they’re asking of us, as you know, is some eight foot relief from the road
to the front of the mobile home. That’s all we’re talking about.
MR. HAYES-In a Mobile Home Overlay Zone.
MRS. LAPHAM-But just as an aside, it seemed like some of your problems stemmed from renters
of the mobile home, in the past, but these are going to be owners, which might make a difference.
Being owner occupied, it may make a big difference in the quality of people.
MR. DAVIS-Maybe, maybe not.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, you don’t know until they get there, I guess, but it’s more likely to.
MR. DAVIS-But I know renters, if they sell it, these people, the people that buy a rental.
MR. LAPHAM-I think Mr. Burton just said it was going to be owner occupied.
MRS. DAVIS-Yes, but somebody might buy it and then rent it out.
MR. DAVIS-That’s what goes on in that area a lot.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, is it going to be owner occupied or is it not?
MR. BURTON-We have an application in on it now. That’s been bank approved and everything
to buy it and live in it.
MRS. LAPHAM-And live in it as their primary home.
MR. BURTON-Right. It’s a lady probably in her early 50’s, and (lost words) daughter.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. STONE-How old is that one that you’re talking about?
MR. BURTON-I think this one’s an ’87, 1987, an ’87 Skyline.
MR. STONE-Is there something about 10 years or something, we had a discussion once?
MR. THOMAS-The year on it didn’t say anything. I don’t remember any discussion on, it had to
be a certain year.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it had to be a 1975 to get a HUD seal, and we don’t allow them without
the HUD seals.
MR. STONE-Right, whatever it was.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, that’s what it was, it was the HUD seal.
MR. STONE-Now I notice on this thing there are two entrances to the house, to the mobile home?
MR. BURTON-Yes, a front door and a kitchen door. Actually, there’s three entrances to this
home. On the home that’s sitting there now, it’s (lost words) now. There’s a front door, which
would be considered the front of the home, if you look at the home, to your left side, where you
would come in, you would come in the living room. On the right side, there’s an exit off the
kitchen, up toward the front, and then there’s an exit toward the back of the home, which had to be
there by law.
MR. STONE-But you don’t show a path to that on this drawing.
MR. BURTON-No, that would be just a porch there that the Town requires there, with the rails if
someone has to exit the home, if there’s a fire at one end, you have to get out the other end.
MR. STONE-Again, as I said, all we’re talking about is this kind of structure can be in that zone.
That’s not the question. Our only question is, are we willing to give eight feet of relief from the
road, from the property line on the road. I mean, I hear what you’re saying.
MR. DAVIS-I’ve got to oppose it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else?
MR. BURTON-Not until 60 comes up, and then it’ll be the same thing.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any
correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. BURTON-Excuse me. I understand their concern, the people with the young fellow that was
in it. It was quite a mess. We had to completely remodel the home. It was just hard renting it.
We have no intention of wanting to rent these things out. It just doesn’t work.
MR. STONE-And you did say that you have a perspective buyer for the one on 58?
MR. BURTON-Yes. Actually, she paid for the appraisal. She has a down payment on the home,
providing everything goes through, she already has a down payment on the home.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions? There’s no correspondence. Nobody else wants to
speak in favor of or opposed. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie?
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I was going to ask the applicant and the neighbors, kind of like we did the
last time, if there is any compromise that could be done, but I almost don’t see it, in this particular
case, it’s either you give him the relief or you don’t. I mean, I don’t see how you can, but, no, I
really don’t have a lot of objection to this, because I think it will be an improvement from renting
to get an owner occupied mobile home there.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes, I don’t really see, talking about 58, I don’t see any problem, and eight foot of
relief off the road is not an awful lot of relief. I think it will, in fact, particularly if it sells, but that
has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. I think it will improve that particular lot, and I
have no real objection.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, this is a permissible use in the Overlay Zone, and I think in circumstances in
the past that we’ve granted relief, in a couple of circumstances when the lot width, or lot depth was
not adequate under this circumstance, and I don’t think it would create a problem, as far as down
the road, as far as how far the houses are set back. So I think it is minimal relief, and I think it
would probably have a positive impact on the neighborhood or community. So, I would be in
favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I sympathize with anyone who has neighbors that are destructive or miserable,
because whether it’s in a mobile home or whether it’s in a mansion, miserable neighbors can drive
you crazy, but Jamie’s and Lew’s and Bonnie’s points are well taken. The Town has set up these
lots as lots where a mobile home can be placed, and the only thing we’re being asked is to pass on
whether or not eight feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback is acceptable, given the effect it
will have on the neighborhood, and I have to say that I agree, it’s a minimal effect, and I don’t
really see the placement of the home itself as having any significant effect on the neighborhood.
