1999-09-15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE
PAUL HAYES
ROBERT MC NALLY
DANIEL STEC
CHARLES MC NULTY
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS THOMAS
BONNIE LAPHAM
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-Before I start, I would like to publicly congratulate one of our members, Dan Stec, for
his victory in the Primary yesterday in Ward Three in Queensbury.
MR. STEC-Thank you, Lew.
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 35-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A JAMES A. BETIT OWNER:
ALEXANDER POTENZA FRANK BORK 694 ROUTE 9, MILLER HILL APPLICANT
PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A 12 SQ. FT. SIGN TO EXISTING 50 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2 LOT SIZE: 4.13 ACRES
SECTION 140
AL POTENZA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STEC-“Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Tabling Motion The Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has
resolved the following Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 Sign Variance No. 35-1999 James A. Betit
Tabled Motion to Table Sign Variance No. 35-1999 James A. Betit, Introduced by Chris Thomas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the July meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be
submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the
previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this
application is to get an accurate survey as to the location of the highway boundary and how far the
sign is back from the highway boundary. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following
th
vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec Chris Thomas, Zoning Board Chairman”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-1999, James A. Betit, Meeting Date: September 15, 1999
tabled May 26, 1999 “Project Location: 694 Route 9, Miller Hill Mall Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes the addition of a 12 square foot sign to an existing 50 square foot sign.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50 square foot maximum allowed for
a sign at a 15 foot property line setback, per the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6.B.,(2),(a). Additionally,
based on a survey map submitted by the applicant, the existing sign is not on the correct property.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired sign and
increase advertisement for his business. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
relocation of the sign to a compliant location for a sign of this size. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: 12 square feet of relief from the 50 square foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on
the neighborhood may be 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
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
plan/variance, etc.): Sign Variance 22-1993 – res. 6/16/93 to allow tenants names on FS sign Site
Plan Review 33-1991 – res. 7/16/91 utilize shop for body shop and repair Use Variance 30-1991 –
res. 4/24/91 utilize shop for body shop and repair Use Variance 62-1990 – res. 8/20/90 signs and
awning sales Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
existing sign, as shown on a survey map from VanDusen and Steves dated July 15, 1999, is actually
on the property of the Northway Plaza. If relief is to be contemplated, consideration may be given
to relocating the sign to a more compliant location on the property which the advertisement is for, or
for expansion at the current location, with property owner permission. SEQR Status: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-Is there a letter from Northway Plaza in the file?
MR. STEC-Yes. Well, it looks like public comment.
MR. STONE-Is there public comment? Okay. Then we’ll get to it later.
MR. BROWN-That was submitted by the applicant.
MR. STONE-Submitted by the applicant. Okay. Sir.
MR. POTENZA-My name is Al Potenza. I own the property along with Frank Bork. Needless to
say, I guess I’m frustrated. I sent my tenant here, back a few months ago, with the full expectation
that there wouldn’t be a problem. I would hate to think that the problem arose because my name
was Potenza, but I’m inclined to believe that it was. I sat here for a couple of Board meetings and
watched you talk about the fact that they should come to this Board before the fact, and knowing
that that’s what the Town wanted, that’s what I did with my tenant. Never expecting the type of
problems that I anticipated, or never anticipated them. I’m picking my words very carefully. I guess
enraged is probably first and foremost in my mind, and probably the politest way I can put it. I came
to the Town, once I found out that there was a problem in getting the sign done. In fact, to be
honest with you, the sign went up 15 years ago. I never appeared before the Board. The sign
company came and did it. No problem. The sign went up. When it was revised, when they took the
Miller Hill sign down, and the names of the people on there, again, the sign company came, no
problem. So in an effort to make my tenant not have to go through all of these expenses, I sent him
up here by himself, and boy was that a mistake. Anyway, to get back to it, I went to the Town and I
met Craig, and I asked Craig why we would need a survey. I mean, we put the sign up 15 years ago.
You obviously had a file for it, and Craig’s answer to me was, that’s because that’s what the Board
wants period. I said, well, can I see what’s in the file? Craig says to me, fill out a Freedom of
Information Act, or sheet, whatever you call it. When one of the young ladies in trying to temper the
situation, that works there, says to him, we don’t need it, it’s his file. We get the file. I ask for copies
of the file. He tells me, that’s twenty-five cents apiece. You know where the top of my head was
right about then? This doesn’t look like a cooperative agency to me. It doesn’t look like a
cooperative government to me. The same exact thing you got there, which is a much smaller scale,
$500 less, what you ask for. I ask for a reasonable answer why you wanted it. I didn’t get one.
MR. STONE-I’ll give you one when you’re ready.
MR. POTENZA-Okay, I’m ready.
MR. STONE-Okay. I will try to set the record as straight, at least as I understand it, and I would ask
any of my fellow Board members to chime in. The applicant appeared before us, your tenant, with
the request, when we grant a variance, we have to be very precise in what we are granting. If it’s 14
feet 3 inches, we have to know it’s 14 feet 3 inches. He was not prepared, when he appeared before
us, as I recall, to tell us where the sign was in relationship to the property line and/or the right-of-
way, and therefore all we said to him, we had other comments, yes, but all we said to him was that we
needed to know where the sign was. Is this your recollection, gentlemen?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, that was the whole point of the thing. It had nothing to do with who the
owner of the property is. We needed to know what relief we were being asked to grant. Everyone
who comes before us comes usually with a survey, and they say, I need five feet six inches of relief.
That’s what we have to put in our motion. That’s what we’re required to do.
MR. POTENZA-Excuse me for interrupting. I understand that, Lew, but the sign was already there.
You already knew where it sat. I mean, were you expecting me to move it?
