1999-01-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
LEWIS STONE
DANIEL STEC
PAUL HAYES
MEMBERS ABSENT
BONNIE LAPHAM
ROBERT MC NALLY
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. THOMAS-And as I understand it, the second item on the agenda tonight, Garvey KIA, has
asked to have theirs taken off the agenda until next month?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Would you like their letter of request?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, just in case there’s anybody here for Garvey KIA? I guess not, so I guess I’ll
wait until we get to that part.
MR. BROWN-Yes, just read the letter at that time.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DAVID DUFRESNE OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ENCLOSED PORCH
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE
AND WETLAND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE TOWN BOARD APPROVED THE SEPTIC
VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM FLOOR
AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-67
CHARLIE SCUDDER & DAVID DUFRESNE, PRESENT
MR. BROWN-Did you want the application?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, do you want to read the tabling motion there?
MR. BROWN-Area Variance No. 81-1998, “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 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 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. Duly adopted this 18 day of
th
November, 1998”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1998, David Dufresne, Meeting Date: January 20, 1999
“Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed
a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition to an existing two story camp. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback relief as well as
relief from the floor area ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Applicant also
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
seeks relief for the 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 complete the proposed addition and occupy same. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the addition and no
construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of
setback relief may be interpreted as moderate, however, this proposal calls for expansion of a site on
which the current Floor Area Ratio is 33%, the proposal calls for a total Floor Area Ratio of 37%,
which may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this construction. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The proposed expansion may be interpreted as self-created, however, the
difficulty may be related to the pre-existing nonconforming nature of the parcel and buildings.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance;
Board of Health res. no.: 60,98 12/21/98 Staff comments: Minimal impacts on the
neighborhood and community, in relation to the relief from the area requirements, may be
anticipated. Relief for the addition of floor area to a site with a FAR already well in excess of the
requirements may have impacts in the form of additional requests for similar relief. SEQR: Type
II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Were you there at the Board meeting when they did the sewage disposal
variance?
MR. BROWN-No, but I have a copy of it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. My only question on that is, we don’t have to consider that right now. That’s
all taken care of.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-So it’s just a Floor Area Ratio and the setbacks.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Dufresne and Mr. Scudder, Charlie Scudder.
MR. SCUDDER-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to tell us about? We went through this last month,
about the setbacks and the Floor Area Ratio and stuff like that.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, as I recall, the matter was laid on the table pending action by the Town
Board of Health, with respect to a septic variance, and as you know, that has occurred, and we have
those. I guess there were three variances. I don’t know if you’re interested in the nature of the
improvement, but.
MR. THOMAS-I read the resolution.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. This very minute is the first I’ve heard about the Floor Area Ratio matter,
and I think the same is true with respect to Mr. Dufresne. So, I have no real comment on that.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Wasn’t one of those Floor Area Ratio worksheets done on this?
MR. BROWN-Yes, it was submitted by the applicant.
MR. THOMAS-That was submitted by the applicant?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-I can’t find mine.
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t recall that we discussed that in November.
MR. STONE-It wasn’t in the notes, I agree with you, in November.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it may not have been brought up at the time. At that time, the big concern was
the septic. The Section of the Ordinance was identified. It was something you can discuss tonight.
It’s not like it wasn’t advertised.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Are there any questions for the applicant?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-One question. Mr. Dufresne, how long have you owned this property?
MR. DUFRESNE-Two years.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed? Is there any new correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. BROWN-Yes, an additional letter from Leanne Brown, 8 Front Street, Schenectady, December
17, 1998. “Dear Dave: I was sorry to hear that you have had so many difficulties trying to improve
your property. As your immediate next door neighbor I want you to know that I have no objection
to your installing an underground filtration system four feet from our common property line. Please
let me know if you need any further written approval from me. Sincerely, Leanne Brown”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t think we had any negative correspondence.
MR. BROWN-No, I don’t believe so.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start
with Lew.
MR. STONE-I have a great deal of difficulty with this. I know that people want to improve their
properties, but I also know that we have a Waterfront Zoning law which is fairly restrictive. That’s
one of the reasons why I asked you when you bought your property. The law is over two years old
now. So anybody who buys a piece of property should go in there with their eyes open, being aware
of the requirements of that particular piece of property. It’s a very difficult lot. I recognize that.
Having looked at it, I mean, it’s crowded, the crazy shapes, people that come together with angles.
It’s not quite pie shaped, but there’s going to be a point out there in the lake where the all meet or
something, it seems. You’re asking for relief that is 16 feet of shoreline relief from 50 feet. That’s a
great deal of relief. Fifty feet, to me, is the minimum that I would like to see any structure close to
Lake George, and 34 feet, therefore, gets into my negative zone. Obviously, the applicant, Mr.
Dufresne, will benefit from this thing by being able to do what he wants, but I think the detriment to
the community, in my regard, is that we are increasing a very crowded area. We’re making it even
less beautiful, if I want to put it that way. I just am very concerned that every time we think about
granting relief for lots that are going to crowd the lake front neighborhood, I think we have to be
concerned. I know that neighbors, I know that your neighbors have had no complaints, but we have
to think of the long term effects of property, because when we grant a variance, it goes on and on
and on. It has nothing to do with the owner. It goes with the property, and it’s easy to say, if you’re
a neighbor, well, it’s not going to bother me but someone else may want to buy it, and they may
dissuaded from buying it because, well, this is not a good place to be. So, I want to listen to my
other Board members, but I’m inclined to say no on this particular one.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I have to agree with Lew, as far as the dimensional relief from the front setback
from the lake. I think that, you know, 50 feet is a very fair length that you could be away from the
lake, and to go even closer than that is definitely troublesome, and I’m a little bit concerned about
the precedent, as far as the Floor Area Ratio. It’s in the Code, and you’re starting out above that and
then attempting to go even further beyond that, and we’ve entertained applications here where
people were below the Floor Area and went slightly above it, and we considered all the factors, but I
think when you’re talking about starting above it and going above it further, I think we have to really
look at the precedent that we’d be setting, as far as the Board, and to other potential applicants, and I
guess the thing that would keep me open to my colleagues on the Board is there has been no
negative comments by the neighbors, and that’s certainly a good sign, and that leaves the door open,
as far as I’m concerned, because they’re the most immediately impacted, obviously, by the
application. So I guess I’ll continue to listen, particularly considering there’s four of us here tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with Jaime. I think he hit the nail on the head. The one positive factor that I’ve
seen for this request is the fact that there have been no complaints about the proposal from the
neighbors. However, I think Lew brings up a good point when he says that it doesn’t go with the
owners. It travels with the property. So this will become attached to the property for decades, and I
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
do feel that the 16 feet of setback is a great deal, as well as setting a precedent with the Floor Area
Ratio, especially, again, from the get go, starting out a whole 50% above the 22%. It’s already, and
it’s not even just a little bit over. It’s a lot over. To go further above that really just flies in the face
of the Code. So, I’m not inclined either, but I’ll keep my ears open to my other Board members.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, this is a hard one, on the old balancing act that we have to go through here.
The benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
and the five criteria we have to consider, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means. I
don’t know about that one. An undesirable change in the neighborhood, well, according to the
neighbors, not really, because no one has ever said they don’t want it. Whether the request is
substantial. Well, it is substantial because the Floor Area Ratio is starting out way above the 22%.
As far as the setback, I think the deck was pre-existing the Zoning Ordinance, because that camp has
been there for a while. So, as far as the setback, it’s actually just building on the existing setback.
Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect. Really the only physical
or environmental effect was the sewage question, and that was taken care of by the Board of Health.
If the difficulty is self created. I believe the difficulty was self created, but, you know, Mr. Dufresne
has supporting evidence of a health problem, and, you know, an allergic reaction to bug bites and
stings, and there’s an affidavit from one of his doctors. So, Mr. Dufresne really does need to have
that screened in porch, you know, just for his enjoyment of the lake area, and there again, we go
back to the balancing act of benefit to the applicant and the health, safety and welfare of the
community, and the one big thing that we always stick to is what the neighbors think and what they
say in their comments. Like I said before, there has been no negative comments from any of the
neighbors, and I do believe you said, Mr. Dufresne, you’re going to try to get more land? Is there
more land you’re trying to acquire?
MR. DUFRESNE-There’s land behind it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. DUFRESNE-But I don’t know what he’s doing. I’ve talked to him about it. That was to put
the septic in, but then we were able to infiltrate with the Board of Health.
MR. THOMAS-Are you still trying to acquire that land back there?
MR. DUFRESNE-That land, if I could buy it, I would buy it, but I don’t know if he’s going to sell it
now. As I said, I had to put the infiltration system with the Board of Health, that Charlie, we
brought up and we did that, to get the setback and everything that we needed.
MR. THOMAS-Because if you would acquire more land, that would cut down on that Floor Area
Ratio.
MR. DUFRESNE-Again, I called the fellow that owns it, and I have not heard back from him. He
was going to have it appraised.
MR. THOMAS-Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? There’s only four of us
here, and there’s supposed to be a full Board of seven. You can hold off on the vote on that until
we can get a full Board here, because I don’t know how this is going to go, and you need four to
approve and you also need four to deny.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s got to be a majority of the members.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Dufresne wonders, and I wonder, what would be the remedy for the situation
as it exists now, if you deny the application?
MR. THOMAS-If we deny the application, you’d have to remove anything that was added. You’d
have to remove the enclosure on the porch.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. As I sit here and listen, if I could say with respect, this is the first I’ve heard
about the Floor Area Ratio question. I have to admit that I’m not familiar with all the local statutes.
I’d also mention that I don’t recall that this was discussed in the November meeting at all. This
matter was laid on the table so that we could resolve the question of the septic system.
MR. STONE-It’s not in the notes.
MR. THOMAS-No, because the applicant did give us, in fact, he faxed us a Floor Area Ratio
worksheet. There’s a phone number on there. There’s no date that’s stamped on there, but it’s Page
Two.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. SCUDDER-Well, did we prepare that worksheet?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think so, Mr. Dufresne.
MR. STONE-Dufresne, F.H., Incorporated.
MR. THOMAS-It’s on there with a telephone number that ends in 1366.
MR. DUFRESNE-That was the one that I filled out.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s before my time, so to speak.
MR. THOMAS-So we’re down to the question, you know, do you want us to table it for another
month until we can get a full Board, or see what happens here?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I can see what’s going to happen here. Mr. Stone has laid out his point of
view and seems to have support on the Board. So, it seems to me we might just as well lay it on the
table for a month, if that’s acceptable.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, because you’re entitled to have a full Board vote on this.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s my point. In the meantime, all I can say is I wasn’t aware of this. I felt we
were looking for setback variances.
MR. BROWN-The date of the fax is November 3. So it was included as part of the original
rd
application, and the actual percentages might not have been identified, the 33 and the 37, but the
hard numbers in the worksheet were part of the original application.
MR. STONE-But it wasn’t in your notes for the original meeting.
MR. BROWN-It may not have been identified in the notes, right, but the worksheet was part of the
application.
MR. SCUDDER-But I want to say again, with respect, it’s my recollection that this matter was laid
on the table in November, pending a decision on the septic system by the Town Board of Health.
MR. THOMAS-That was one of the, yes, we had to get over that hurdle.
MR. SCUDDER-Wasn’t that the principle?
MR. THOMAS-We had to get over that first before we could go any farther.