Who lives in the mobile home may have an effect on the neighborhood, but I don’t see that as
something that we can pass on. I’d have to be in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. The issue here really is the eight feet setback
which I don’t think is excessive, and I’m in favor.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. The eight feet of setback is not
excessive. We’ve granted it before in this same area. I think it’ll improve the area, because I think
it was Bob had said it would be owner occupied rather than rented.
MRS. LAPHAM-I said that.
MR. THOMAS-All right. So I would have no problem granting this variance of the eight foot of
relief for an allowed use. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion one way or the
other?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1998 SHERRIE BURTON
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
58 Michigan Avenue. The applicant proposes placement of a 14 foot by 68 foot mobile home on
that lot. The applicant requests eight feet of front relief from the 30 foot requirement of the MR-5
zone, Section 179-18. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to place the
trailer as desired on the lot. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives are limited, based on the
depth of the lot and the length of the trailer itself. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I don’t believe so. I think that eight feet of relief is a minimal relief in this
circumstance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the impact is minimal, and
if anything continuing to recycle the property and improve it could be positive. Is the difficulty
self-created? I don’t believe that it is, based on the fact that this is a pre-existing lot, and it is a
Mobile Home Overlay Zone, and they’re placing a mobile home in that zone. I think it has to do
with the depth of the lot, per se.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. STONE-Just a comment, that in all other respects, it does meet all the other setbacks,
contingent upon that zone. This is the only thing that is required.
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-That takes care of 58.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1998 TYPE II MR-5 MH OVERLAY SHERRIE BURTON
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 60 MICHIGAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 14 FT. BY 68 FT. MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MR-5 ZONE, SECTION 179-18. TAX MAP NO.
127-3-14 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18
BRUCE BURTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-1998, Sherrie Burton, Meeting Date: November 18, 1998
Description of Proposed Project:
“Project Location: 60 Michigan Ave. Applicant proposes
placement of a 14 foot by 68 foot mobile home. Applicant proposes placement of a 14 foot by 68
Relief Required:
foot mobile home. Applicant requests 8 feet of front relief from the 30 foot
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
requirement of the MR-5 zone, Section 179-18.
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be
2. Feasible alternatives:
permitted to establish the desired mobile home in the preferred location.
3. Is this relief substantial
Feasible alternatives may include a smaller home and no construction.
relative to the Ordinance?:4.
8 feet of front setback relief may be interpreted as moderate.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
interpreted as self created. None
Staff comments:
applicable Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. This
SEQR Status:
proposal is consistent with current uses in the neighborhood. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to tell us about this one?
MR. BURTON-I can’t say it’s going to be owner occupied. It’s being sold.
MR. STONE-The question, however, is that on the previous one, you show entrances and exits
that we get the 10 feet from the entrance, and this one you show 10 feet from the mobile home.
MR. BURTON-From the property line.
MR. STONE-Yes, from the property line to the mobile home.
MR. BURTON-Well, the reason we showed it on the other one, it was showing it as the porch
being on that side, on that home. This other one’s not going to have a porch, but it’s going to have
an exit steps coming off, kind of exiting on the back side. The main entrance is going to be the
front of this home, because it doesn’t have only but two entrances, the far back one and the one
that’s in the center.
MR. STONE-In the center of the front, or on the side?
MR. BURTON-On the side.
MR. STONE-It’s on the long access.
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So the rear exit is going to be just steps, then?
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BURTON-Just steps.
MR. STONE-And there is no?
MR. BURTON-No deck being put off that, no porch or anything.
MR. STONE-No porch on the other side from the main entrance, whatever’s there, but on the long
side that faces the property line, on the short side, there won’t be any. So 10 feet is all that’s
required.
MR. BURTON-Right.
MRS. LAPHAM-The mobile home that’s there now, you have it looks like the frame over here that
you’re going to put the house on. Okay. Was that the mobile home that was on the property?
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and the other mobile home isn’t there at this point?
MR. BURTON-The other mobile home is sitting up at Homestead Village right now. It’s vinyl
sided, actually, it’s prettier than this one.
MR. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. STONE-And that’s going to be sold, too?
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MRS. LAPHAM-And it’ll be owner occupied, at least when you sell it?
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Do you have a contract on it?
MR. BURTON-We have someone that’s interested in it. All they’ve paid for is they’ve paid $250
for an appraisal. There’s no actual cash down on that home, except the appraisal fee.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-But obviously they’re the same size, but the second one, the one on 60 will look
better, it’s newer?
MR. BURTON-I think so. It’s vinyl sided, blue vinyl sided home.
MR. THOMAS-Do you know what year it is?
MRS. LAPHAM-What year is that one?