MR. STONE-No, but this is a variance. This is why we sit here. You will here tonight if you hang
around, there are properties that are in violation of the current zoning. Applicants are asking to
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
make additions to their property. We have to consider where the current property is, and we have to
grant that relief. Even though the building sits on that particular spot where it is. That’s what we
have to do. It’s not a matter of giving anybody a tough time. I’m sure Mr. Lapper over here knows
full well what he’s been put through on a number of occasions. This is what we have to do. That’s
all we were trying to do, and unfortunately, the applicant got a little upset, but that’s what we really
needed. We had not made any decision one way or the other. We had a number of comments, and
we will probably have some more of the same tonight, but I think we needed to know what relief was
being sought, exactly. Then there’s the complication that I learned about, that we’ve learned about,
the fact that the sign is not technically on your property, and are you the right applicant one might
ask, if it’s not sitting on your property? And I don’t know how to answer that. I’m going to actually
call on Staff over here to help me, but those are the things that have confounded the issue,
subsequent to the initial meeting. Our request was not intended to harass, was not intended to upset.
It was meant to provide us accurate information.
MR. POTENZA-But you already had that information. The sign didn’t move from the first one of
these that you had in the file.
MR. STONE-We didn’t have it. We didn’t have it when we were meeting.
MR. POTENZA-He had it in his file. He gave me a copy of it when he wanted to charge me a
quarter a piece for the pages.
MR. STONE-We did not have it that night. That’s all I can say.
MR. POTENZA-Why not?
MR. STONE-I can’t answer for Staff.
MR. POTENZA-Where is this helpful Staff that we’re talking about?
MR. STONE-You’d have to talk about that with the Staff. We are volunteers trying to do a job for
the Town of Queensbury, to the best of our ability, and that requires that we know what variance
you’re asking.
MR. HAYES-I think there was some question about the actual survey that we had, whether you
could actually derive some of the important.
MR. BROWN-That’s the map that the applicant submitted right there. That’s the same.
MR. HAYES-It was more that we couldn’t discern where the right of way was and what was the
actual property line, and stuff like that.
MR. BROWN-That’s the same map that was in the original sign permit application.
MR. POTENZA-Correct. That’s the first thing that we agree on. That was what was submitted 15
years ago, and it was acceptable.
MR. MC NALLY-But the Sign Ordinance is 1994, and there’s different requirements regarding
setback lines.
MR. POTENZA-I know, but everything prior to that was grandfathered in, right, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but.
MR. STONE-You’re asking for a sign which has 12 extra square feet, 15 feet from the road, which is
in violation of our current Sign Ordinance.
MR. POTENZA-Guys, this is what I’m talking about. See, you’re missing the point of what I’m
talking about, then. Then I should have just gone ahead and put the sign up, see, and I did it the way
you wanted us to do it. We came to you first, and all you’ve done is add expense to it.
MR. STONE-But there is another freestanding sign on the property that you didn’t ask about, as far
as I know. Did you?
MR. POTENZA-What freestanding sign on the property?
MR. STONE-That advertising this particular body shop. It’s a freestanding sign between the road
and the tall sign, that talks about the body shop.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. POTENZA-Well, maybe there is.
MR. STONE-There is, I saw it today.
MR. POTENZA-If that’s what you’re talking about, if that got put up, then I have to apologize for
that one, but that one isn’t what we’re talking about, either. If you want it taken down, cite me.
We’ll take it down. I mean, I don’t have any problem with you citing me.
MR. STONE-We're not trying to be adversarial here, please. All I’m saying, there are two
freestanding signs on the corner where the tall sign is, where the three business sign is, advertising
the body shop in question.
MR. POTENZA-All the signs aren’t advertising the body shop in question.
MR. STONE-No, no. The tall one has three different panels. There is a separate sign, between that
sign and Route 9, advertising the body shop. It sits up seven or eight feet maybe, six feet, but it’s a
freestanding sign, and that’s just a fact. Any other questions of the applicant? Any other comments
anybody wants to make?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that that small sign that you referred to about
the body shop was included as part of an on-site directional sign in a previous site plan approval. So
it was something that was approved.
MR. POTENZA-So it was approved then.
MR. BROWN-An on-site directional sign.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I stand corrected.
MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding.
MR. STONE-Fine.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody wishing to speak
opposed to this application? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. Northway Plaza Associates Limited Liability Company, Syracuse, NY. To Whom It
May Concern, From William M. Dutch, Managing Member of Northway Plaza, Date: Monday
August 30, 1999, Subject: Jim Betit’s Auto Body sign “I do not have a problem with Jim Betit
adding his sign to the Subway pole sign. William M. Dutch, Managing Member” And it’s notarized.
MR. STONE-I understand that Staff called this gentleman to inform him that the sign was actually
on his property. When he wrote this letter, he didn’t know that?
MR. BROWN-To confirm that he knew that it was, and it was my understanding that, at that time
they didn’t. So, I sent him a copy of the map.
MR. STONE-And you’ve had no further comment from him?
MR. BROWN-No, no response from him.
MR. STONE-Any other things? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions by the Board?
MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have a copy of the map that you just showed us?
MR. POTENZA-Right here.
MR. STEC-I have one in the file.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. BROWN-Dan, there should be a whole bunch of copies in there that actually should have gone
out with Staff notes.
MR. STEC-Yes, there’s several copies here.
MR. STONE-So as I understand it, this sign, according to this thing, is 14.58 feet from the right of
way to the highway monument, it says to the concrete, which is technically, although it was (lost
words) is within the 15 feet that is allowed for a 50 square foot sign. This, however, would make it a
62 square foot sign which requires 25 feet back from the highway. So, you’re seeking a variance of
10.42 feet. Am I correct when I say that, if you put another panel on this sign, a 12 square foot
panel. Any other questions?
MR. STEC-So is the sign on Northway Plaza’s property?
MR. POTENZA-Yes.
MR. STEC-So do we have the right applicant? I mean, that’s often been a question when we’ve run
into this.
MR. STONE-Craig, what do you two guys want to say about that?
MR. ROUND-Well, you have the acknowledgement of the property owner, whether it’s in the form
of authorization to act as agent for. I mean, we have acknowledgement. If Mr. Dutch wants to take
the sign down tomorrow, he’s going to be able to argue that with the applicant. So I think that’s.
MR. STEC-I’m comfortable with that, so long as we’re all clear.
MR. ROUND-It may not be counsel’s advice, but that’s the way we’re going to deal with it.
MR. STEC-In the interest of expediency, okay, and cooperativeness.