MR. STONE-I’d like to tell you from my records, I wrote on my sheet, tabled for new septic info.
I’m still not sure I want to grant variance for construction. So I felt that way back in November. So,
I mean, it was a note to myself.
MR. SCUDDER-Right. You’ll concede there was no discussion of this?
MR. STONE-There was no discussion about Floor Area. I agree.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. So I just want to make the point that we went ahead in good faith and I
spent quite a bit of Mr. Dufresne’s money designing a new wastewater system, which, admittedly, he
needs anyway, but with the express purpose of complying with the Board’s requirement, preceding
disposition of this matter.
MR. THOMAS-I think the only thing we asked for is for information relative to the existing septic
system, that the Board needs to know the exact configuration of this system, including the size. We
didn’t ask you to come up with a new one. We just wanted to know what was there.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, what was there, in my professional judgment, was not adequate, and it
needed to be improved, and out of that investigation, we decided, and Mr. Dufresne decided, to go
ahead and make the improvement. It’s a common sense decision anyway.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s like you said, it had to be done anyway.
MR. SCUDDER-It had to be done, and is going to be done.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-But as far as the Floor Area Ratio, that was, you know, this was part of the
application right here.
MR. SCUDDER-Speaking for myself, I don’t remember seeing that paper, and I certainly didn’t
know about the local zoning requirement with respect to Floor Areas.
MR. STONE-It’s 22%.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, well, I know it now, but this is the first I’ve heard about it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-I just would also comment, if you’ve been up to see the lot, and I guess you have,
has everybody been up to see the lot?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Then you know what the configuration of the adjacent lots are, configurations are.
Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, plain and simple, you want us to delay this for another month, until we
have a full Board?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I don’t see that we have very much to lose.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-I feel in my heart and soul that if we take a vote now, we’re going to lose.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re not going to lose. You may not win. As the Chairman said, you have to
have four yes votes or four no votes. So you won’t get four yes votes out of this thing, but it’s not,
unless all four of us vote it down. I don’t know where we stand. I didn’t hear, necessarily, all four
of us would vote it down.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, let me confer with my client for 30 seconds.
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. STEC-I’m looking at the minutes, I don’t see where we discussed the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. STONE-No. It wasn’t in the Staff Notes. I do have a question mark on the.
MR. HAYES-It is a possibility, though, that based on the fact that we got hung up on the sewer that
we.
MR. THOMAS-We never got past it.
MR. STONE-Never really got past it.
MR. THOMAS-That was the big thing right there was the sewer. We couldn’t get past that.
MR. STEC-And also reading the minutes, I agree with our interpretation that, it doesn’t read to me
that we were saying, yes, we’ve got no problem with this as long as the septic. Your recollection, I
think, is reflected in the minutes, that we were seeking more information about that problem.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s right.
MR. STEC-But I don’t read it that we said no problem.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-I hope you’re not construing my remarks to mean that I’m saying that you said that
if we take care of the septic system problem we’re home free.
MR. STONE-We’re just clarify that we didn’t think that way.
MR. SCUDDER-It’s just that I didn’t know what you were thinking.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-Well, we hadn’t gotten to this point where you heard our thinking because of the
septic situation. That’s why you never got to hear us.
MR. SCUDDER-Right.
MR. STONE-What we just did.
MR. THOMAS-There’s the Staff Notes from last month.
MR. STONE-That’s the expansion. That’s 50% though, isn’t it?
MR. THOMAS-And relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of SR-1 Acre zone.
MR. STONE-It is there. I missed it.
MR. THOMAS-But we didn’t get past the septic compliance. It was there from last month.
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t have it. I didn’t see it.
MR. STONE-Well, it was read into the record.
MR. THOMAS-It was read into the record on the 18 of November, no in December.
th
MR. STONE-The 18 of November.
th
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s what they’re dated, but we didn’t.
MR. STONE-No, that’s the meeting date.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s the meeting date, but this wasn’t done until, this was held over.
MR. STONE-This was read in when we heard the application.
MR. THOMAS-I think the application was.
MR. STONE-Tabled before we read the record?
MR. THOMAS-There wasn’t anybody here for the November meeting to present this application.
So I think we carried it over into December.
MR. STEC-No, that was DeNooyer.
MR. STONE-That was DeNoonyer. That wasn’t this one. No, it was presented, and it was read
into the record.
MR. STEC-I’m looking at the minutes from the 18, and it says relief required, applicant requests
th
4.98 feet of side setback and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback, as well as septic compliance relief from
Paragraph G. and relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirement. So it was read in.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think we identified the percentages, but I think, you know, it was touched on,
and it never got to how much relief was required.
MR. THOMAS-We never got that far. Okay. That takes care of that.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, if it’s all right with the Board, we’d petition to the Board to table
the matter until next month when you have a full Board.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see. I’ll make a motion to table this application until no later than the
February meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. BROWN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Are we going to be missing some members in February?
MR. THOMAS-Well, just Lew. Lew’s not going to be here, but.
MR. STONE-I’m not going to be here.
MR. THOMAS-We’ll stretch it out until March.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-Well, that might give you a chance to have a new members. Then you’ll have a full
seven.
MR. THOMAS-A full seven. Hopefully, everybody will be here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll stretch it out to March, two months. Because Lew isn’t going to be
here next month, and one member has quit, and we haven’t got a replacement yet.
MR. SCUDDER-Which member has quit?
MR. STONE-Brian Custer. He resigned, because of pressing business.
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 March meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant is asking for
this tabling until a full Board can hear the application.
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. THOMAS-I hope we can do better in March. All right. Next on the agenda was Garvey KIA,
and that has been tabled until, the applicant has asked to be heard in February.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1998 TYPE II HC-1A GARVEY KIA OWNER: GARVEY
VOLKSWAGEN, INC. 714 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DRIVEWAY AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM
THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS. CROSS
REF. SPR 54-98 REZONING: TOWN BOARD (APPROVED) WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.30 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES SECTION
179-66
MR. BROWN-Do you want to read their tabling request?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. That letter there.
MR. BROWN-A letter from Sean Garvey, January 20, 1999, Chris Round, Town of Queensbury,
742 Bay Road, regarding Area Variance No. 73-1998 “Dear Chris: Would you please consider this
letter a formal request for tabling both of the above referenced applications. Laura Moore of
Community Development feels that there are additional issues and corrections that I should address
on my applications to make them complete. Thank you. Sincerely, Sean Garvey”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, we don’t need a tabling motion on that. We’ll just let it ride, like nobody
showed up. All right.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA AUSTIN MC CARROLL
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 25 SULLIVAN ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 810 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 38-1-8, 15
LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES, 0.41 ACRES SECTION 179-16
AUSTIN MC CARROLL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-1999, Austin McCarroll, Meeting Date: January 20, 1999
“Project Location: 25 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an 810 square foot garage and seeks relief from the height requirements of the WR-
1A zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot height
requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. The proposed structure is 25 feet 6 inches tall. 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 desired garage. 2. Feasible
alternatives: A feasible alternative may be to downsize the height of the proposed garage. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Nine and a half feet of relief from the sixteen
foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is
this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-728 810 sf free standing garage - pending. Staff
comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The location
of the proposed structure allows for minimal visual impacts on the neighbors and community.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McCarroll.
MR. MC CARROLL-Good evening.
MR. STONE-The record said Glen Lake, New York, the application. There is no such place. There
is a Glen Lake, and it’s in New York, but it is Queensbury. That’s in the application. It’s just that,
for the purposes of the record, we ought to note that.
MR. BROWN-Okay, Description of Project.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McCarroll, is there anything else you’d like to tell us about?
MR. MC CARROLL-Yes. What I did is I have almost an acre of land up there, and I have a log
cabin, and with the log cabin not having a basement or any storage area, I wanted to build a garage
to put my boat. I don’t know if any of you went up there to look at the site, you’d probably see my
boat covered with 14 inches of ice right now. It’s outside. I brought pictures, if you didn’t see the
site, where my daughter-in-law took it, one of those wide angle views, you can see what it would
look to the left of the garage, to the right of the garage, etc., in the back of the garage. There’s
nobody back there for two or three miles. So I don’t think I would block anybody’s view, and
there’s no one on the left of me, well, it depends on what way you’re facing, and looking forward, I
cannot see the lake myself. So I’m not blocking anybody’s view. What I see in front of me is two
garages, also. So, it’s called lake front property, but really I don’t have, I think I’m about a quarter of
a mile from the lake. So I’d like to build a garage that I can use to put my boat in, and the car, and
to have storage for my wife who’s always complaining that she can’t store things. So, would you like
to see the pictures?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, please.
MR. STONE-Yes. Do you also show the ice all over the road about this thick?
MR. MC CARROLL-This was before the storm, about two weeks ago.
MR. BROWN-Just for the Board’s information, the applicant has combined the two parcels from the
original application.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask that question, have they been consolidated.
MR. BROWN-Yes. They’ve been consolidated at the County. The new parcel is approximately an
acre in size.
MR. MC CARROLL-Also I see the purpose of this regulation is to prevent someone from building a
structure on the waterfront that blocks somebody’s view, but I don’t think I would block anybody’s
view here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. McCarroll?
MR. STONE-Well, you mentioned storage space. That’s going to be upstairs storage space?
MR. MC CARROLL-Yes.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-That’s why you want it as high as you do, plus the fact that it’s a pretty steep pitch.
MR. MC CARROLL-Well, I like the steep pitch. If you look on the front porch of that log cabin,
there’s no pitch, and if you go up there now, you’ll see water on the front porch, and ice builds up
and forms. I was thinking of putting a metal roof on it to slide it off, but people say they make too
much noise. So, I would like a pitch so that when I’m down in Schenectady I won’t have to worry
about the roof caving in like one just did down in Rotterdam.
MR. STONE-Yes. I notice your neighbor Mr. Needemeyer has a, it looks to be a 16 foot garage
down Sullivan Road, with adequate pitch, the snow on it looked like it wasn’t causing any problems.
I’m just wondering why you need this much relief. That’s all. I agree with you that, from a visual
standpoint, from the back of the lot, I have no problems whatsoever. I only want to be sure that we
need, that you need that much relief when I do see garages, fairly brand new almost, Needemeyers’
looks to be very new.
MR. MC CARROLL-I see Bob taking his snow roof and pulling his off. He lives there, and I
mostly come up on weekends and stuff like that.
MR. STONE-Do you use it all winter?
MR. MC CARROLL-I use it on weekends, yes.
MR. STONE-Weekends, that’s what I mean, yes.
MR. MC CARROLL-Yes.
MR. STONE-How many trees are going to have to go?
MR. MC CARROLL-None now. I already, I took a couple down. Some came down with the ice
last year, and so I think I’m all set there, if you can see from the picture.
MR. STONE-Okay. The upstairs is just going to be plain storage? No running water?
MR. MC CARROLL-No water up there. I hope, maybe later, to put water to the garage area and
electricity, because I want to have a garage door that opens up automatically. When I get a little
older, I can pull up and push my button and then have the door open and I drive in, and the water to
wash cars and stuff.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have anymore questions? No? All right. I’ll open the public
hearing. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s a response from Nancy and Walt Quilinan, dated 1/15/99. What they did
is they returned their public hearing notice, and on the bottom they stated, “We have no objection to
this variance”, and they both signed, Nancy and Walt Quilinan.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s it?