MR. BURTON-’86 I want to say. I want to say it’s an ’86.
MR. STONE-So it’s year older.
MR. THOMAS-About a year older.
MR. HAYES-But the vinyl siding’s like an upgrade, really.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. BURTON-I’m going to say it’s an ’86. I’m almost positive it’s an ’86. It says on the
application.
MR. THOMAS-Is this septic system installed yet?
MR. BURTON-No.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and it will meet all the Codes, all the setbacks.
MR. BURTON-Yes, a 1,000 gallon tank and two eight by eight, eight foot diameter drywells or
seepage pits, whichever, and eight foot deep.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and they meet all the setbacks to the property lines and everything.
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Twenty feet is all that’s necessary.
MR. BURTON-Ten feet.
MR. THOMAS-Ten feet.
MR. STONE-Well, 20 from, it’s 10 to the line and then another 10 feet.
MR. BURTON-To the home, you mean?
MR. STONE-To the side properties, it’s 20 feet between the home on 60 and the septic, seepage
pits on, I guess.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, 58.
MR. BURTON-On Lot 36, the septic tanks, the seepage pits are in 10 feet off the property line.
MR. STONE-So together it’s 20 between 58 and 60.
MR. BURTON-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone
wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we need to talk about. I’ll
start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, taken by itself, I have no problem with it. It’s the same thing we said before. I
have some concern by putting two of them there, but they’re going to be identical. They’re both in
a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. They’re both going to meet every requirement except the front. I
guess I have no problem.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Like we said before, the Mobile Home Overlay Zone was established by elected
Board members, and that’s, the relief outside of that is minimal, and I think that’s really what we
have to be concerned with here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-For the reasons in 58, I would approve this application on Lot 60. There is no
difference, really.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I have the same concerns, the same feelings as I did for 58 Michigan. I’m in favor of
it.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I agree.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members, and for the same exact things I
said for 58. Okay. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1998 SHERRIE BURTON
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
60 Michigan Avenue. The applicant proposes placement of a 14 foot by 68 foot mobile home on
that lot. The applicant requests eight feet of front relief from the 30 foot requirement of the MR-5
zone, Section 179-18. The benefit to the applicant, that they would be allowed to place the home
as depicted. The feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives are limited based on the depth of the
existing lot and the length of the trailer. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t
believe so. I think eight feet of relief is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I
believe that there’ll be minimal effects on the neighborhood and the community based on the
recycling of the property and improvement, and is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe so,
based on the fact that this is a pre-existing lot and that there’s not that much depth and they’re
trying to place a home on that lot, as depicted, it does comply with the rear setback relief.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. BURTON-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Okay. Under “Further Business that may come before the
Board”, Mr. Salvador has asked for a few minutes of our time.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I’ve written a couple of letters to
Chris Round, the Executive Director of the Community Development Department concerning the
Takundewide renovation. In this regard, I haven’t gotten any answers. There’s just been no reply
to these letters. I’ve had some telephone conversations with Chris, but it doesn’t seem to result in
any kind of a determination. In any case, last night I did the same thing before the Town Planning
Board. I asked to speak at this time, and if you’ll recall, the Planning Board approved that project,
the site plan for that project, with the proviso that at Takundewide, with just a note that special
care be taken that the septic system goes in so that there is no additional taxing on the waterfront.
That the septic system conform to the current Town Code and the Health Department. So I asked
the Board last night, you know, what did you mean with these words. There didn’t seem to be any
clear understanding, but as a result of the discussion, it became clear that this existing dwelling has
been demolished. It’s gone. It doesn’t exist anymore, and essentially, in actuality, new
construction is going up in its place. Now this project has always been billed as a renovation, and
I spoke to you once before about the definition of “renovation”, new construction, etc., and there’s
no way, from the get go, does anything of this magnitude qualify as a renovation. I can tell you the
Planning Board members, when they heard this, were quite upset. They intend to look into it and
promised me that at their next meeting, they’d have some position on this. You recall at your
meeting, that the direct question was asked of Mr. Mason, what is the present septic system? And
he answered that it was a grease trap with a cess pool. Now I don’t know if you people study or
understand the Town’s Sanitary Ordinance, but a cess pool, by definition, is in a perpetual state of
failure. It discharges sewage to the groundwater. That is a failure. Okay, and you cannot operate.