MR. MC NALLY-Is counsel’s advice to the contrary?
MR. ROUND-I don’t have any here tonight.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Okay. Lets talk about it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I believe in a previous case that I supported this application, based on the fact that I
think this is a very neat piece of property and the fact that a 12 foot sign is small, in my mind, and it
represents possibly the minimum for a small businessman in this circumstance to adequately
represent his business. I voted yes more on the fact that quite contrary to your argument, that the
small businessman that presented himself had a legitimate need, and I think that in certain
circumstances, with minimal relief, that he provided us very effectively with an argument of why it
was necessary, and in my mind that argument, unlike your own, carried that burden. So in this
particular case, for the benefit of the original applicant, I still support the application, based on the
reasons that he provided. So that’s my position.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I get a kick out of the guy who came here last time, Mr. Betit, because what he said
was, basically, to us, is you came to him and said, how would you like to buy a part of this sign and
put your sign on this pole, and he said, no, I don’t want to do it, and as a result you have three
businesses on there, not four.
MR. POTENZA-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Then he changes his mind, and he says, I’ll tell you what, now I want more sign
above and beyond what I could have had before, but Jaime’s point about it being a small matter is
true, and I’m satisfied that the sign is, in fact, within the property line that is closest to the road, and
that the distance from the sign to the actual highway is sufficient to warrant an increase in the sign
area. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I don’t like the idea of putting a larger sign than what zoning calls for, within
15 feet of the property line, but at the same time, I can hear the argument that a small businessperson
needs an advertising sign, and especially this gentleman who’s got his shop out back, so it’s not really
visible from the main road, and it also strikes me as being unreasonable to ask you to move your sign
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
back far enough to make it qualify for the larger square footage, so I reluctantly would go along with
this.
MR. STONE-Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, while I was absent from the original hearing, reading the minutes and listening to
the discussion here tonight and past experience with sign ordinances, while traditionally I've seen that
it’s been my experience that we’ve been very protective of the Town’s Sign Ordinance, to me,
weighing the five criteria that we use to determine whether or not we should grant the variance, I
think that the benefit is definitely in favor of granting the variance. I think that there’s clear benefit
to the applicant. Feasible alternatives, I don’t think you could really get much smaller than a 12
square foot sign, and I don’t think it’s feasible to ask the existing sign to be moved, and I really don’t
think that much would be gained anyway, because of the relative moderate request of relief, and I
don’t think there’s going to be any impact on the community or neighborhood. So I’m in favor of
granting the relief.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Well, I basically agree. I’m not going to vote against it. I am
concerned, one, I would ask the applicant if you would, if the other sign will come down? May we
condition the relief basing that directional time, it might be called a directional. It’s a pretty big
directional sign, that that come down, that the only reference to the body shop be on the
freestanding sign?
MR. POTENZA-No problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. The only other thing that I’m concerned about, and I’ll say it only because it
troubles me. It’s a messy piece of property. I know it’s a difficult piece of property. You didn’t
make the contours of the road and the property. I just wish the Subway property looked better. I
think they’ve got so many signs on that building, including the one in the window, you can’t
practically see in, and I find it distasteful, but that has nothing to do with granting the variance. I just
would like to think that it could be cleaned up, but having said that, I would be in favor of the
variance, and would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 35-1999 JAMES A. BETIT, Introduced by
Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
694 Route 9, Miller Hill Mall. The applicant proposes an additional 12 square foot sign to an existing
50-foot square foot sign. The applicant requests 12 square feet of relief from the 50 square foot
maximum allowed for a sign, at a 15 foot property line setback, pursuant to Sign Ordinance Section
140-6B(2)(a). Additionally, based on a survey map submitted by the applicant, the existing sign is not
on the correct property. The benefit to the applicant would be they would be permitted to construct
and display the sign to advertise their business which is down below the road surface and behind the
existing structure. It requires a sign. The feasible alternatives would be relocating the sign to a
compliant location, put a sign as proposed, or doing away with the sign in the location where it is.
The relief is not substantial to the Ordinance. Twelve square feet of relief from the fifty square foot
requirement is insubstantial, in my opinion, and given the nature of the property, the existing
businesses that are there, the busyness of the road at Route 9 in the location that the sign is
proposed, the effects on the neighborhood will be minimal, also. In some sense, this is a self-created
problem, given Mr. Betit’s admission as to his unwillingness, earlier, to join in with his neighbors, but
I find that not, on balance, to have any greater weight for consideration. The other thing I note is
that under 140-6, if the sign is 25 feet from the property line, it can be a maximum of 64 square feet
in area. This property is now 14.58 feet from the property line. So effectively 15 feet from the line.
If you actually look at the survey that’s been provided to us, the actual highway is at least 30 feet
further from the property line. So effectively the sign is well in excess of 25 feet from the road that’s
traveled, and therefore that’s another consideration to take into account. So, given these facts, I
move that we approve a variance of 10.42 feet under the existing Ordinance, and although the
property is on a different parcel, I don’t find that determinative or in need of a variance of any kind.
Therefore, my motion has nothing to do with that whatsoever. I would also add on this motion that
the existing sign on the property, directing the public to Mr. Betit’s shop be removed, and if he needs
any directional signs, then they should comply with the existing Town Ordinance, otherwise, but the
one that’s currently there is going to be removed, and this one would take its place.
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. POTENZA-Thanks.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-99 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING
A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONCERNING
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. SPECIFICALLY, WHETHER OR NOT
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE STORAGE IS ALLOWED. PROPERTY OWNER:
DUNHAM’S BAY BOAT CO., INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: OFF STATE ROUTE 9L
TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES ZONING: LC-42A
JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Before we start this, I’d like to make a statement that this is a very narrow issue. We
are here to determine whether or not the Zoning Administrator made the correct determination.
That is all we’re here to decide. We don’t want to go into a long history, just the history of this
particular thing, dating to the point when the decision was made. We will not go beyond that date,
and we will not go before the date of the original site plan review.