MR. BROWN-That’s it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? It seems to be pretty cut and dried
here. You talked about instead of putting a shingle roof on, putting a metal roof on, but you said it
makes too much noise?
MR. MC CARROLL-If you see in the picture right next to where the garage is going to be is my
bedroom. So some people say they make a lot of noise.
MR. STONE-When it rains, you mean?
MR. MC CARROLL-Yes. So that, I don’t know which way to go on that, and the price is also a lot
more expensive someone told me.
MR. THOMAS-Do you think that a 12 on 12 pitch is really needed up in this country?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. MC CARROLL-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Because if you look at most of the houses around here, I don’t, you know, most of
the roof pitches are 4 on 12 and 5 on 12, and they seem to suffice.
MR. MC CARROLL-My son-in-law is an architect, and I had 10 on 12, and he said, no way, make it
12 on 12, do it right the first time, and he talked me in to it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. We’ll talk about
it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, this is an Area Variance, and that’s the balancing test between the benefit to the
applicant and the detriment to the neighborhood or community, and in this particular case, even
though the relief is pretty substantial, on think on balance the test falls in favor. On balance, I don’t
have a problem with this application. The benefit to the applicant is pretty clear. He has boats and
other things that are perfectly legitimate, and he has a storage problem with those. Considering the
applicant’s age, consideration to not having to get up on his roof and clear ice, and these things, I
think they’re very legitimate, and from a visualization standpoint, it’s a circumstance, to me, where it
really isn’t impacting anybody, in a negative way. I think this is a good rule to have these height
requirements for the very reason that you pointed out, to protect people from losing their view of
the lake, but that’s not what’s happening here. So I just don’t see any detriment to the
neighborhood. I don’t hear any negative feedback from the neighbors. So I can live with this. I’m
fine.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I have no problems with this application. The 12 on 12, that may be overkill, but, again,
the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any negatives that a 12 on 12 pitch would possibly ever
cause, and again, given its location, it impacts none of the neighbors. So it’s all pluses and no
minuses. I have no problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-With the exception of what Dan said about the pitch, I think it’s great to be, to make
sure the snow rolls off the way you’d like, but considering that there is nobody behind you, and
there’s not going to be anybody behind you, and if it weren’t Waterfront property you would be
perfectly legal to have it that high, I have no problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with the other Board members, for every reason they’ve said. We
won’t block anybody’s view, and the applicant isn’t a full time resident. So he really doesn’t know
what’s going to happen up there. It’s not like he can watch it every day and either shovel it off
himself or have somebody shovel it off, especially with the winter we’re having now, with all the ice
and everything, and it’s not over by a long shot, and as Dan said, in the balancing act, and also Jaime
said in the balancing act, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion.
MR. STONE-One question. Who does own the land behind you?
MR. MC CARROLL-I think it’s forever wild.
MR. STONE-Is it? That’s even better.
MR. MC CARROLL-I think the Sullivans made it forever wild.
MR. STONE-Do you know that, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I do not know.
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a good bet, considering it’s Sullivan Drive, Sullivan Place, Sullivan Road.
MR. MC CARROLL-Who is Sullivan?
MR. STONE-Well, there’s a Sullivan on the road, on Glen Lake Road, I know.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1999 AUSTIN MC CARROLL,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
25 Sullivan Road. The applicant proposes construction of an 810 square foot garage and seeks relief
from the height requirements of the WR-1A zone. Specifically, the applicant requests 9.5 feet of
relief from the 16 foot height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The proposed
structure is 25 feet 6 inches tall. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could construct the
garage as he desires. The feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives would be to change the pitch
of the roof, but the applicant has expressed a desire to maintain a 12 on 12 pitch for seasonal
reasons and weather reasons. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe the relief
is substantial. Nine feet of relief from a 16 foot requirement is substantial, but I believe, on balance
that the impact on the neighborhood is extremely minor, if any, and that the benefit to the applicant,
having a clear roof, not suffering weather problems, and his desire to obtain storage area, outweigh
any possible negatives. I would like to condition the variance on the fact that there is no living
quarters place in the second floor of the large garage. Other than that, I move that we move for its
approval.
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. MC CARROLL-I can store stuff up there?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Yes, just no habitation.
MR. THOMAS-No habitation.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. MC CARROLL-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1999 TYPE II LI-1A HAROLD HERMANCE, JR. OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 9 EAST DRIVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN
ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LI-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 93-3-10, 11 LOT SIZE: 0.10
ACRES, 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-26
HAROLD HERMANCE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1999, Harold Hermance, Meeting Date: January 20, 1999
“Project Location: 9 East Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an
enclosed porch addition to a single family residence and is requesting relief from the setback
requirements of the LI-1A zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8 feet of relief from the 50
foot front setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, §179-26. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to maintain and utilize the existing porch addition. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the front of the residence is currently at the 50 foot
setback. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 8 feet of relief from the 50 foot
requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty
self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, any addition to the front of
the current structure would require relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): BP 98-549 Porch addition – pending Staff comments: Minimal impacts are anticipated as a
result of this action. The residential character of the neighborhood should not be adversely affected
by this proposal. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Hermance, is there anything else you want to tell us about this
project?
MR. HERMANCE-It’s a screened in porch, that’s about it.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Craig, under the re-zoning that’s supposedly going to come through here
pretty soon, is that LI-1 changing, in that area?
MR. BROWN-In that area, I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-Because it seems to me that should be, you know, outside the trailer park there
should be definitely not Light Industrial One Acre.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. THOMAS-So, does anybody have any questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Well, just a comment about his application. You wouldn’t benefit by granting this
variance because you’ve already got the porch? Is that why you wrote down none?
MR. HERMANCE-Well, I just didn’t understand it.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s really the question I was going to ask.
MR. HAYES-I was going to ask how he got the pool in the front yard there.
MR. BROWN-That’s a good question.
MR. STONE-Well, isn’t that an enforcement issue? It’s not supposed to be in a front yard.
MR. BROWN-I know it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. HERMANCE-I tried to build an in-ground pool, and they said I can’t have an in-ground pool
because I don’t have a back yard.
MR. STONE-No, you don’t have a side yard.
MR. HERMANCE-Well, they said I don’t have a back yard. So, what am I supposed to do?
MR. THOMAS-No, he has two side yards, two fronts.
MR. STONE-Two fronts and two sides, right.
MR. BROWN-Two fronts and two rears.
MR. STONE-Two rears. I thought it’s two rears. No side.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s right, two.
MR. STONE-So you have two rear lots, actually, but there’s nothing there but space. That’s an
enforcement issue.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. That doesn’t have anything to do with us.
MR. STONE-But the house did sit on two lots, across the, but you’ve combined them now for one?
MR. HERMANCE-That house sits on one lot.
MR. THOMAS-But I mean, it’s two tax parcels that have been combined into one.
MR. HERMANCE-Right.
MR. BROWN-I’ve got the County form right here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there 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
MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any further questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Just a question. Did you know that you needed a variance before you built?
MR. HERMANCE-No, I didn’t, only because I had a deck on there for two years, and nobody said
anything about it. So what I did was, the deck was rotted and falling apart, so I just took the deck
off and built the porch. So I didn’t know.
MR. STONE-It came to your attention, Craig, you saw it?
MR. BROWN-Yes. One of the Building Inspectors happened to notice the construction in the
process and stopped to see if there was even a building permit for it, which there wasn’t, and it was
identified that not only was it a replacement, but it was an expansion. It grew a little bit.
MR. HERMANCE-By four feet.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-When did the Building Inspector see it?
MR. BROWN-I think it was in September some time.
MR. STONE-Was it complete then?
MR. BROWN-I think it was probably pretty much complete at that point.
MR. HERMANCE-About three quarters.
MR. STONE-So, did you continue even after, was he notified?
MR. BROWN-Yes, he was notified.
MR. STONE-And the work continued without a building permit?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HERMANCE-Well, the only thing I had to do was put the siding on.
MR. STONE-But the work continued without a building permit, when you were notified you needed
one?
MR. HERMANCE-Right. Well, I came up and get a permit. He said I needed a permit.
MR. STONE-Well, you couldn’t get a permit until we granted a variance.
MR. HERMANCE-Well, I came up and I applied for one, but I continued. The only thing I had to
do was put the vinyl siding on the front.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions? If not, we’ll talk about it. We’ll start down there
with Dan.
MR. STEC-I think the notes are pretty much on point. The eight feet relief request from the fifty
foot, I think, is minimum. The benefit to the applicant, at this stage of the game, he would have to
tear down the porch that he just built, but he would have the use of his porch on his lot. It’s a good
sized lot. The feasible alternatives, again, at this point, I don’t think it’s feasible to tear down a
porch that he’s built, but really the width of this porch is eight feet. So, as far as building any porch,
I don’t think he could make a porch much smaller than eight foot wide. Again, we’d be splitting
hairs if we said, well, lets have a six foot porch, and I don’t think that eight feet is substantial. That’s
not to say that I condone, well, if I build it fast enough, no one will ever make me rip it down, but I
think in this case, the requested relief is so minimal, that I’m willing to overlook the problems that
are posed by having continued building the structure after he found out that he needed a building
permit. Is the difficulty self created? I think it is a little bit, in that you don’t have to have a porch,
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
but certainly people are entitled to have porches, and I don’t think that there’s really any other
feasible alternatives. So I don’t have a problem with granting this variance.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-If you had come to us with a conforming house on the property and asked for eight
foot of relief, there’s no doubt in my mind, looking at the neighborhood, looking at the lot, that I
would have said, absolutely. I am increasingly troubled, however, by things constructed without
permits, without variances. Yours is the second one we’ve had on tonight’s thing. We didn’t talk
that much about the first one, but the first case was the same thing. I am even more troubled when
I learn, as I did asking the question, that you were put on notice that you needed a building permit,
and that when you didn’t get one, because you were told you needed a variance, you basically
completed the work, with the exception, as you said, of the vinyl siding. This gives me a great deal
of trouble. In good conscience, I think I have to say that because of that, I would say no, and I
would suggest that since I am not going to be here next month, but you will hopefully have two
more people, that you consider, from my point of view, tabling it, but of course I’m probably going
to vote no, which doesn’t mean you’re not going to get the variance, but you’re going to have to
come back anyway to get it. So, I guess that’s where I’m standing. I’m just upset by the fact that it’s
been going on now for, I’ve been on the Board for getting close to three years, and we’ve seen too
many of these things, not that I want to make an example of you sir, but this is one where you were
put on notice at some point during the construction, and continued, and that makes it doubly
troublesome.
MR. HERMANCE-The only reason, you’re talking a few pieces of vinyl siding. Now, if I hadn’t
put that on.
MR. STONE-But that’s not what I heard. I heard that you were told somewhere in the process of
the actual construction, not the siding, that you needed a building permit, and did not get it because
they couldn’t grant you one because you needed a variance, and you were told this, and yet you
continued the construction, not the beautification, if you will.
MR. HERMANCE-Well, the vinyl siding is about the only thing that was left to put on.
MR. STONE-That’s not what I heard.