It’s illegal. The Code says it’s illegal to operate. Now I don’t know how many other systems up
there are that way, but something has to be done with the management of wastewater from this
particular site, and I don’t know if the Health Department is going to force this issue. I don’t know
what that means. The Planning Board is trying to sort that out. Tonight, you talked about, with
Mr. Zibro, you talked to him about the idea of using his large lot to take care of the wastewater
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
from his neighbors. You don’t understand the impracticality of this thought. You just don’t
understand what’s involved, by way of easements, and operating, and how do you control, how do
you do this? What you should be doing is fostering and suggesting to these people that they get
involved and get active in a sound wastewater management program that’s being studied at the
present time in North Queensbury, but we can’t get anybody interested in it. Collect the sewage
and take it to a central place and treat it. That’s what has to be done. That Code that I speak of
talks about the fact that you need three feet of usable soil within 1,000 feet of the lake, in order to
discharge to groundwater. Three feet of usable soil. Usable soil is that soil above the impervious
layer, okay. The impervious layer or high seasonal groundwater. Impervious layers are not only
bedrock, but consolidated clays, and that’s what we have there, very shallow under the surface up
there, are consolidated clays. They simply don’t perc. Now we do the perc tests up on the surface.
We do the perc tests in November, and we’re putting those on-site septic systems in there, and I’m
telling you something, it just isn’t going to continue. So, anyway, the Planning Board is continuing
to work on it, and we’ll see what they come up with. Any questions?
MR. STONE-John, since I was the one who had the discussion with Mr. Zibro, and the one who
brought it up here tonight, obviously, any doing in this case, any construction, would have to meet
all of the Town Code. It was merely a thought that certainly if it were deep enough, and that’s a
consideration that we didn’t talk about, it’s certainly got enough area to put in a leach field that
would handle a number of properties, sands is sewer. Nobody is saying we don’t want a sewer, we
don’t want a more uniform way of collecting sewage, but at the moment, that is on the drawing
board. Who knows when that’s going to happen. If these neighbors can get together to make a
system which will be beneficial, if in fact it meets the Code, with all the easements, if they can sit
there and do it themselves and work it out.
MR. SALVADOR-Never.
MR. STONE-Well, it may never happen, but at least it sounds like cooperation among people who
care about the property on which they sit.
MR. SALVADOR-At Takundewide, you have a built-in capability of doing that very same thing.
It’s called a homeowners association. Okay. You don’t have that with Mr. Zibro. That’s why I
say, it’s impractical.
MR. STONE-Now, the fact that they’re building a new house, is that something, Craig, that should
have come back to us, if they tore this thing down completely?
MR. BROWN-Well, evidently, in the course of, what their plan was was to remove the existing
structure off the foundation, do some foundation work that was part of the variance, place the
house back on and build a second story. When it came time to move the house, they discovered
some sort of either rot or decay in the materials of the house that wouldn’t allow them to do that.
Subsequently it was demolished and the first floor is going to be re-built. In trying to determine
whether or not this should come back to the Zoning Board to get a variance to place the house back
where it was, they just got a variance to put a second story on, couldn’t come to any rationale why
they should come back.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying that the powers that be, Mr. Round and yourself, whoever,
have decided that they don’t have to come back to us?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but you see, as new construction on this postage stamp sized lot that they
have, it’s not a buildable lot. That’s a new project. Now start to meet the setbacks.
MR. STONE-Well that would be at least my initial thought. I would agree with you, John. I
mean, all we do is accept the work that comes to us.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It’s just highly unlikely that you could take a dwelling that was built in
the era that that building was built in, and do what, as a construction plan, what’s been described
here. It’s just not practical, and no home owner would undertake to invest his money without
finding out first that that technique and that procedure was possible. I wouldn’t do it.
MR. STONE-Apparently they did.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-They were actually in the process of moving the house. There were two cranes
there and a steel beam under the house, and as they tried to pick the house up, in the center of the
house, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the house, there used to be a fire place, and there,
evidently was some water damage that came down along the fire place and just rotted out a couple
of the beams, the main beams that ran across the lengthwise of the house, and it just wouldn’t
support, you know, any movement like that.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, but all of this could be determined non-destructively. You don’t have to
get into.
MR. BROWN-He could have done some investigation prior to this, sure.
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-That becomes a matter of the homeowner and the contractor, a matter of discussion I
would think. You’re right.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Next we need to talk about Premier Parks, Inc. You have an application in
front of you that has not had an official.