MR. STEC-“Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution To: John Salvador Project: Appeal by
John Salvador regarding property of Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, Tax ID: 10-1-19.2 The
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated
meeting and has resolved the following: Notice of Appeal No. 3-99 John Salvador, Jr. Meeting
Date: August 25, 1999 Tabled The applicant has 60 days to come back with the application. Notice
of Appeal No. 3-99 John Salvador, Jr. was tabled per letter from PRESIDENT, Dunham’s Bay Sea
Ray, dated August 23, 1999 Sincerely, Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals”
MR. STONE-Just again for the record, the document that we are here to determine whether or not
we agree or disagree is a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Chris Round, dated
July 15, 1999 re: Dunham’s Bay Boat Company “In response to your request, I visited the
Dunham’s Bay Boat Company property located on the east side of Route 9L. The use of a dumpster
on the site is not a violation of the site plan approval Site Plan No. 28-90 for the boat storage facility.
The complaint is without merit.” Mr. Salvador, do you wish to come forward?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, are you opening the public hearing?
MR. STONE-You’re the applicant. I want you to come up, and then I’ll open the public hearing. I’ll
ask you to make any statement you want to make.
MR. SALVADOR-I believe the public hearing is still open.
MR. BROWN-It was left open.
MR. STONE-Then fine. Then obviously you want to speak in favor of the appeal.
MR. SALVADOR-Tonight, what I would like to request is that you continue to allow this public
hearing to remain open for the following reasons. I have FOIL’d the Town Records Access Officer
for some information, and I believe you have received copies of my correspondence, members of the
Board. So you know what’s transpired since the last meeting.
MR. MC NALLY-By your letter.
MR. SALVADOR-By letter, and my FOIL request. To this date, I have not received a response
from the Town, and I understand a response is in the mail to me, but it has not arrived yet. So I
would request that the public hearing remain open, pending the arrival of the Town’s response to my
FOIL request.
MR. STONE-In other words, you want to suspend operation for the evening and do it at some other
date, table it?
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to table it, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any objections to tabling it?
MR. ROUND-I don’t think there’s a need to table the action. I think there was a complaint
registered. The Zoning Administrator made a determination that there wasn’t a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance, and that’s all you need to know. I don’t know what the FOIL request or what
the correspondence, how that relates to my observations and my judgement in Mr. Salvador’s eyes.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-It seems to me that what we’re talking about is something that was done whenever the
site plan review was given, and Mr. Round, having been asked to render an opinion on whether or
not the use of a, or the presence of a dumpster on the property is in violation, has said it is not. I
believe, I’ll ask the Board. Do you feel you can make a decision tonight, gentlemen?
MR. MC NULTY-I feel I can. I think the other issues that these letters address are separate issues.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s why I said in my opening statement that that’s after the date of the July
15 letter, and that’s a very simple statement that Mr. Round made. Mr. McNally, how do you feel?
th
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem making a vote tonight.
MR. STONE-Well, lets talk about it. Chuck, why don’t you say where you’re coming from.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I've flipped both sides on this, but looking at the site plan review and the
historical information that we were provided, I see nothing in that that prohibits a dumpster on the
property. I can see that the review at that time was fairly restrictive, but it doesn’t say anything that
prohibits there being a dumpster on the property, and therefore it strikes me that Mr. Round’s
decision is probably correct.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-First, is there anyone else that has any public comment?
MR. STONE-That’s a good point. You’re right. I stand corrected. Mr. Salvador, you may speak.
The public hearing is still open. I haven’t closed it. We're just finding out where we’re coming from.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. SALVADOR-The purpose of a site plan review is to identify the uses that will be allowed. I
mean, I can make a list of 100,000 uses that have not been addressed at that site plan review. Are
they allowed just because they’re not expressly prohibited? The site plan is undertaken to identify
how the site is going to be used, and permission is given for those activities. We don’t talk about all
the other activities that are not allowed. Just because the site plan review didn’t prohibit go-go
dancers, are they, could that be determined to be an allowable use?
MR. STONE-What does go-go dancers have to do with boat storage?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m saying that it is an activity that was not expressly prohibited in that site plan
review, just as solid waste storage was not prohibited, okay. We talked about, at the site plan review
we talked about what was going to occur on the site, and only those activities, and it’s a very narrow
list of activities, and activities centered around boat storage, commercial boat storage in a residential
zone.
MR. STONE-My reply to that would be that we are considering a boat storage facility that does
generate some waste, and I, personally, would much rather have it in a, it does, by definition, cleaning
out boats generates some waste.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, excuse me. Storing boats, in and of itself, does not generate waste,
and if it did, they were to remove the waste from this site. What you have up there is day to day
consumable type waste. The waste you see there could have absolutely nothing to do with boat
storage.
MR. STONE-That is not the issue that we’re here to address. The issue that we’re here to address is,
is a solid waste disposal container an allowable use. That’s the only thing that we have to talk about.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s a commercial solid waste storage and handling, and handling, okay.
MR. STONE-I respect your opinion. I can’t say that I agree.
MR. SALVADOR-My opinion, Mr. Stone? It’s a fact, that you have to handle the waste. I do it
every day, okay.
MR. STONE-Correct, and it’s handled by putting in this dumpster. So that it doesn’t lie about on
the ground.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Now, again, I would like to make the point that the site plan, the purpose of
a plan is to identify how a site is going to be used, and there is no way you can undertake and make a
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
list of all the things that this site is expressly prohibited. I think it’s understood that if you allow
these things, everything else is prohibited. Everything else is prohibited.
MR. STONE-This is your opinion, sir, and I respect you for it. That’s why we’re here.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The second thing is that nothing can be allowed, even if the site plan
allows it, if it is undertaken in an illegal manner. It is in an of itself illegal, and then cannot be
prohibited, cannot be allowed.
MR. STONE-We are not discussing the illegality of the, the supposed illegality of this container.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay, but bear in mind that even if the site plan did approve it, which it did not
in this case, and it’s undertaken in an illegal fashion, then it is not allowed.
MR. STONE-I understand your point. This is not what we’re talking about. Anybody else wish to
speak for the appeal, to overturn? Anybody wish to speak against overturning it? Mr. Howard?