MR. HERMANCE-If I hadn’t put it on, the wood would have gotten wet and warped, and I would
have had to take it all back off and put all new back on again.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s how I feel at the moment.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Dan. I think the relief is pretty minimal. I think in this particular
circumstance, as the Chairman has pointed out, that the property is zoned inappropriately anyway,
and that that’s really what’s even bringing this into the (lost word) of such an advanced setback, and
I guess my biggest thing would be the reasonableness of somebody having the charge of knowing
whether you should need a variance or not, and of course you always should, I mean, you’re charged
with that, but in this particular circumstance, I’m not sure that a reasonable person wouldn’t assume
that that was far enough away from that road, outside of this surprise classification of zoning. I
really think, when you tell me you didn’t know, I really find that totally believable in this
circumstance, whereas, you know, Mr. Stone’s concerns, I think that there’s a lot more obvious cases
where people really should have known they needed a variance and they might have known more
that they needed a variance, and that would give me a lot more concern about having had pre-built
it before asking for a variance. So, to be, the 50 foot setback and only eight feet of relief, I don’t
have a problem with it, and I find it believable that you didn’t know. So, I don’t have a problem
with the variance in this circumstance.
MR. STONE-Just a question, Mr. Chairman. In any residential zone, we’re talking 30 feet, right,
correct, basically?
MR. BROWN-Yes, for a front setback.
MR. STONE-Okay. I will change my thought. If you’re well within the 30 feet, and if it’s, as Jaime
points out, I’m not as concerned. I’m concerned by the thing, but I would not let that stand in the
way of voting yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with Dan and Jaime about this. In fact, I wrote myself a note. If in a
residential zone, no variance would be required, okay, because it is a 30 foot setback, in a residential
zone, this is 42 feet, and I can also see where a mistake would be made, if someone was replacing an
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
existing porch and, you know, making it a little bigger and then enclosing it, why would I need a
variance for that, but on the other hand, you should know you need a building permit in the Town
of Queensbury, really, to do anything, but in this case here, I have no problem with the porch the
way it looks, where it sits, and with the setback. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1999 HAROLD HERMANCE, JR.,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
9 East Drive. The applicant proposes and has constructed an enclosed porch addition to his single
family residence and has requested relief from the front setback requirement of the Light Industrial
1A zone. The relief required, requested eight feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback
requirement of the Light Industrial One Acre zone, Section 179-26. The benefit to the applicant
would be he would be permitted to maintain and utilize the existing porch addition. Feasible
alternatives are limited because the construction is in fact complete. However, the relief is minimal,
because eight feet on a fifty foot requirement, as we noted, if this was zoned residential, which it
likely will be and probably should be, he wouldn’t even need a variance. So the relief is extremely
minimal. There have been no negative comments from the community, and we anticipate minimal
effects on the neighborhood. The difficulty is, however, self created, in that he should have known,
and he should have stopped the construction, probably a little more promptly after being informed
of the requirement for the variance, but that’s the only difficulty, and again, I don’t see a very
significant difficulty. With that, I move that we approve the variance.
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. HERMANCE-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Next on the agenda is Area Variance No. 4-1999 Jim Varano.
MARK SPRINGER
MR. SPRINGER-Could I ask that we be the last item for the evening? He had to go pick up his
children at swimming or something, give him a chance to get back.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We can jump over to the last one there, and push him to the last.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1999 TYPE II SR-1A RAY’S AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND
SERVICE, INC. OWNER: JOSEPH B. RAY 15 PASCO AVENUE APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SAME.
TAX MAP NO. 121-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 7.12 ACRES SECTION 179-20
JOE RAY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-1999, Ray’s Automotive Sales and Service, Inc., Meeting
Date: January 20, 1999 “Project Location: 15 Pasco Ave. Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a building in violation of the setback requirement of the SR-1A zone and
seeks relief from the same. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 10 foot
minimum side setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, §179-19. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to maintain existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives
may include acquisition of additional land, however, this approach, according to the applicant, has
been attempted without success. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Four
feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of
this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-465 – 8/31/95 construction of a
1380 sf commercial building Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be interpreted as
a result of this relief request. Applicant constructed the building during the fall of 1995. When the
final survey was prepared, as part of the building permit process, the setback violation was identified
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
on 12/5/95. Since that time, the applicant has attempted to acquire additional lands to no avail.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Ray, is there anything else you want to tell us about, talk about, tell us
what happened in ’95 when the building was put up?
MR. RAY-Well, when we put this building up, we didn’t realize we were that close to the line. We
realized that we had a lot of land on the other side to put it over there, but it was already up, and
then it was too close. We tried to buy some from Pete Mosher, and he just did not want to sell us
the four feet of land.
MR. THOMAS-And you’ve been trying since 1995?
MR. RAY-All he kept saying (lost words) the building that he was going to put up. He prolonged,
and then we just decided to go this way.
MR. THOMAS-Did you build the building yourself, or did you have it built by a contractor?
MR. RAY-No, I had it built. We pretty much built it between friends and all of us.
MR. THOMAS-Was the property line staked out, when the building was started?
MR. RAY-Well, no.
MRS. RAY
MRS. RAY-We had the property appraised years ago. We went through every step that we were told
to by the Town of Queensbury, to hiring Harry Williams to design the building, to the septic, to
everything, and we did not know that it was too close on one corner, and we did have it re-surveyed
and that was like, uh-oh.
MR. RAY-I thought it came straight (lost words).
MR. STONE-The property of your neighbor, the one you were trying to buy from, did he always put
his, how can I say this, his collectibles as close to the property line as they are?
MRS. RAY-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s not how he described it when I wrote down here, but that’s.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about. Back to Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, obviously I’m concerned that such a thing can happen. We do have surveyors.
We do stake out things, and I understand that it can happen, and I gather you’re telling us you have
been diligent over the past two and a half, three years in attempting to buy this four feet. Actually, I
am more concerned when I look at the properties with his property, than I am with yours, in terms
of what it looks like. My word “collectible” was a nice word. One wonders why you had to be as
close to the line when you say you have so much room on the other side, the driveway is obviously
could be almost anywhere on the property, but having said that, I just don’t think, when you
consider the benefit to you, versus the Town and the neighborhood, that there’s any real problem.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, again, as we’ve pointed out, this is a balancing test, and four feet of relief, it
doesn’t take a lot for me to get over that. It’s not a lot of relief. It’s actually a very small amount,
and I know we speak often of surveys and staking and doing all of these things, and they are
important, but we’re still a community of limited means for not everyone, and you built this place. I
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
believe it was an honest mistake, and I don’t think it in any way is really a detriment to the
neighborhood. Your neighbors aren’t here to complain. If they were, they wouldn’t have, as Lew
has said, they really wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. So, I don’t have any problem with the
application. I’m for it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I don’t have any problem with the application either. Four feet is minimal, and again, I
believe it was an honest error, an avoidable error, but I still don’t think four feet is a big deal.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. If this had happened within the last four months, I would definitely turn it
down because we have checks now in place to prevent things like this, with the change in the
building code, but back when this building was put up in 1995, I could see where an error could be
made, and just like everybody else has said, it’s an honest mistake, and Mr. Ray has been trying to
buy property to bring the building into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, but with no luck
from the neighbor. So it’s an honest mistake. There’s no neighborhood opposition to it, and like the
other members have said, the balancing act is in favor of the applicant. So I would have no problem
with this application. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1999 RAY’S AUTOMOTIVE PARTS,
SALES AND SERVICE, INC. Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Daniel Stec:
15 Pasco Avenue, Queensbury. The applicant has constructed a building in violation of the setback
requirements of the SR-1A zone and seeks relief from the same. By mistake, the applicant placed
the building four feet too close to the side property line. It should be 10 feet. It actually is six feet, at
one corner of the building, obviously going toward greater compliance as you go to the back of the
building. Therefore, the applicant requests four feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side
setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. In granting this variance, the Board
considers the benefit to the applicant, in that he would be permitted to maintain the existing
structure, recognizing that there are feasible alternatives, however, like buying approximately four
feet of the neighbor’s land, a purchase that has been attempted over the past three years by Mr. Ray,
with no success whatsoever. Obviously, there is another alternative. The building could be moved
but that really can’t be considered feasible. The four feet of relief from the ten foot requirement is
moderate, but when the whole neighborhood is considered, it is really almost minimal, and we
believe that there will be minimal effects on the neighborhood as a result of this particular action,
and while we know this difficulty is self-created, we believe it was an honest mistake, and not
something that was deliberately planned, because as the applicant points out, there is sufficient land
to have made this building legal, if they hadn’t made the mistake.
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MRS. RAY-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Don’t stop trying to buy that property.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, we’re up to you, no show? We’ve got a couple of things we could do, if
you want to wait. We’ve got minutes to approve. We’ve got to appoint.
MR. SPRINGER-He said he’d be back at 25 of. So, I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-We’re waiting for Area Variance No. 4-1999, Jim Varano, for somebody to show up.
So in the mean time, we’ll do minutes from December. There was one meeting in December, a
regular meeting. Does anyone have any changes, additions or deletions to the minutes of December
16?
th
MR. HAYES-I have to abstain. Can we even approve them? Do we need four votes to approve
them?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You need four votes to approve, and Mr. Hayes wasn’t here. That kind of
shoots that down, doesn’t it. You can vote if you want, but you weren’t here.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-There is no requirement that you have to be here, but we always, we usually.
MR. THOMAS-Yes . Usually, if you’re not here, you abstain.
MR. HAYES-Yes, we should at least stay with precedent.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll have to wait until February to do that. Since this is the first regular
meeting of the year, we need to go through the motions of recommending a Chairman and
appointing a Vice Chairman and Secretary. The Chairman, the vote by this Board for the Chairman
is only a recommendation to the Town Board, because the Town Board does appoint the Chairman
of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Vice Chairman and the Secretary are voted upon by the Board
themselves. So we’ll start out with the Chairman. Are there any nominations?
MR. STONE-I move we nominate for acceptance by the Town Board, Christian Thomas.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other nominations for the position? If not, I’ll ask for a
second.
MR. HAYES-Second.
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-I have to abstain.
MR. HAYES-So we can’t do that, either.
MR. THOMAS-So we’ll have to wait until next month and have another vote. I will not vote for
myself.
MR. STONE-You might lose by one vote. You never know.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ve got three more people coming in. Well, we’re going to have this same
problem, unless somebody wants to nominate for the Secretary, if you want to keep Bonnie here, if
somebody wants to nominate Bonnie.
MOTION TO NOMINATE BONNIE LAPHAM FOR SECRETARY OF THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Hayes:
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re going to have to wait until next month to do the Chairman and the
Chairman of Vice.
MR. HAYES-Is the Town Board interviewing people, is there notification sent out?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know. Chris hasn’t discussed that. Not to my knowledge. He hasn’t
interviewed anybody, to my knowledge.
MR. STONE-He hasn’t?
MR. BROWN-No. Whether he’s going to, as he did with Dan, and make a recommendation to the
Board.
MR. STONE-He mentioned a name to me.
MR. BROWN-Yes. He called the contender, the other guy, but I don’t know if he’s gotten response.
I don’t know where it stands.
MR. THOMAS-Well, we might as well take, what did you say, 25 of, about then?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. SPRINGER-I can go it alone. It’s no big deal.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, if you want, we can start it, get it all read in, start it , and then if we
run into difficulty, I can always ask to take a 10 minute break.
MR. SPRINGER-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JIM VARANO VARANO
CONSTRUCTION OWNER: MARK & LAURA SPRINGER ROUTE 9L TO
CLEVERDALE ROAD, RIGHT TO ROCKHURST RD., HOUSE IS ON RIGHT,
COLOR OF HOUSE IS YELLOW APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 STORY ADDITION
ND
TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND
REGULATIONS. ALSO, RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS TO UPGRADE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, THE
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND FOR RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/13/99 TAX MAP NO.