MR. BROWN-Is this something that’s on the record, do you want to talk about this now?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Because I’m just going to ask for opinions, that the applicant has asked for a
meeting as soon as possible. What we’ve come up with, in talking with Chris Round, and I think
st
I’ve talked to Craig about this, is maybe on December 1. I think Sue Davidsen has called all the
strd
members of the Board and asked if they could make it either December 1 or December 3.
strd
December 1 being a Tuesday, December 3 being a Thursday. In my opinion, I think we should
hear this on its own separate night, because I think there’s going to be a lot of public controversy
on this. I really wouldn’t want to tie up another applicant at a regular meeting for something like
this, because as we all know, there’s a lot of controversy about The Great Escape or Storytown,
especially the noise from the newest ride there, The Bobsled. I’ve heard a lot of complaints. My
brother lives probably 2,000 feet away on Glen Lake, and when he first heard it he thought it was
low thunder coming in, and I’ve heard people from the Glens Falls Country Club complain, while
they sit out there on the patio, because that’s probably 1500 feet away from that ride, and I think
there’s going to be some other businesses up and down Route 9 that will have some kind of say or
want to say something about this, this additional ride going in. Premier Parks has already removed
two buildings to put this particular ride in. They have demolition permits on it. So, what I want to
ask the Board members is, if you’ve been contacted by Sue Davidsen concerning a meeting on
strdst
December 1 or December 3, and if you would like to hear it on December 1 or on December
rd
3? I don’t think the applicant’s agent, Lemery & Reid, John Lemery from Lemery & Reid can
rdst
make it on December 3. So I think it really has to be either December 1 or, if not, if you don’t
want to see it at a special meeting, at the first regular meeting in December.
MR. MC NALLY-Do we have a big schedule for the first regular meeting?
MR. THOMAS-Right now we don’t have a thing on it, right?
MR. HAYES-Except for that one that.
MR. BROWN-Old Business that was tabled tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Well, just the Old Business, that’s if he gets us the drawings here within a week.
th
He’s got to have them here by the 25 which is a week from today. So if he gets them fine, if he
doesn’t, well, he’s going to have to go over to January.
MR. STONE-Well, I, personally, would love to have it at the regular meeting, because I will be
st
there. December 1 I will be out of Town, but that’s one person.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The applicant’s agent, John Lemery, has already called me and asked if we
could have this at this special meeting, because they’d like to get going on this, Collins
Construction is the contractor on it, and they want to get going as soon as they can, to get the
footings in before there’s a real hard freeze and it gets really cold, and I said, why didn’t you come
to us earlier, and all I got was silence.
MR. STONE-Well, it would seem to me, Chris, that if there’s going to be, as you perceive, a lot of
st
input, that nothing’s going to happen on the 1 anyway, because this is going to be something that I
think that we’re going to want to, I, personally, would like to get as much information as possible
on, if I were doing on it, and I don’t feel one meeting is going to be enough. We’ve spent more
than that on more simple variances.
MR. THOMAS-Well, the only thing that’s required in this variance is relief from the 50 foot
height. I believe this ride is, the building is 70 foot high.
MR. HAYES-That’s what it said, 20 foot of relief.
MR. THOMAS-Twenty foot of relief, and what it is, is a rollercoaster inside a building, that’s
what it is.
MR. STONE-It’s like Space Mountain.
MR. THOMAS-Supposedly totally enclosed. So what I’m asking, what I’m going to do is go
through the Board and I’ll ask you, would you rather hear it at a regular meeting, or on a special
st
meeting on December 1? I’ll start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, I would rather see it at a regular meeting, only for my own personal thing,
st
because I will not be here the 1.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay, Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I can make it.
st
MR. THOMAS-December 1?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’d rather see it at a regular meeting. Our meeting’s not that much further
along, and if there’s going to be a lot of public comment, we should give people an opportunity to
be at our regular meeting and have them have time to organize their thoughts.
MR. THOMAS-I talked to Chris about that today, and I said there should be some way to get this
thing publicized ahead of time, that there will be a, you know, not just for the people within 500
feet, but for the people in the community altogether. Get it right out there and say this is.
MR. MC NALLY-I saw the article in the paper, and it said that you couldn’t see it from the
highway.
MR. THOMAS-You’re going to be able to see it from the highway. It’s 70 feet high. You won’t
see a lot of it, because you’ll be looking up at it like this, because the buildings in front of it will
block most of it.
MR. STEC-They have the pictures right in there.
MR. THOMAS-So, you know, that’s the thing of it. So you’d rather stick right with the regular
meeting, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Either’s fine with me. The first is fine with me.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I should say, I’m okay with either.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, like I say, I’ve talked to John Lemery, and he said he’d like to get this
done. He wanted it at tonight’s meeting, and I said, there’s no way because the meeting is too full
and there’s not enough time for the advertisement, and like I talked to Chris Round today. I want
to get this out, even before the regular mailings go out for the people within 500 feet, get some kind
of article in the newspaper or some kind of announcement or something, just so nobody says, well,
I didn’t know anything about it.
MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that all the more reason why we should have it at a regular meeting, just so
that it’s not given any special treatment?
MR. THOMAS-Well, if it comes at a regular meeting, the only notification going out is just the
publishing in the paper, and the notifications that go out for the 500 feet.