ROGER HOWARD
MR. HOWARD-I’m Roger Howard. I’m the owner of Dunham’s Bay Boat Company. Without
getting into, I’m not an eloquent speaker like Mr. Salvador. However, it seems to me that the Town
of Queensbury granted me a permit to do business, and part of that business is boat storage, and
boat storage, by its nature, regardless of what Mr. Salvador says, does generate some waste. There’s
shrink-wrap that comes off the boats in the spring, which is a big one. Obviously, it’s got to be put
some place. It’s picked up once a week. It seems to me like a dumpster is part and parcel of every
business. I don’t see the big problem. Does anybody have any questions about what we’re doing?
MR. STONE-Any questions?
MR. STEC-I have a question for Staff. If it’s not listed as an allowed use, and it’s forbidden, what’s
your take on that?
MR. ROUND-I’m not sure what you’re asking.
MR. STEC-If a site plan doesn’t list a specific activity, does that mean it’s forbidden?
MR. ROUND-It’s impossible to be exhaustive in either case, to list all the things, is walking going to
be allowed on the property? Is that that accessory to boat storage? When you go through a site plan
review, you try to address the impacts of the particular activity on the character of the community,
the adjoining properties, and typically solid waste is one of the things that is described under site plan
review. You try to anticipate, is there going to be traffic associated with a particular activity. In this
case there is, and that does present an issue to deal with, and they did deal with this historically. So,
because something is not specifically identified on the site, it’s my opinion that the waste storage is
generally ancillary or accessory to most activities. We all generate waste, as individuals, whether it’s
solid waste or otherwise. So it just seems a logical extension to have waste storage on the property.
MR. STEC-Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. So has the Town been consistent in your
opinion, your Staff? Has the Town been consistent, in your opinion, on the application of if it’s
accessory?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think you won’t find waste storage listed as an accessory use in any of our
zones, or as an allowed principal use, and so looking at that, I mean.
MR. STEC-But it certainly happens.
MR. ROUND-And with the previous applicant, what was allowed 15 years, ago, well, we have a
heightened awareness of things. We do things differently than we did 15 years ago, or 10 years ago.
We're sensitive to things more so. If we had done a site plan review for a project today, we would
identify issues that are going to impact, you know, we are consistent to the extent we can be, and
none of us are going to identify every issue associated with every site plan we do, but if we try to,
we’re doing our job.
MR. STEC-Those are the two big questions I have, and I’m comfortable.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Howard?
MR. MC NALLY-No. I have a question of Staff, though. Again, if there’s a problem with
maintaining their dumpster, in other words, trash is blowing around and things are lying on the
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
ground, there is relief other than through this proceeding, in the Code and State Rules and
Regulations?
MR. ROUND-Yes, there is. Generally, garbage/waste has to be enclosed in containers. It cannot be
generally visible from the street. It can’t be loose. It can’t cause a health hazard, safety hazard, etc.
So if it does, and we identify a complaint, we will issue a notice of violation or ask for voluntary
compliance, and then follow a normal enforcement process.
MR. STEC-Has this happened in this case at all?
MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, what’s the question? Was there a violation registered?
MR. STEC-This has been kicking around for a few months now. Has a complaint been filed or
acted on, or did Staff suggest that as an alternative route, rather than coming to this proceeding?
MR. ROUND-I think there’s two different questions there. At one time, there was waste identified
outside the dumpster. That is a violation of our garbage regulations, our local laws, and we informed
the Boat Company that it had to be corrected, and I believe in our most recent visit, it has been
corrected. So we followed that process, yes.
MR. STEC-And it’s typical, like you said, to ask for voluntary compliance, and when it’s given, then
usually your ticket isn’t issued?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STEC-Okay, and we’ve been consistent there?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. STEC-Okay.
MR. STONE-Does anybody else want to speak against approving the motion?
CHRIS MACKEY
MR. MACKEY-My name is Chris Mackey, and I own a piece of property just west of Dunham’s Bay
Marina, and I, too, am a business owner. We run auto dealerships in the Northeast, and I know how
difficult it is to keep a business like that neat, tidy and image commensurate, and to be quite honest
with you, every time I drive by Dunham’s Bay Marina, I look at it and can’t believe what a great job
they do maintaining the site, and controlling the amount of business that goes through that
dealership, you know, both from a maintenance and repair perspective, but even including new boat
sales. I think the way the business is run is very positive to the community, and has very little impact,
and I think my hat’s off to Mr. Howard in keeping the place the way he does. So, as a property
owner, very, very close to the business, I can’t imagine that this would be an issue.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
JOHN SCHRINER
MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I have property over in Dunham’s Bay. I seem to be
missing the point here. At the beginning of this meeting, you said we weren’t going to get off on all
these other discussions. Here a gentleman gets up and says how good this is, how good this is and
how that, and you let it go on. I don’t understand it.
MR. STONE-You’re right. You’re absolutely right, sir. Until he starts speaking, I don’t know where
he’s going, though. Anybody else wishing to speak against overturning? Against overturning the
Zoning Administrator’s decision? Anybody want to go back? Go ahead.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I would just like to rebut what Mr. Mackey said. Of course
we all know why he can’t see any trash on Dunham’s Bay Sea Ray’s property. It happens to be up in
the woods, blocked by our trees. So obviously he doesn’t have any trash down there. He removed
his trash receptacle a number of months ago, put it out back, where it is very unsightly, very
unsanitary, and our water well, our major water well, is down gradient from all of that. So of course
you can’t see it.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-Okay. Now we’ve had enough of that. We’ve had one for and one against. Mr.
Salvador, you may come back to speak to the point that we’re trying to determine here.
MR. SALVADOR-We have gotten onto the subject of what a business has to do and that sort of
thing. I think it’s well founded that a number of years ago, this Town, many of the towns around the
lake, the Lake George Park Commission, have separated the activities of what you might call a
marina operation, and now we have distinct categories of use that we address. One of them happens
to be boat storage. In fact, we are in the process of getting a permit from the Lake George Park
Commission, and they are differentiating between summer and winter boat storage. That’s how fine
it’s getting. So, the activities that were permitted on this parcel of land, in a residential zone, were
winter boat storage, as we see it today, although it was only called boat storage, and I’m telling you,
the neighbors at that time, and you can see in the file the petition, were very concerned about what
was going on up there. Restricted boat storage to no mechanical work. Tell me how that works, but
they accepted it. They accepted it. Now, little by little over the years, we’re saying, hey, this is a
marina operation, and it’s to be expected that we have all these things walking across the property.