15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
MARK SPRINGER & JIM VARANO, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-Is this one of our new forms?
MR. BROWN-This is the new application that has no description of proposed project on it.
MR. THOMAS-Probably the description of the project you’ll have to take off the Staff Notes. Why
don’t you just do that for now, and then we’ll have to fine tune the form.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1999, Jim Varano Varano Construction, Meeting Date:
January 20, 1999 “Project Location: 64 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2 story addition to a single family dwelling and is requesting
nd
relief from the setback requirements of both the Shoreline and Wetland regulations and the WR-1A
zone. Additionally, the applicant is seeking relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements and the
requirement for the upgrade of a septic system when there is an increase in floor area, §179-16, G.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback
requirements, 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement and 1 foot of side setback
relief from the 15 foot side setback requirement. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the
Floor Area Ratio requirements to have a 27% total and for relief from the WR-1A zone, §179-16,G.
calling for compliance with the septic regulations with any increase in floor area. Additionally, relief
is being requested for the expansion of a non conforming structure, §179-79, the current structure is
in violation of the front, side and shoreline setback requirements. 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 occupy the desired addition. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to no construction, as any expansion of this structure
would require some relief. A downsized addition, more than likely, would not be feasible to the
applicant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The dimensional relief may be
interpreted as minimal to moderate, subject to an accurate survey. However, relief from the
requirement for septic compliance may be interpreted as substantial , given the existing system
versus the system required. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Substantial effects
on the neighborhood in the form of environmental impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. 5. Is this difficulty self created? While the proposed expansion may be interpreted as self
created, the pre-existing non conforming nature of the parcel and structure may contribute to the
difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 36-1992 - res. 4/22/92
construction of dock SP 17-1992 - res. 5/19/92 construction of dock – denied SP 36-1992 - res.
7/21/92 construction of dock SP 6-93 - res. 3/2/93 reconstruction of dock SP 50-1995 - res.
9/21/95 2 story addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate aesthetic impacts on the
nd
neighborhood and community may be anticipated as a result of this action. Substantial
environmental impacts may be anticipated given the antiquated nature of the existing sewage
disposal system and the severity of the non compliance relative to the current system requirements.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 14 January 1999
Project Name: Jim Varano Owner: Mark and Laura Springer ID No.: QBYAV4-1999 County
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
Project Number: Jan99-14 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to raise house roof height, removing existing roof effected by
renovation to provide additional closet space Site Location: Route 9L to Cleverdale, right at
Rockhurst, house which is yellow is on right Staff Notes: The applicant requires an Area Variance
due to the fact that the pre-existing setbacks are not conforming. The building footprint is 690
square feet, and there is no proposed change in the building footprint. Parcel size is 4,356 square
feet, which appears to indicate that given the setback requirements, no construction is allowed on the
parcel without an Area Variance or setback. Since the applicant is not encroaching any further on
any of the setbacks, Staff does not identify any issues that are significant at the County level. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning
Board.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Do you want to get this thing rolling here, just tell us what’s going on?
MR. SPRINGER-Sure. My name is Mark Springer. I’m the husband of the Mark and Laura
Springer, owners of the home.
MR. STONE-You’re the owner.
MR. SPRINGER-I’m the owner.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. SPRINGER-Jim Varano is the Contractor.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SPRINGER-Basically, the goal of this whole thing is simply to gain some much needed storage
in the form of closet. The only area we can actually do this is the area we’re proposing to open up
the angle to such an angle that we can actually use what is currently attic space, and I don’t see any
impact on the neighbor’s view of the lake. The height of the roof may go up by about a foot in
order to accommodate this. As far as the septic, I know there’s been some trouble in whomever
needs to get at it to take a look at it. Through a quirk of fate, I happen to have a video camera of
the septic system from September of this past year, ’98, when we had a cement truck backing out of
the driveway. The weight of it caused the cover of the septic system to break. So when it was open,
I actually filmed it so I could see exactly where it is in relation to the property, for future use. I don’t
know if anybody’s interested in seeing that or not, but it came out as a three foot wide, eight foot
long, 500 gallon tank. I don’t know if that’s good enough or not, with regard to what we’re
attempting to do, but that’s what I found when I filmed it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. The regulations say you have to bring the septic system up to Code. What
would be required to bring it up to Code right now?
MR. BROWN-Not being an engineer, the typical standards are 1,000 gallon tank minimum, and
based on the number of bedrooms in the house, and you could calculate absorptive area.
MR. THOMAS-How many bedrooms in the house, three?
MR. SPRINGER-There’s two.
MR. THOMAS-There’s two.
MR. BROWN-On the surface, it doesn’t appear that any system is going to comply with the current
standards, given that it’s only 60 feet deep. You’re not going to meet 100 foot setback to the shore,
or leach set off in any direction. If there is an absorptive area on the property, it’s probably between
the house and the lake, which is only going to decrease the setback.
MR. STONE-We also know there’s some up there under the road.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-Which kind of minimizes evaporation.
MR. BROWN-Which is kind of where we’re at. What I’ve discussed with Mr. Varano is the need to
know exactly what the system is currently, before any relief can be considered to maintain the
existing. He’s been attempting to get that information for us, for you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, it sounds like we’re going to have to table this one again for the septic,
but we can do the other stuff.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-You can discuss it, sure.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. We’ll try and do that, until Mr. Varano gets here. Maybe he can tell us
and maybe he can’t. Does anyone have any questions?
MR. STONE-Well, I need a better elevation. I mean, I hear what you said. I look at this drawing,
this hand drawing, and it shows the old roof and the new roof, and my observation, I didn’t measure
it, obviously, that I don’t believe the old roof is as close to your second story as this makes it appear.
So I would need some real elevations to make me happy. I’m not happy with the project to begin
with. I mean, again, you heard me earlier about the lake. This is an area where I have previously
voted down. I was in opposition that was granted, to a neighbor of yours down the road a way. I
just don’t think that we need to make big houses on small lots. A question I asked earlier, how long
have you owned this property?
MR. SPRINGER-August of ’96.
MR. STONE-August of ’96, at which time, just prior, it was just prior to the adoption of the
Waterfront Zoning, October of ’96. Granted it was ahead of that, but it was in the works. It had
been discussed many times. I didn’t say you should know it, but it was certainly being discussed and
it was in the papers. I really have a great deal of problem in making houses on Cleverdale bigger
than they were. They started out as small summer camps, long before you were here and before I
was here, but we have made it, to me, a cause for concern, when it comes to the lake and the health
of the lake and the beauty of the lake as seen by people who use it. So, at a minimum, as I said, I
need numbers, in terms of height. There’s just no way I could look at this thing and come up with
any kind of thought whatsoever.
MR. THOMAS-You said in the application that the addition is just for storage?
MR. SPRINGER-I mean, we would also gain a little bit of square footage for usable space.
MR. THOMAS-You’re not going to add like a bathroom, bedroom?
MR. SPRINGER-Goodness, no. The house already has two bathrooms.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s more or less just storage and living space.
MR. SPRINGER-Correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-You’re going to pick up usable square footage kind of in the corners and where you’re
actually raising the roof enough and actually get in there?
MR. SPRINGER-Yes. Of the entire area that’s upstairs, if you took half of it, that’s the existing
bedroom and bathroom currently, and we’re speaking about the other half. Half of that already was
livable space, and then about half way across, the way the roof slopes down, the area behind the wall
was what is now an attic I guess you would call it. It was unusable other than to store.
MR. STONE-I didn’t get out to the front of the house, as I call it the lake side.
MR. HAYES-That would probably have to be more than a foot raised there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was going to say. When I was up there today, they had the scaffolding.
MR. STONE-Well, there was scaffolding there. That was a question I wanted to know.
MR. BROWN-This is basically what’s there now. This portion of the upstairs was finished, the
sitting roof, office kind of area, living space. This area is unfinished, completely, you know, just
insulated.
MR. STONE-But this is considerably lower than that. This looks like a one floor to me, when I
looked at it. Now, maybe the snow might have thrown me off, but this looked like one story and
two stories.
MR. HAYES-A story and a half. This looks like it’s more than one foot, though.
MR. BROWN-This is about a foot. This, I think, is proposed to be four or five feet.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Yes. This is the foot, and then it’s going to match the existing slope of this roof.
MR. HAYES-This is high, but the ground actually kind of goes down like this.
MR. BROWN-This would be potentially four or five feet, from what I get from Mr. Varano.
MR. STONE-I have to admit. I didn’t even think this was, I thought it was like one story.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-It’s not a, you know, they’re not eight foot ceilings up there, and I think maybe.
MR. SPRINGER-It’s lower than normal ceilings.
MR. STONE-Okay, because I was not aware there were two floors in there.
MR. SPRINGER-The way the pitch goes, about half way across, you couldn’t even stand up, and
then that’s the area that we’re proposing to open up.
MR. HAYES-So from a footprint perspective, you’re increasing the usable square footage by making
that area?
MR. SPRINGER-Correct. We’re not going out or up.
MR. STONE-Yes. That comes into the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. THOMAS-So what’s the Floor Area Ratio now?
MR. STONE-It’s in here. There’s a.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I saw the worksheet, but the proposed.
MR. STONE-The proposed is the 1,009.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the proposed is 27%, but what is it right now?
MR. STONE-I don’t know what it is now.
MR. BROWN-That’s information I was attempting to get from Mr. Varano.
MR. STONE-All we have is 1,009 for the primary house, 612 and 397, but is that old or new?
MR. HAYES-Plus, is that an increase in the square footage, if it’s?
MR. STONE-9583.2 is what’s allowed.
MR. HAYES-If it’s unusable, Craig, then you can’t?
MR. BROWN-Right. So if you have attic space above your second floor, that you store things in,
it’s not living space. Once you finish it off, now it’s living space. You have to count it as Floor
Area Ratio, which is basically what that area was, storage, unfinished.
MR. STONE-Okay, but what we need to know is what is really there now, don’t we?
MR. BROWN-Well, I think this number represents what the total proposal is for, 26% Floor Area
Ratio.
MR. STONE-The total is the 1,009?
MR. BROWN-I believe it is. We’re in the process of amending this form right here. It doesn’t show
existing versus proposed.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-Which is in the works. I believe that these numbers represent the proposal, which
totals a percentage of 26.
MR. STONE-Okay. 958 is what’s allowed, if you look at the 4356 and 22% of that.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-And even the 4356 is slightly high. The survey map that I’ve seen says .09 acres,
which is 3920. So given that small of a lot, one hundredth of an acre is.
MR. STONE-Right, but you say you’ve seen survey things. We don’t have one.
MR. THOMAS-There it is right there. It says 0.09 acres.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. There is a survey here.
MR. BROWN-So a hundredth of an acre, you know, 400 square feet is quite a bit, given the
smallness of the lot. A ten of an acre is 4,000. One one hundredth of an acre doesn’t sound like a
lot, but.
MR. THOMAS-In this case it is.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I this case it’s a big percentage.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-So that 4356 should actually be 3920.
MR. STONE-Well, your number of 27% is?
MR. BROWN-Reflects that 3920.
MR. STONE-Reflects that.
MR. HAYES-So the percentage is going to go up, then.
MR. STONE-Well, but it is 26. That’s what’s in the Staff Notes.