MR. STONE-Well, we can put a special notice in the paper, too.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, we can put a special notice, there’ll be a notice, a legal notice in
st
the paper, also, for the 1.
MR. HAYES-If we had a full docket in December, it probably wouldn’t even be an issue. Right
now we’re looking at maybe one, right?
MR. BROWN-Even if it was a full docket, we could do something similar to what we did tonight.
We don’t have a meeting next week, so we put them all on one meeting. We could put all the other
business on the second meeting, and hear the Premier Parks by itself the first meeting. That would
still allow them to get on the Planning Board that month, if they were decided on.
MR. HAYES-Well, if it talks about making the second meeting closer to Christmas, everybody
probably, I know (lost words) sooner if that’s the case.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. THOMAS-See, that’s the thing of it, too. We’re just going to have one meeting this month,
rd
because the fourth Wednesday is the 23.
MR. STEC-I don’t think we should be in the business of having our schedule dictated to us by an
applicant.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we did this before for another big project called the Mooring Post.
MR. STONE-Yes, but that went on for a year and a half.
MR. THOMAS-It’s still going on, since October of ’95.
MR. STEC-That one went to court.
MR. HAYES-Chris is right, though. This is a potential lightening rod.
MR. STONE-It definitely is.
MR. STEC-I mean, I wouldn’t say lets rush it to an early meeting, just because they’re trying to
get something done. I mean, that’s kind of presumptuous, I think.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the request has been made.
MR. BROWN-Just a little history on the application. It was submitted two weeks after the
deadline for the November meetings. We tried to get it on, but it just came in too late. Having
reviewed it, you know, on the surface I’m going to ask for some additional information. I don’t
know if you guys have reviewed it to the extent where you think you need some additional
information, if any. You may want to do that. So I don’t know if you want to vote on hearing it
early without getting additional information.
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
st
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, that’s, what, the 1 is two weeks from yesterday.
MR. BROWN-Right. So that’s not a lot of time to give the applicant to get additional information
in.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it just depends on what you’re asking for.
MR. BROWN-Or what you’re looking for or what you may want if you review the application and
find you want additional information.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. What are you looking for?
MR. BROWN-What I’d like to see is a cross section, basically, through the Park, that shows the
proposed building, there’s a big mound in front of it, proposed to be landscaped, maybe the tallest
ride there, so we can get some sort of perspective on what’s there, in relation to what this proposal
is, and, you know, the elevation of Route 9, so you can see the broad cross section that shows, I
think it would give, it’s more of a site plan issue, but it may give you a better basis to base your
height variance on, and also a grading plan would show you what the proposed floor elevation is in
relation to the top of the mound, which, in the application there’s no grading plan.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-We can sit and say it’s only like we just tried, that we’re only granting, we have a
very narrow thing that we’re doing, but you can’t tell the public that.
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s a narrow thing. It’s a height restriction, but I think, to come to that
determination, you have to take into account the visual impacts.
MR. STEC-What about noise concerns? I imagine we’re going to have a lot of the public here.
MR. THOMAS-That’s exactly what it’s going to be is the noise.
MR. BROWN-There’s no noise ordinance.
MR. THOMAS-There’s no noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HAYES-That’s really not going to be germane, then.
MR. THOMAS-Theoretically, no, it’s not, but then again, too, you go to the detriment to the
community versus the, whatever it is to the applicant. It’s that kind of thing, it’s a balancing act.
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. MC NALLY-When it comes to alternate sites, will they have information regarding what’s
available? I mean, I don’t know how big The Great Escape is. Do they have like a little valley
somewhere they can place this?
MR. STONE-That’s where the placed the Comet was a valley.
MR. BROWN-Probably there is, but they probably want it some place where it can be seen. I
mean, it’s going to be a draw for them.
MR. MC NALLY-But will they be supplying information as to what their parcel looks like and
things like that?
MR. BROWN-If you want to ask them for it as additional information, we could get it, sure.
MR. MC NALLY-I think that would, to consider alternate sites, you have to see what they own,
and I think that would legitimate.
MR. STONE-Well, they don’t even show the Comet on this one, which is kind of interesting.
MR. BROWN-There’s a partial site plan map in the application, but it doesn’t show the whole
park. It doesn’t show.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, they don’t show the Comet, which is the biggest one.
MR. STONE-Which is important, I think, in considering this whole thing. I mean, it’s obviously
not that close to it, but I think it ought to be, well.
MR. STEC-How do we go about getting into the Park to go take a look at this?
MR. BROWN-I can take you any time you want if you want to set up a time, we can all go look at
the site that they’re proposing.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we can’t have any more than three at a time, because you get four together,
that’s a quorum, and that’s a public meeting.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So we’ll take three of you one day.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there like an environmental impact that talks about the Park as a whole, or
do they just add ride one this year, another ride next year? Is the combined impact of all these
things ever considered, or have they ever been considered?