No, boat storage is a very definitive commercial use, and you can be in the boat storage business and
not be in the marina business. So we shouldn’t try to combine all of the operations that should be
allowed on this lot. Mr. Howard has, as a pre-existing, nonconforming use, the capability of handling
his solid waste storage on his property. It’s an allowable use because it’s pre-existing. We all have
this, but this particular parcel of land, okay, was expressly boat storage, and that today is a very
definitive use, both in our Code and in the Park Commission’s Code.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that. I’m going to take the liberty of, is there anything in the file, any
letters or anything, that’s on point?
MR. STEC-Yes. I have two of them dated August 30.
th
MR. STONE-But those are the ones that talk to the meeting with?
MR. STEC-Freedom of Information laws. I mean, I’d just as soon read them.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, if you want.
MR. STEC-Okay. I have a letter dated August 30.
th
MR. STONE-You’ve got a little one and a big one?
MR. STEC-Yes, I've got a little one and a big one. I've got two.
MR. STONE-The big one talks about the meeting with Jim Coughlin?
MR. STEC-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s not on point.
MR. STEC-All right, fine. I have this other one.
MR. STONE-Okay, are you going to read that one in?
MR. STEC-Yes, I’ll read this one in.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEC-August 30, 1999, Records Access Officer, Town of Queensbury, “Dear Madame:
During a site visit to an illegal commercial solid waste storage and handling facility on Tax Parcel 10-
1-19.2, I learned that the facility, in fact, exists at said location in accordance with directives from the
Town of Queensbury, see attached letter to the ZBA Chairman. In accordance with the Freedom of
Information Laws, I am requesting the form and content of the Town’s participation in any directive,
suggestion, instruction, etc. at the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, Inc. solid waste storage and
handling facility be relocated from the State Route 9L right of way to the non contiguous tax parcel
no. 10-1-19.2. This request should include any verbal agreements. Yours truly, John Salvador,
Manager, Dunham’s Bay Lodge”
MR. STONE-I’m not sure that’s on point, either, but I’ll allow it. I’m going to take the option of
closing the public hearing and polling my fellow Board members, and we’ll decide where we proceed
from. I’m going back to you, Mr. McNally.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. MC NALLY-I’m ready to go forward.
MR. STONE-You’re ready to go forward.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STEC-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. May I have a motion?
MR. STEC-Are we going to talk about it?
MR. STONE-You want to talk about it? I thought we had. That’s what I thought, but go ahead.
You talk about it, because Chuck did.
MR. MC NALLY-The custom is that we don’t talk about these kinds of things. I don’t think we do.
MR. STEC-We did for Sutton’s.
MR. HAYES-One, yes, in the past we hadn’t, though.
MR. STONE-We haven’t normally.
MR. STEC-All right. I’m sorry.
MR. HAYES-It doesn’t matter.
MR. STONE-If you have something you want to say, say it, and we’ll go on. I don’t want to stifle
anybody.
MR. MC NALLY-If the site plan, Mr. Salvador said the site plan can’t, I think, specify every use, and
I think Chris said the same thing, but as a practical matter, there are a lot of incidental uses that
property is put to that’s used commercially, which are not spelled out in the site plan, and common
sense tells me that these incidentally uses are incorporated into the use of the property, otherwise the
property could not be put to use for the express main purposes for which approval was given. If
they store boats, does that mean they can drive boats on the property? Does that mean they can
trailer boats on the property? Does that mean that they can unhitch boats on the property? You get
to a point of it being ridiculous, where you have to specify every one of the uses. You just can’t do
it. I've got a boat, and I know that I store it, and when I store it, not on a day to day basis, but just
winter time or spring time, there’s a lot of stuff in the boat that gets tossed out, and that’s garbage,
and we’re talking, when you get down to it, a four by six by four dumpster, and I don’t honestly see
that as a waste transfer station, or a waste dumpsite. It’s a garbage bin. If there’s a problem with
how they keep their property, I mean, if they’ve got crap lying around, then I think that that should
be addressed, and I think the Town should cite the Howards for not keeping their property up, but
that’s different from what we’re being asked today, and I have to say that I think that Chris’
determination is correct, that they can use a dumpster on the property without it being specified in a
site plan, and that’s how I’d vote.
MR. STONE-Mr. Stec?
MR. STEC-I think Mr. McNally hit the nail on the head. I thought the questions that I asked of
Staff were really, is it customary or is it our practice that things that aren’t necessarily spelled out
specifically, but are accessory to what has been approved, you know, allowed, and so long as, and I've
been assured by Staff that we’ve been consistent on that point. I do think that there are other
alternative means to address the issue of maybe an unkempt garbage bin, but clearly I think
businesses generate some volume of waste, and now I think we’d be splitting hairs whether to say it
should be a five yard dumpster or a two yard dumpster. I think that’s a whole other issue, but again,
the point at hand is, is a bin an allowed use, or an allowed activity accessory to what’s going on here,
just because it’s not spelled out in the site plan, and so long as the Town has been consistent in the
past, I don’t think there’s merit to this appeal.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think it’s been said and said well, in this particular case. Based on my reading
of the site plan resolution in question, I believe that the dumpster, this solid waste disposal, is
permissible and I think Mr. Round’s decision was correct, implicitly.
MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members. I do think that the owner of this property,
Mr. Howard, is certainly on notice that none of us are very happy, would be very happy if we found
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
out that it was messy around the dumpster. The Town is aware that the dumpster exists, and I think
will make sure that it is neat at all times, and having said that, I would ask for a motion to deny this
appeal.
MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-99 JOHN SALVADOR, JR.,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Dunham’s Bay Boat Company boat storage area. The applicant has appealed the Zoning
Administrator’s determination that a commercial solid waste storage on Tax Parcel No. 10-1-19.2 is
not a violation of site plan approval 28-90. Specifically, the applicant’s appealing to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a determination of whether the described activity is, in fact, a violation of the
previously approved site plan. Based on the evidence that we’ve seen and heard, I move that we
deny this appeal, and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination.
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1999 TYPE II WR-3A CEA CHRIS MACKEY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 15 WILD TURKEY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE NEW FLOOR SPACE, STORAGE AREA, COVERED
DECKS AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS SETBACK RELIEF
AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ALSO,
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS REQUESTED. CROSS
REF. SPR 46-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60
JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STEC-“Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution, To: Chris Mackey, Saratoga Springs,
NY Project For: Chris Mackey 15 Wild Turkey Lane The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Area
Variance No. 78-1999 Chris Mackey Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 TABLED Motion to Table
Area Variance No. 78-1999 Chris Mackey, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the October meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the
filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the
filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this variance is at the request of the
applicant. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty,
th
Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs.
Lapham Sincerely, Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1999, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date: September 15, 1999
Tabled August 25, 1999 “Project Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of an approximately 3100 sf addition and seeks setback
relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 62.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline
setback requirement of both the WR3-A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations,
§ 179-60. Also, the applicant is requesting 9.70 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback
requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from §
179-79 for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to construct a sizeable addition and perform a significant architectural upgrade to
the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of
an addition to the South of the existing structure. Additional floor area could be gained while at the
same time the shoreline setback could be significantly maintained by new construction. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as
moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the pre-existing location of the current
structure may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): Site Plan Review pending Staff comments: Moderate to substantial visual impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. Addition to a structure 12.5 feet from the shore may present a
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
significant visual impact. Consideration may be given to a southerly “L” shaped addition,
substantially removed from the proposal submitted. The applicant’s revision appears to be a
significant concession from the original plan. The height request has been eliminated and the side
setback lessened. However, the additions proposed are still close to the shoreline. SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. STONE-Anything from the County?
MR. STEC-I don’t think so.
MR. BROWN-There was a previous County determination.
MR. STEC-Do you want me to read that in again? It was read in once. Nothing new from the
County.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think it was No County Impact.
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper? Do you want us to read this note, or are you going to talk to us about it,
your letter of August 27?
th
MR. LAPPER-It’s not necessary. I’ll paraphrase.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-When we were here last time, the main issue for Mr. Mackey, the owner of the
property, is that he bought a piece of property that has a house that was a pre-existing, and that is not
in a location that could be built now, but that’s what he has, and what he’s trying to do is to convert
this into a modern house, and to make it look more attractive in the neighborhood. He was really
hoping to get the house that we applied for last time, but it was very clear that that was not
something that this Board felt that they were prepared to do. So we went back to the drawing board,
literally, after the meeting, and redesigned the house, and we redesigned it in terms, having the
architects on one side, and the land use guys on the other side, trying to come up with something
that would be acceptable to this Board, and something that would be positive to the neighborhood,
and what we came up with was to remove the third story of the building. So in terms of just the
visual appearance from the lake, and the lake is the side that everyone’s most concerned with,
because with the hill you really can’t see much from the highway. Without giving a percentage, if this
is 25% of the surface area that you look at from the lake, it’s a significant percentage that we’ve
removed, and what we’ve done is to put the, the master bedroom is now built into the roof, which
significantly lowers the visual impact of this house, and just to start off, to compare this to what’s
there now, well, what Dennis is doing is comparing this to what we had last time, to show how
significant the change is. That is a much bigger house, I think the Board will agree, and if you
compare this to what’s there now, the two stories with the roof, the roof would be rebuilt, but the
two stories with the roof, the main bulk of the structure is exactly what’s there, stays there now. It’ll
be renovated on the interior. The exterior will be resurfaced. So it’ll be more attractive. Fieldstone
will be added to cover up the existing concrete that’s there now, but that’s all existing. At the same
time, if you move to the right, to the area, to the left, excuse me, the area that will be the entrance
way, and again, you’ll recall from last time that the entranceway is at the farthest point of the building
from the lake. Even though it looks like it’s two-dimensional there, it’s hard to tell, but that’s set
back. The concrete retaining wall, which is a large part of what you see in the center of the house, is
also existing, only now it’s concrete, and what’s proposed is to be faced in Fieldstone. What we’re
adding is the garage and that entranceway, which, in terms of the standards for the Area Variance, in
terms of the benefit to the applicant versus the burden on the neighborhood, this is a way,
architecturally, to create something exciting. Could that be removed? Could the garage be put
somewhere up the hill? Is it possible? Yes, but it wouldn’t create a house that would be attractive or
that would be something special, and what’s done now, this is in an Adirondack design. It’s
something that should enhance this area of the lake. There’s also a practical side to that, because the
site is so steep, it allows the driveway to be back filled. By raising the garage up, it allows the
driveway, the slope to be reduced. So it’s just easier to get in and out with cars. We talked about the
septic system, which is right now next to the house, very close to the lake. It would be removed,
moved back 100 feet from the lake, beyond 100 feet from the lake, so it would comply with current
Code. That was something that the County Planning Board felt very strongly about, in their motion
to approve this. Actually, they said No County Impact, and I think that that’s a good point. We
really feel that this won’t have an impact on the neighborhood because it’s going to be such a visual
improvement to the site. There was a letter in the file last time that the neighbor immediately on the
side of the new garage addition said that he was comfortable with it, and we changed that so that the
garage is now at the closest point, because the property angles off, at the closest point it’s two feet
farther from his property line, and he was satisfied with the formal plan. We also reduced the size of
the garage addition, and moved that, Dennis, is it four feet back from the lake, compared to what it
was?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. Regarding the
garage addition, it’s been reduced in size two feet in each dimension, from 26 by 31 to 24 by 29, and
moved back an additional four feet, and really that’s now controlled by the existing retaining wall,
and as we’ve moved that garage back further, gained a little, in terms of the setback from the
shoreline. Because of the configuration of that property line, the easterly property line, we’re
pinching in. We do gain slightly a foot and a half, roughly, on the setback, but as we move back, in
conformance with the existing retaining wall, we get pinched by that property line. So there’s not a
significant change, but there is some slight increase of that side yard setback, and a more significant
increase to the shoreline setback.