MR. HAYES-It is 26. Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s what they’re requesting.
MR. HAYES-The thing is, I don’t know, without knowledge of that septic, though, I don’t know
how we can really proceed without.
MR. THOMAS-No. We can’t do a thing. Like I say, we can talk about the other stuff, the Floor
Area Ratio, the setbacks, stuff like that, but when it comes to the septic.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Springer is in basically the same situation as Mr. Dufresne was. He’s got the
option of getting the information, pursuing a relief to maintain the nonconforming, or going in front
of the Town Board of Health to get a septic variance for probably the only type of system on this
type of lot would be a holding tank system. That would be something an engineer would have to
design, but that’s about the only relief that they’re going to get, given the size and configuration of
this lot.
MR. THOMAS-Isn’t that what Mr. Scudder did for Mr. Dufresne was design a system?
MR. BROWN-He designed the system, yes. An infiltration system that they needed setback relief
for, the size, setback from the lake was fine. It was a side line/property line setback.
MR. STONE-Yes, because he’s in the back.
MR. BROWN-That was back by the garage.
MR. THOMAS-With this one here, there’s no way you could get an infiltration system. So you’re
probably talking holding tank with a.
MR. BROWN-Well, you probably could get an infiltration system, but it’s going to be a lot closer to
the lake than what the requirements are, and chances are that relief wouldn’t be granted.
MR. STONE-As an aside, Chris and Craig, if something has come before us like this, the septic, and
the applicant goes to the Town Board, should we go to the Town Board and be heard? We certainly
can as a citizen. There’s no question.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can do that, but as a Town Board member, I don’t think so, because, or as
a Zoning Board of Appeals member, no, because we’re, you know, we’re not involved in the Town,
even though we are appointed by the Town, we’re removed from the Town.
MR. HAYES-A quasi.
MR. STONE-But we as individuals could go and.
MR. BROWN-At that public hearing, absolutely.
MR. STONE-At the public hearing, say, I’m not speaking for it, because obviously, I can’t.
MR. BROWN-Right. I’m a resident of the Town. I’d like to voice my opinion, absolutely.
MR. STONE-The reason I ask, we’re obviously concerned by that particular aspect, and yet if we
choose, if the applicant chooses, we’re talking about your septic. If the applicant chooses to go to
the Board of Health, it becomes out of our hands. We don’t even, even though we may be
concerned, like with Dufresne, it was given to us.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct. The applicant’s got the option, like I said, of getting that information
of what the system is and bringing it back to you and saying, this is what the system is. This is what
my engineer says the system should be. I’d like relief for the difference, to maintain the existing
system. Then you can grant that relief to maintain the existing system. If they want to go for a
completely new system that doesn’t meet any of the requirements, that’s a Board of Health issue.
They need to give that septic relief, a septic variance for a septic disposal system. Under the current
Code in Section G., you can give relief for them to maintain the existing system.
MR. THOMAS-But if we say no, we’d have to know exactly what the system is, but if we say no
after we have all the information, do they still have the option of going to the Town Board of
Health?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-And asking for, really, to overturn our decision.
MR. BROWN-Well, not to overturn, but what they would do, then they’d present a septic variance
application that says I can’t get a system on my property to comply. I’d like to put this new system
on, be it an infiltration system, be it a holding tank system, and that’s something that the Town
Board of Health would rule on.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but if we say no, they have to change the system in order to satisfy the Board
of Health.
MR. HAYES-Which is the Town Board.
MR. THOMAS-Which is the Town Board.
MR. HAYES-And they are elected officials. So they should be above us in that power anyway really,
right?
MR. THOMAS-Well, no, because they really can’t get into our business, because if we say no, then
the next step for the applicant is to do an Article 78 and take us to court. They can’t go to the Town
Board and appeal our decision. It doesn’t work that way. Because we are, like you say, quasi
judicial.
MR. STONE-Yes, but shouldn’t we be ruling, then?
MR. HAYES-Well, if it’s on the application before us, (lost words).
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, like I say, we can turn it down, and, you know, the only way that the
applicant could get us overturned it to take us to court.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but if they go for a new system, they’re not really overturning our decision.
They’re asking for a completely different decision.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’re asking for something new.
MR. BROWN-Exactly, but in fairness to the applicant, if you don’t have the information, you
shouldn’t, you know.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-Okay, but once the application is made, like lets say Mr. Dufresne’s case. We’ll leave
this one off the table, Mr. Dufresne’s case. We said we’ll await new information. In the mean time,
he went to the Town Board. So we abrogated our responsibility of saying, we want the information
before you go to the Board of Health.
MR. HAYES-No, before you come in front of us.
MR. STONE-Before you come in front of us.
MR. BROWN-Before you wanted Mr. Dufresne back, you wanted information as to what the system
was compared to what you should have. They chose the route to go for a whole new system, from
the Board of Health to get a septic variance for a new system. Once they’ve got the ability to put in
a compliant system or the relief to put in a non compliant system, which the Board of Health did,
that.
MR. STONE-Why can’t we overrule the Board of Health?
MR. HAYES-Like Chris said, if they take their bite at the apple here, then they’ve got to go to an
Article 78, but if they don’t take a bite at the apple, it’s just like if they come for a Use Variance and
table it, they could go, they could petition the Town Board for a zone change, and that’s the same
thing, really. I mean, as long as we don’t deny it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because once we deny it, then that’s it. Then I don’t think the Town Board or
the Board of Health could even give them a variance.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think your denial of the application would be denying them to maintain the
current system.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. BROWN-They could still go in front of the Town Board for a septic variance for a different
system that doesn’t meet the setbacks. Which is a different application.
MR. STONE-But we should rule, if it’s brought to our attention that the septic, and we should ask if
there’s a septic problem, and we rule on it, we should rule on it first before the Board of Health
does. Because in a sense we’re saying, hey guys, go somewhere else and get relief.
MR. BROWN-No. I don’t think that was the case with Mr. Dufresne. You asked him for
information. He took it upon himself to go a different route to get.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it was pending before us.
MR. BROWN-It was pending before you.
MR. STONE-He didn’t take his application off the table.
MR. BROWN-Right. It’s similar to what Jaime said, the Garvey situation. They had a Use Variance
pending. They tabled it, got a petition for zone change, got their zone change, now the Use Variance
is gone.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HAYES-Right. Because they don’t ask us to make a decision on it, then it’s a moot point.
MR. BROWN-They ask for a table, you can’t make a decision on it.
MR. THOMAS-I think in the Dufresne case, it was more or less an “amended” application, that they
took that, you know, the requested relief from Section 16G.
MR. BROWN-They amended their application to remove that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Take that off there, and then proceeded to go to the Board of Health and get
an approval for a non compliant system.
MR. STONE-Is that, was that reflected in the testimony before the Board of Health I wonder?
MR. HAYES-We probably ought to stick with this application.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-I know.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but.
MR. STONE-It’s germane to this one, though.
MR. THOMAS-It is, because, you know, we really don’t have any clear view as to which way we’re
supposed to go with this. We’re just trying to hash it out, get the ground rules down before we go
on, from previous experience.
MR. BROWN-I didn’t attend the septic variance application in front of the Board of Health, but I
would presume that they would ask how this came in front of them, and then it would be, you know,
identified that it was part of an Area Variance application that they required relief and they decided
not to go that route so they went for a new system. I would assume that they went that way.
MR. STONE-Now you’re assuming.
MR. BROWN-I know.
MR. THOMAS-To me it was an amended application. Does anybody disagree with the fact that Mr.
Dufresne’s application was amended to remove?
MR. STONE-Well, I think it has to be more formal than that, though, Chris. If he’s going to do it,
he has to say, all right, I’m taking that out of my, how can he take it out of an application after he
makes it, and say, I don’t like what you guys are going to do, I guess. So I’m going to go somewhere
else.
MR. THOMAS-Well, he really didn’t know what we were going to do.
MR. STONE-That’s true.
MR. HAYES-He went through the established due process associated with elected officials and got
approval. I mean, that’s formal. I mean, there is some argument out there that even a Use Variance
is usurps our elected system of government in a way. I mean, that’s one of the things it’s close
because you’re actually undoing an approved zoning by elected officials, that are elected
democratically.
MR. BROWN-By changing the use in a certain property, right. That’s another issue.
MR. STONE-They certainly went through due process, but what I’m getting at is more what you
should tell people. I mean, if somebody brings something to our attention, we should have the right,
if they need a variance, under the Zoning Code, we should have an opportunity to look at it and not
be deprived of the opportunity to make a ruling on it.
MR. HAYES-If they ask us to.
MR. STONE-Well, they can’t get a building permit unless they get a variance to do what they want
to do.
MR. HAYES-What I’m saying is, they come with a septic system, and they ask for a variance to
maintain the existing system. We turn it down. Theoretically, if they came with a whole new plan, a
whole new system, the Chairman would be within his powers for us to re-hear that issue again
because it would be a substantially different application.
MR. STONE-That is true.
MR. HAYES-So, I mean, it’s the same thing, essentially. It’s just you go to the Town Board.
MR. STONE-Well, see that’s where I’m wondering. That’s what I, and I have no definite thing.
The thing is it seems that we’re, the system is being abrogated, somehow a little bit.
MR. THOMAS-It seems that way, but I don’t think it really is. To us it seems that way, you know,
that they’re trying to bypass us with this, by going to the Board of Health and saying, well, I know
my existing system isn’t going to pass, but this is what I can do, instead of trying to comply.
MR. STONE-Just reading here this morning, it says, and I wasn’t anticipating this, but I just
happened to read it. .What our responsibilities are. This book is our responsibility.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. STONE-Not the Town Board’s responsibility. It’s our responsibility, and Section G. is in here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Therefore it’s our responsibility, until we say yes or no. If we say no, I agree that they
can go to the Board of Health with the system that’s different, and can only be different by 100
gallons.
MR. HAYES-Or they could theoretically come back here.
MR. STONE-Or they could theoretically come back here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, as long as it’s a substantially different application.
MR. STONE-Yes, but they’ve got to come here. Not go to the Town Board of Health. I didn’t
mean to get into a theoretical discussion at your guys expense.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s something that’s just come up recently.
MR. STONE-“The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have all the powers and perform all the duties
prescribed by statute and by this Chapter. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have appellate
jurisdiction for all matters pertaining to this Chapter”, Section G. is in this Chapter. I mean, this has
been a concern when the holding tank, not on other pieces of property. We’ve had a couple recently
where people have gone to the Town Board to get holding tanks or to get relief from a septic,
coming to us before they got septic approval, Takundewide, Mason’s property, and yet I think this is
us, and I think we have to think about it. I’m not suggesting we’re going to solve it tonight. Maybe
we’ve got to get the lawyer involved.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think what the applicant, in Mr. Dufresne’s case, could have done, and Mr.
Varano’s case, too, if you identify the system as non compliant, you go along those roads, before
they even make application to the Zoning Board, they could make application to the Town Board of
Health, an get a septic variance for a system, and then as part of their variance application say, yes, I
have a non conforming system, but.
MR. STONE-I have no problem with that.
MR. BROWN-Right, but I think what you’re saying, once they include it in their application, you
feel they should act on it before they go and get relief from somebody else?
MR. STONE-Yes, and we may be overturned. However, whether it’s the courts or whether the
lawyers say the Town Board of Health can do that, but if it’s in our germane, it’s in our purview, we
ought to be able to, we should say something.