MR. STONE-That’s environmental impact.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there a study that we could also look at, regarding?
MR. BROWN-Probably as part of the site plan review application there’s some sort of either
addendum to an existing.
MR. STONE-We could take Lead Agency status.
MR. THOMAS-No, we’re not.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to see maybe.
MR. STEC-I’d like to see them tell us, this is how loud this ride is, this is, you know, I’d like to see
data.
MR. BROWN-I think that’s more of a site plan issue. You guys are really trying to focus on the
height.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’re just going to focus on the height, but like I say.
MR. STONE-You get a building that’s 75 feet, or 70 feet, now you’re above everything, and I
don’t know what this building sounds like. I happen to have an expert in the family, expert, he
loves roller coasters, and we were talking about Nightmare the other day, because this is not a new
ride. I mean, they exist other places. I certainly intend to ask him what his experience is, but this
is, of course, lay, but we need to know what the cumulative noise effect is. I mean, I’m certainly
for a viable Park there. I mean, it is good for the area, it’s good for tourism, it’s certainly good for
the community, but it’s got to be balanced, obviously, which is what we do anyway.
MR. BROWN-I think to answer your question, Dan, I’m sure the Planning Board is going to want
to know that information anyway. So the information will be there. It’s not going to be, it
wouldn’t be hard to get.
MR. MC NALLY-Is the Planning Board having a special meeting, or are they meeting at their
regular time?
MR. BROWN-A regular meeting.
MR. THOMAS-When is there’s?
MR. BROWN-The agenda hasn’t been set yet for December, after the deadline.
MR. THOMAS-They’re the third and fourth Tuesdays, aren’t they?
MR. BROWN-Third and Fourth Tuesdays, yes.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Anyway, going on with this. Bonnie, regular meeting or 12/1?
MRS. LAPHAM-I’m available for either one, but I think I’d prefer the regular meeting, also, if it
is not an overloaded meeting, the way tonight is.
MR. STEC-I would propose, if we did the regular meeting, to bang out the other ones, in the
beginning.
MR. THOMAS-Well, depending on how many there are, because you’re going to have a room full
of people here, waiting for this one, you know, while the other ones you go through. Then you’re
going to start to get a few of them restless.
MR. STEC-If we go regular meeting night but stagger the time. Say, all right, you know, we’re
going to meet at seven and bang everything else out, and advertise this one as an eight o’clock start
or a nine o’clock start.
MR. THOMAS-No. Because you don’t know, you know, some you think you’re going to snap
right off end up being two hours.
MR. STONE-But if they’re the first one in, they’re first on the agenda.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but then you’ve got the other people waiting, and you know this is going to
go three hours, with all the people that are going to be talking.
MR. STEC-Or maybe we could do The Great Escape one first, and then schedule the others after
that, tell them they don’t come in before eight.
MR. HAYES-That would be unfair to the people, to keep them waiting for that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Would it be possible to see what’s on the agenda, because the deadline is, what,
next week?
MR. STEC-Tell him, that we’ll a lot two hours, or whatever, for The Great Escape and then tell
everyone else, hey, don’t show up until nine, and then that way at least they’re not sitting here for
two hours waiting for a shed. They stroll in at nine.
MR. THOMAS-Then again, too, this thing here may go four hours. It’s like the Mooring Post.
We sat here until two o’clock in the morning one day, and that was fun. I think John was here for
a couple of those.
MR. BROWN-I would anticipate December being relatively slow. I would think that the first
meeting probably could be these two Old Businesses that were tabled here, and Premier Parks, and
maybe three or four on the second meeting.
rd
MR. THOMAS-Well, we don’t want a second meeting in December because that’s the 23, and
there’s probably people blowing out of town, or people coming into town. Members of the Board
aren’t going to be here.
MR. MC NALLY-We can have two meetings in December, either on the first and the third
Wednesday, or the third Wednesday and the fourth Wednesday or something.
MR. THOMAS-I’m telling you from my experience with big projects, especially when there’s a lot
of controversy, you’re going to get people in here, and it’s going to go a long time. You know the
lawyers are going to be sitting here, because when these other businesses along Route 9, especially
the other amusement parks come in, they’re not going to bring the owners in. They’re going to
bring their lawyers in, and they’re going to talk, and you know as well as I do, lawyers love to talk.
Don’t they, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Not at all.
MR. THOMAS-So I’ve got a three and three now.
MR. STEC-Like I said, I’m available either night. I don’t have a preference.
MRS. LAPHAM-Can’t we just make a decision.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. BROWN-Would you entertain two meetings the same week? Like two meetings the week of
th
the 16, the week of the regular meeting?
MR. STONE-That would be great, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. THOMAS-Now, you’ve got to remember the Planning Board. We’ve got to be in there
before the Planning Board.
th
MR. BROWN-Right, and I’m saying maybe the regular meeting the 16, we could do the regular
ththththth
agenda meeting. So if they’re acted upon the week of the 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18, they could
potentially go to the Planning Board the second meeting, if they’re acted on.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the thing of it, if they’re not.
MR. BROWN-If they’re not, they’re just tabled.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there a real reality that it’s going to be acted on in December? Is that a
realistic probability?
MR. HAYES-I don’t know if we want to open the public hearing again, though, I mean, you’d just
be setting yourself for another three hour meeting.
MR. MC NALLY-Suppose they come in and they don’t have these elevations, they don’t have site
plan, they don’t have all this other stuff, and we say we want it?
MR. BROWN-That’s the thing. I mean, if you want to take a day and review the application and
say, these are the things I need, and then we hit them with it all at once, and if they can bring it all
in and submit it all at once, and you have sufficient material to act on it.
MR. HAYES-The LA Group, that’s, Martin works for those guys? So there’s a good chance that
if we ask for certain things, that we’ll probably get them before the meeting.
MR. BROWN-Well, hopefully.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-So we want to go with two meetings in the third week?
MR. BROWN-Or the second and third Wednesdays, instead of the third and fourth Wednesdays.
MR. MC NALLY-That would be different.
MR. THOMAS-So that would be the ninth.
strd
MR. BROWN-I just think the 1 or the 3 is kind of a short time to get all the information we want
and review it and be able to form.
MR. STONE-The ninth would be fine.
MR. STEC-No matter what we do, they’re not going to beat the frost.
MRS. LAPHAM-We’ll get the information before the ninth?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think we could put a request in to them on say Monday, next Monday, if
anybody comes up with any additional information, I’ll put it with what I want, and maybe by next
th
Monday, they’ll get the request, give them until, you know, a week, the 30, or maybe even the
nd
middle of the 2 of December to have the information in, and it could be distributed, and you could
have the meeting the next week, the ninth.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. STEC-I think that’s not a bad idea. Get any other business out of the way first, and then
advertise this one as an hour later or whatever, and then that way we don’t have a room full of
people sitting here watching us do a shed.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you know they’ll be in here at seven o’clock, because everybody’s used
to coming in at seven o’clock. So that’s what we’re going to do. We’ll have it the second and third
Wednesdays.
MR. STONE-The second and third Wednesdays, the ninth or the sixteenth.
MR. HAYES-If need be.
MR. THOMAS-If need be.
MR. HAYES-If we end up with two or three, we could just get those off beforehand and have one
meeting.
MR. THOMAS-Right, that’s if Mr. Scudder gets his drawings in by next Wednesday.
MR. HAYES-Well, I’m saying even if he does, you could have two more and still only have three.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-DeNooyer might take a while.
MR. MC NALLY-So we’re going to wait until next Wednesday, and then if no one shows up, and
if the calendar is still light, then we’ll just go with the one meeting, and if by next Wednesday the
calendar for December is heavy, we’ll have two meetings.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. HAYES-So now what we’re saying is that we’re definitely going to have one on the second
Wednesday and we may have one on the third Wednesday.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Or we’ll definitely have one on the third and we may have one on the second.
MR. STONE-We’ll definitely have one on the third and we may have one on the second.
MR. MC NALLY-Exactly, but we’ll wait and see.
MR. BROWN-Yes, next Wednesday’s the deadline.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’re settled on that?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think so.
MR. THOMAS-All right. The next thing we have to talk about, there was something else we had
st
to talk about. I know what it was. It seems that Mr. McNally’s term ends the 31 of December
1998, and we would hope that he would contact the Town Board and ask that they renew his
membership on the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Queensbury. That’s entirely up to
Mr. McNally if he would like to.
MR. MC NALLY-I would be happy to.
MR. THOMAS-Because the Town Board needs to have a resolution, and we’d be more than glad
to have you. I think Chris could take care of that, couldn’t he, to have a resolution made to extend,
or appoint Mr. McNally for another five year term?
MR. STONE-He’s never had a five year term.
MR. THOMAS-No, he hasn’t had, well, he’s finishing off somebody else’s five year term. Okay,
so Mr. Round will take care of that with the Town Board. Okay. The last thing on the agenda is
the minutes of the October 21, 1998 meeting.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/98)
October 21, 1998: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1998 AS PRINTED
, Introduced
by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
October 28, 1998: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1998 AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham
ABSENT: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have anything further for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll
make a motion we adjourn.
MR. STEC-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
62