MR. THOMAS-Do you understand what we’re talking about?
MR. VARANO-I apologize about coming late. I’m trying to get the gist of what’s going on.
MR. STONE-We just got into a discussion.
MR. SPRINGER-We had bounced back and forth between who’s responsibility it is.
MR. STONE-The septic, which we can’t solve tonight because we don’t know what it is, but the
question is, if you need a septic variance, that’s us if you come to us first.
MR. VARANO-Being technical, you wouldn’t know by seeing it, would you? Or would you? Only
from an engineer.
MR. STONE-By size.
MR. THOMAS-He told us about the video.
MR. HAYES-But we have to know from a factual perspective.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It has to be on.
MR. VARANO-That’s what I’m saying, but somebody stating, like I’m stating that this is fine, being
an engineer.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Right, but the thing of it is that we know that the system is not in compliance with
the existing regulations. It has to be a minimum of l,000 gallon holding tank, or a 1,000 gallon tank,
and it has to have a leach field on it, depending on the number of bedrooms, and we know that
there’s none on Rockhurst, because there’s no room to put in a system in there that could fit.
MR. STONE-They are holding tanks that the Board of Health, prior to coming here, has granted to
some properties, and we have no control if an applicant goes, it seems to me we have no control, if
an applicant goes to the Board of Health. I’m not sure I agree with myself when I say that, but an
applicant goes to the Board of Health and says, well, you know this property. I cannot put a legal
septic system in. Therefore, I want permission to put a holding tank with all the bells and whistles
that some of your neighbors have. There is one across the street, down a few. She claims to have
two holding tanks with all the bells and whistles, and she was talking to me when I was over there
six, eight months ago, two years ago.
MR. VARANO-We’re not sure that we don’t have, on this one here, we’re not positive that there’s
more than one tank there.
MR. STONE-But you don’t have a holding tank, though. You don’t pump it out every 30 days?
MR. VARANO-No.
MR. STONE-Which you have to do with a holding tank. It doesn’t go anywhere. It has to be
pumped on a regular basis, under contract with an alarm to shut the water off in the house if the
tank gets too full. Those are the kinds of concerns that people have, that sometimes the alarms
don’t do what they’re supposed to do on holding tanks. I think we ought to get.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’re going to have to get the lawyer into this one.
MR. STONE-Get Mark or Jeff.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, one or the other, but until we know what the septic system is, you have to have
an engineer tell us what it is. We can’t rule on 16 G. and whether it’s a compliant system or not.
Right now, we’re speculating that it’s not a compliant system.
MR. STONE-Mr. Springer says it’s 500 gallons. Who knows where it goes after it gets out of the
500 gallon tank.
MR. BROWN-I think you could make a reasonable assumption that it’s not a compliant system,
given the size of the lot, the proximity of the shore.
MR. THOMAS-Right. Yes, because there’s no way you could get a 100 foot setback from the shore
when it’s only 71 foot, you know, the lot’s only 71 feet deep.
MR. VARANO-The scope of what we’re talking about here is (lost words).
MR. STONE-One of the things I said before you came is that I need to see numbers. I, personally,
need to see numbers of how much you’re lifting and where it’s going. I mean, you’ve got a drawing
that doesn’t tell me, doesn’t say, not the drawing I have anyway.
MR. THOMAS-You want to know how the septic got into this conversation. Is that what it is?
MR. VARANO-Well, four feet on just the one wall, on that back wall. The other wall is staying the
same.
MR. STONE-That’s not what the picture shows.
MR. VARANO-It isn’t? Can I take a look at that?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR.VARANO-Yes. One foot, I’m sorry, that is one foot. This is four feet.
MR. STONE-See, I did not know, there are apparently two floors in here. Looking at it from the
street, I would never have known that.
MR. VARANO-There is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because of the way it drops in the front there. It steps down, too, if I’m not
mistaken. The second floor steps down into the first one a little bit, according to the drawing.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. VARANO-Yes, right. This right here, this floor right there, that right there is lower than this
here.
MR. STONE-And how high is this? I mean, I looked at this, you see what you want to see. I saw
one story.
MR. VARANO-This right here, well, it’s actually two stories, because there’s no way to get up to the
bedroom here. That’s how you get upstairs to get to this bedroom by going through this area.
There’s a stairwell right inside there. You can’t get up the stairs here to the second story here by
only getting to this story here. You go up the stairs there and have to make a turn.
MR. STONE-As I said, we don’t have the privilege of going into a house during the winter, when
nobody’s there.
MR. VARANO-I understand.
MR. VARANO-We’re not changing the footprints.
MR. STONE-But it does change the Floor Area Ratio, and that’s one of the things we were
discussing.
MR. VARANO-Are we out of line with?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. VARANO-How far?
MR. STONE-By, well, you’re saying it’s 26, 27% versus 22%.
MR. BROWN-26 versus the requirement of 22, right.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s 25%. We’re not sure. The form, as Mr. Brown said, needs to be refined.
MR. BROWN-Jim, do you have an idea exactly what square footage you’re going to add upstairs?
MR. VARANO-Yes. We’re adding 130 square feet.
MR. BROWN-And that 130 is included in these calculations here?
MR. VARANO-Yes. It should be right there.
MR. BROWN-It should be included in there. Okay. So if you subtract 130 from this 1,009, that’s
what’s existing?
MR. VARANO-Percentage wise.
MR. BROWN-870 something.
MR. VARANO-Yes.
MR. STONE-What exists now?
MR. VARANO-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-870.
MR. VARANO-Roughly, give or take.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re under now, if those numbers are correct, you’re allowed 958.
MR. VARANO-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Less than that. You told me it’s 3920. I didn’t multiply it.
MR. BROWN-I don’t have my calculator tonight.
MR. THOMAS-There used to be one in the box there.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-That’s because I usually put one in there. I didn’t put one in there tonight.
MR. STONE-Did you say it’s 3920, Craig?
MR. BROWN-3920.
MR. STONE-860 approximately. That’s 3920 times .22.
MR. BROWN-About 850.
MR. THOMAS-862.
MR. STONE-Okay, 862, and you’re proposing to be at 1,009.
MR. HAYES-The Section reads that any increase in Floor Area Ratio. So, theoretically, or really
under the regulation, if you increase it five feet, you’d be over. You’d fall into the action trigger of
this Section. So that’s a very small increase, but.
MR. THOMAS-3920 divided by the 1,009 is 25.7%.
MR. BROWN-26, right, that’s the proposal.
MR. STONE-If that’s the correct number.
MR. THOMAS-So you’re only four percent over.
MR. STONE-Yes. Well, the four percent over 22.
MR. HAYES-I personally don’t have a problem with the nature of the other ones there, but, I mean,
but if this Section is to update septics, it’s a very logical thing.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s the biggest portion of the variance, the size of the building, the Floor Area
setbacks. It’s not a big increase, impact on the neighborhood, dimensionally not big. Septic, that’s
the big problem.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think the septic on this one is going to be the big problem.
MR. VARANO-If it doesn’t comply, it has to be upgraded.
MR. THOMAS-Upgraded.
MR. STONE-That’s what we were talking about.
MR. VARANO-We’ll see how much we have right now, and see if it’s.
MR. STONE-Well, lets say you had 500, and you found out, well, if you did a little bit of work here,
you could make it a 750 tank or a 1,000 tank, and maybe you could find a little leach field. If you
could find where the leach field is, it would be interesting.
MR. VARANO-Right now, at this time of the year?
MR. STONE-Anytime, it’s on the property. Lets say you came to us with some numbers, and we’d
say, close enough, we can grant you a septic variance. That’s in our purview. We can do that.
That’s the debate you caught, when you came in.
MR. BROWN-But in order to do that, you’ll have to determine what’s there. An engineer will have
to determine what’s there.
MR. HAYES-It is working.
MR. BROWN-Is it working adequately, versus what’s supposed to be there, based on the number of
bedrooms.
MR. VARANO-It has to be certified.
MR. STONE-We know that you can’t meet the Code, because you’re not 100 feet back when you
get to the road. Unless you do it on your neighbor’s property on the other side of the road, but then
he’s next to the lake, too.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. VARANO-There isn’t anybody over there in that whole section. That’s common knowledge to
everybody.
MR. STONE-We know that, and some people think the leach fields are under the road.
MR. VARANO-But as far as all the other aspects of looking at this, it’s not blocking anybody’s view,
the neighbors.
MR. HAYES-Well, that has to be, that still has to be handled.
MR. STONE-That remains to be seen. That’s another, we haven’t really discussed that.
MR. HAYES-And coming back again might help with that, because there’ll be more members here,
too.
MR. STONE-I am not eager to grant any increase on the size of a piece of property on Rockhurst,
or even Cleverdale, or on the lake. So, I mean, I’ve got to be convinced, but certainly we can’t get to
that point until we even know where the septic system is.
MR. HAYES-And I think you should know that, factually, we had a case this year where they got a
support documentation from somebody who just maintains and pump systems, and that was
determined not to necessarily be adequate as a factual representation of adequacy. It has to be like a
P.E.
MR. STONE-I mean, that merely said that they were being conscientious owners, and pumping it
out at certain times, which, if it’s a well operating system, you don’t really have to do, except, maybe
one every six to eight years, if you think about it.
MR. HAYES-I think that was the Cartier place over there.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Because that had holding tanks, and because the house sat back so far from
the lake on that one, they couldn’t get a complying system in there anyway.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HAYES-But Condon’s statement wasn’t good enough to represent that it was adequate, right?
MR. STONE-No. He just said he came, he pumped it out.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. He said he pumped it out, but there was a statement in there that told us what
size tanks were in there. There were 3500 gallons.
MR. STONE-Yes, but they were holding tanks.
MR. THOMAS-They were holding tanks.
MR. STONE-There were no leach fields.
MR. THOMAS-That’s why we made them put the alarm system in, and I don’t think that’s a bad
idea, and I’ve seen it around the lake.
MR. STONE-It may be the way to go. I mean, there are people who object to holding tanks, but I
think a well constructed holding tank, with the proper bells and whistles.
MR. HAYES-Particularly in that spot.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Absolutely. Logistically, you’re removing the effluent from the area of.
MR. STONE-Yes. We have a citizen who doesn’t agree with that, but he’s not here tonight. So
don’t worry about it, but the point is, I think it’s a very adequate thing. I think it’s a very, a well
constructed holding system is very good.
MR. BROWN-I think probably the route, I think you’re almost there, is to table this application until
you get some further information on the septic system, before you can make a determination on
relief.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. SPRINGER-Can I ask a question?
MR. THOMAS-Sure.
MR. SPRINGER-It sounds as though, based on the size of the lot and the whole configuration of
the whole thing, I will probably never be able to be in compliance. I guess my question is then, how
close do I need to come? Because if we do have an existing 500 gallon tank, but there isn’t enough
space to get 1,000 gallons, I mean, is 750 adequate or?
MR. STONE-Let me take a shot at your words. You would be in compliance if you got a variance
either from us or the Board of Health. You would be in compliance by definition. Now, in terms of
the law as it exists now, no, you’ll never be in compliance.
MR. SPRINGER-Right.
MR. VARANO-Right, like everybody else on Rockhurst. We understand.
MR. STONE-Like everybody else on Rockhurst.
MR. SPRINGER-I’d just like to go one step further to say that, in order to become in compliance, if
I were to receive a variance for this, what will it take to get to that point?
MR. STONE-We’ll know it when we see it. I’m not being facetious. This would be probably a first
for us.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STEC-You have seven people with seven different opinions.
MR. STONE-Right. We would really have to discuss it. We’d have to get as much professional
help as we can.
MR. THOMAS-We would take it to an engineer and say, you know, this is what the applicant
proposes to do. Is this adequate?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-We have our own engineer.
MR. BROWN-Actually, it’s on the applicant to provide that information.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I mean, we have an engineer that will look at it and say, you know, yes or
no, that the Town.
MR. STONE-Just because a P.E. says it’s all right doesn’t mean that we’re going to accept it.
MR. BROWN-He’s signing it. It’s on his stamp, and that’s why an applicant would hire, to
determine what the system is, versus what’s required by the Town Code, and then you make the
determination on the relief.
MR. HAYES-The adequacy and the preparation of the plans is going to be pivotal in making a
decision, though, and that’s what we’re basically saying tonight.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-But we still, Craig, have the right, or lets say we don’t get our own opinion. We still
are entitled, for whatever reason, to say, hey, I see it. That’s what he wrote down. He signed it. I
still don’t like it. We have the right to do that.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t say we would. These are hypothetical situations. There isn’t too much to
make us professional engineers.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, so, bottom line, we need to know what the system is.
MR. BROWN-I think you should probably, not to tell you what to do,. but to table and in the mean
time, we can iron out this, can the applicant go to the Town Board and do the septic variance.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Do you and Jim want to iron it out as to what exactly he has to do? We’ll
table it and you iron it out?
MR. BROWN-I think he’s pretty familiar with what he has to do, get an engineer to determine
what’s.
MR. VARANO-I’ve been speaking to Ray Irish. I don’t know if anybody knows who he is.
MR. THOMAS-I’ve heard the name.
MR. VARANO-Yes. He’s been out yesterday, but the ground, and it kind of slopes off. I don’t if
you’ve all been on the property.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. VARANO-The leach field is down by the lake side, down below, it’s on a lower level, perhaps
there’s something down there, and a machine could actually dig and find out where everything is. At
this time, it’s very difficult.
MR. STONE-It’s probably down there. I would hate to think it’s down there, because there isn’t
very much space between there and the lake, but the other thing, Craig, can we get the FAR form
ironed out, so that we can see old and new, and numbers? Granted we should have calculators here,
but these things can’t be calculated.
MR. BROWN-It’s on my desk right now, if you want to go see it. It’s under revision.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. VARANO-That is quite a difference from 22 to 25 or 26%?
MR. THOMAS-It’s an 18% increase, from 22 to.
MR. VARANO-Is that something that’s way out of line?
MR. THOMAS-No, I myself don’t think it’s way out of line. We’ve done more, but each
circumstance is different.
MR. VARANO-I could let you into his home. I don’t think he’d mind you seeing it. He’s got his
computer sitting on his bed, because there’s just no place, no space.
MR. STONE-But the question I asked before you came is when did he buy the house?
MR. VARANO-Right about the time the law changed.
MR. STONE-That’s right, and I recognize that it was before the law changed, but an applicant, a
homeowner has certain responsibilities to know what they’re getting into I think, and one of the
things that I feel strongly about, this Board is not here, particularly when it comes to businesses, I’m
not talking homeowners, but businesses. We are not here to bail businesses out when they make
business decisions. Sometimes we’ve been asked to do that, and I’m not happy with even the
question. So it is something I think we’d have to look at. As Chris says, my first blush is, 18 is too
much, but one of the things you may have heard is that we rely very heavily on what neighbors say,
and sometimes, I know I’ve always criticized the fact that neighbors are not here forever, but I think
it’s important what neighbors say, at least, I mean, if you have, you know, you don’t have any
problem, but then you start creating what you’re going to have there eventually, is a canyon. You’ve
almost got a canyon now, of homes on either side of a very narrow road, and those are the kind of
things that we thresh out, and that’s why I for one am very pleased to be on this Board, because our
Chairman always makes us tell what we think about a particular project, and we’re forced to listen to
ourselves, which is sometimes very important. I know I’ve started talking not knowing where I’m
going, and as I listen to myself and listen to my fellow Board members, the decision becomes at least
clear to me, and I think it’s very important to do that, and I quite often at home will look at a piece
of property and say no way, then I come in here and you listen to the applicant, you listen to all the
testimony, all of the neighbors, you listen to fellow Board members, and, hey, not a bad idea, or can
go the other way when you listen to things. So, the process, while inexact, I think is a good one, and
it’s very hard. We’ve been asked before, tell us where we have to go, and I don’t think we’ve ever
been able to do that. Because we don’t know until we start listening. Right?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. THOMAS-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Having said that, why don’t we table it.
MR. THOMAS-We’re going to table it for the septic drawings, okay. The other stuff we’ll also
discuss is, you know, the setbacks from the road, the lake, the side, all those other setback
requirements, and the Floor Area Ratio. We’ll also talk about those, but the big thing here is the
septic system. We have to find out what it looks like, and then we can go from there. Okay. All
right. I’ll make a motion to table this application until no later than the March meeting. I’ll make it
the March meeting because that’ll give you two months to do it, because you know, like you said, the
ground’s frozen and everything else, unless you want to do it in February.
MR. VARANO-Could I talk to him just for one second?
MR. THOMAS-Sure.
MR. VARANO-Yes. I think a March meeting makes more sense because I’m just thinking about, if
we go in next month and it’s still frozen, versus maybe a March thaw.
MR. HAYES-Because he needs time to do his report, too.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if you find that you can’t do it by March, just let us know, and, you know,
we can extend it again.
MR. VARANO-It’s a monthly meeting?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-A monthly deadline, we have sometimes two meetings.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s usually the third and fourth Wednesday of the month.
MR. VARANO-Right. Okay.
MR. THOMAS-But like next month we probably, there’s probably not much on the agenda.
MR. VARANO-Well, as you get toward the spring, you’re going to probably have a big agenda.
MR. THOMAS-Well, because it’ll be under “Old Business”, you’ll be already toward the first of the
agenda.
MR. HAYES-We’re obliged to hear you. It’s not like you can’t get on.
MR. VARANO-Yes. Okay. Well, I think we’ll probably put it on until March.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll put it on to March.
MR. VARANO-And if we run into something like a little bit of a thaw, we could get somebody in
there in the next two months to find out exactly what’s in there.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. VARANO-I heard you saying it’s kind of a real, you’re going to have to check back and forth,
if we bring that in to you, then you have the option to say yes or no, or get your opinion of your
Town P.E., okay.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We might do that, but it’s really entirely up to us.
MR. VARANO-Okay. It depends on what you’re being shown.
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. VARANO-Okay. I understand.
MR. STONE-And at the same time, if you can get measurements on the house itself.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. VARANO-You mean the proposed stuff. I’m sorry, my wife is a designer/architect, and she
did this real quick for me, and not on Auto CAD because our, something was (lost word) our home.
So she did it from me, I didn’t look at that to see that the heights weren’t there, but the proposed
idea is this one foot on one side and four foot, we’ll have that sketched in for you and probably a
little bit better of a drawing.
MR. STONE-And the existing roof line, because I looked at that, and it looked as if the existing
roof, when I looked at it, was not as close to the upper roof line as seems to be shown on this.
MR. VARANO-The upper roof line of the sketch, you mean?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-He’s right. It doesn’t quite look proportional to what it looks like from the road. I
mean, it might not be exactly to scale, I guess.
MR. VARANO-That may be very true, in other words, accurate as far as the second story that’s over
there.
MR. HAYES-Yes, what’s the difference?
MR. STONE-Is it three feet six inches or five feet now, or ten feet now? What is it? It looked
much closer in the drawing than it looked to me when I looked at it.
MR. VARANO-Are you looking at the (lost words)?
MR. STONE-I’m looking at, yes, these two. Here’s the second story, and here’s the.
MR. VARANO-Proposed?
MR. STONE-No, where it is now. Looking at the drawing, it looks like this, and it looked to me
like this.
MR. THOMAS-So you’re going to have drawings with measurements and everything else.
MR. VARANO-You want the actual ridges now to the?
MR. THOMAS-Right. The measurements.
MR. VARANO-Even if it’s not accurate with the drawings I’ll give you the measurements right
there, so that you know what you’re dealing with. In other words, if the sketch is off a little bit, not
really to scale, but we can show you what those measurements are.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. The sooner we can get those, the better off we’ll be.
MR. VARANO-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-We’d like to have them ahead of the meeting in March. So we can go back out and
look at them again with drawings in hand.
MR. VARANO-No problem, right. Okay. Those are the measurements you’re looking for.
MR. SPRINGER-If you want to come inside, just call and let me know, or just knock on the door if
you see the truck in the driveway. I live there. My wife is still in Connecticut.
MR. STONE-The door looked like it was open, slightly ajar when I was there yesterday, and I didn’t
know.
MR. SPRINGER-What time were you there?
MR. STONE-Three.
MR. SPRINGER-It shouldn’t have been. It was locked when I got there.
MR. STONE-But it looked like I could see, like it was like this, I mean not really open. It was
probably insulation you had around the door.
MR. SPRINGER-It could have been. Because I just had that all re-done.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. HAYES-I was there at like 6:48 tonight and it looked like it was shut.
MR. STONE-6:48 tonight. You can’t make it here in 12 minutes from there, even you.
MR. SPRINGER-How does this impact next week’s?
MR. BROWN-You’re not on the agenda for next week.
MR. VARANO-This one has to happen.
MR. THOMAS-This one has to happen first, then the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-But what’s going to happen is since it’s been advertised the public hearing’s been
advertised, they’ll open the public hearing, take public comment. So if you want to come to the
meeting and maybe address some, if any public concern, and then they’ll table it until after this
meeting.
MR. VARANO-Right, which could be, a few days, a week after, like that one is in March?
MR. BROWN-It would, yes, potentially be the next Tuesday, similar to this month. This Wednesday
and then next Tuesday would be your Planning Board meeting.
MR. VARANO-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ve got to make the tabling motion, but you don’t have to hang around for
that. I’ll start this over again, Maria.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1999 JIM VARANO VARANO
CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
Until no later than the March 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 for the previous month if the filing deadline date for that month
can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to have the applicant provide an adequate
assessment of the septic system, in the form of a drawing showing the relationship of the entire
system to the house and lake, and also dimensions on the existing building and the proposed
addition.
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. Does anyone else have any business for the good of
the Board? Remember next month we will be voting on Chairman and Vice Chairman. We already
have the Secretary.
MR. STONE-You have my proxy.
MR. THOMAS-It’s going to have to be voted on again. There’s no proxy voting on this Board.
MR. HAYES-So we’ll need at least six to do that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Because you can’t vote, and he’ll be gone.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Are you actually voting, or is this just a recommendation?
MR. STONE-It’s a recommendation. We recommend him.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see we can’t vote on it.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/99)
MR. BROWN-You have to have four to recommend?
MR. THOMAS-I can’t vote.
MR. BROWN-That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a vote like you’re voting for the Secretary or voting
for the Vice Chairman. It’s a recommendation. You still need four?
MR. STONE-Three out of seven should recommend? Three out of six?
MR. BROWN-It’s just a question.
MR. STONE-It’s a good question. Are we adjourned yet?
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion
we adjourn. We’re adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
38