MR. STONE-The perception from the neighbor’s house would be that it’s probably further away,
though, because it’s up the hill a little bit. Even though it’s closer to the line, he probably would
perceive it as further away.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not closer to the line than it was previously.
MR. STONE-Even though it’s pinched, I thought you said it was closer.
MR. MAC ELROY-No. It’s a little further from the line, for two reasons, primarily, the reduction in
size.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. MAC ELROY-Now the addition, and I have a smaller copy here, which, again, would just
identify the increased area, the addition of the garage, and the second level of addition, and those
figures are all spelled out in the proposed conditions chart with the percentages, and as we did
previously, even more so now, they fit well within the impermeable area percentages and floor area
ratio.
MR. MC NALLY-Can you remind me, what’s the hatched area on this diagram?
MR. MAC ELROY-As that’s a plan view, you don’t see the elevation, but it is the addition of floor
area which takes place in what we call it the second level. There’s an entry level and the second level,
with the existing basement level. That adds approximately 880 square feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And on the new proposed plan, in the roof, is that a dormer that’s shown with
glass?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not, what you see here is this gable end of that roofline.
MR. MC NALLY-Does that cut into the roof like a balcony?
CHRIS MACKEY
MR. MACKEY-Yes, it’s cut in.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, this is cut in, correct, and there’s a, so your roofline would bow down, and
then there would be a vertical plan, at that point. So it doesn’t protrude out. It’s within that roofline.
MR. STONE-But that is a third floor, is it not, or am I?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s livable space on, again, it’s semantics. It’s a second level. There’s a
basement, the entry level, and that third level. In your file, you see the old elevation, which has a full
third level with then the roofline, the roof pitch above that.
MR. STONE-I've got you, okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-This new incorporates any livable space, and less of it.
MR. STONE-So the roof is down, the roof is lower.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. You can see where previously there was a height issue, and a request
for variance. In this configuration, there is, it’s well within the.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-That’s the 28 line.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-Dennis, could you show them the covered porch area that also required a height
variance that’s now been eliminated?
MR. STONE-I see that. I see that’s eliminated, yes. So the space between the house and the
retaining wall, on the backside, you’re going to fill with building?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-The retaining wall is not closer to the lake than the building is.
MR. STONE-No, the back retaining wall.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct, the new addition.
MR. STONE-You’re going to expand.
MR. MAC ELROY-Fill in that space.
MR. STONE-Fill in that space.
MR. HAYES-Essentially two levels there, an entry level and a.
MR. LAPPER-What the Board had said last time was, could we do the addition in the back of the
house, and now, with the exception of the garage and the entrance way, which have to be there in
order to spread the house out and make it look more visually attractive, most of the addition, the
living space is all between the house and the road, and the back, and the roof, but the roof is already
there now. It’s just being modified. So it’s not something that you’re going to see from the road,
from the lake, excuse me.
MR. STONE-Are you going to build on that roof?
MR. LAPPER-Take it off.
MR. STONE-Take the roof off, the flat roof off.
MR. MACKEY-The roof trusses were installed incorrectly, actually. As they put it, the crown side
was supposed to be up. It’s down. So they’re all cracked and the roof’s sort of caving in. So,
structurally, it’s.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Any questions? Anything else? I’ll open the
public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, this request? Anybody in
favor? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-I’m not really opposed. I just have a couple of questions. Again, Kathleen
Salvador, a major question is, where is Wild Turkey Lane? Has it been renamed? Because as you
used to drive along 9L, you saw Wild Turkey Lane sign.
MR. MACKEY-The sign’s been stolen four times.
MRS. SALVADOR-No wonder I couldn’t find it. I thought I had seen it.
MR. MACKEY-I've gotten a note from the Town saying the Town refuses to replace it because it’s
been stolen four times. So if we want to all chip in and buy it, we can.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. That answers question number one. Is this project a renovation or is this
considered new construction?
MR. STONE-It’s renovation.
MRS. SALVADOR-It’s renovation. Okay. Have we found out where the septic system is?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-We do know where that is now?
MR. STONE-We're going with where the old one was. Do we know where the old one was?
MRS. SALVADOR-Because we didn’t know where the old one was.
MR. STONE-Mr. Matthews thought he knew last time.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and you’re going to be using the same septic system?
MR. MACKEY-No, we’re building a new state of the art septic system.
MRS. SALVADOR-Then it’s no longer a renovation, according to the New York State Building
Code. It’s new construction. As soon as you touch the old septic or discard the old septic, it is now,
according to New York State Building Code, new construction, and I think we’ve gone over that
with a few other projects.
MR. STONE-All right. We’ll ask.
MRS. SALVADOR-But, we’ll let the architect answer that. The present dwelling, as I understand
from the last meeting, is 3,150 square feet. The old addition was going to be 4100 square feet. The
new addition now is down to 3100 square feet. Is that correct?
MR. STONE-31 is correct.
MRS. SALVADOR-31, and according to my notes from the last meeting, the original building was
3150 square feet. Okay. So we’re talking 100%. Okay.
MR. STONE-And that’s one of the variances that is being sought.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Now, according to my notes from the last meeting, also, the house is 12
and a half feet from the lake. Okay. Now that’s another variance that we’re going for?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. I had another question here, too. You said that the height of the building
is 28 feet, where is that measured from?
MR. MAC ELROY-Adjacent grade.
MR. STONE-As stated in Code. Twenty-eight feet vertical from every piece of ground, to every.
MRS. SALVADOR-So even though this is built on the hillside, we’re not measuring from the lower
part. We're not measuring from the higher point on the drawing. We're measuring from the lower
point on the drawing.
MR. STONE-We're measuring from the ground, continuously, as it ascends. It’s 28 feet at every
point, less than 28 feet.
MR. STEC-Following the contours of the land.
MRS. SALVADOR-So if the roof, at one point, is 38 feet, as opposed to 28, as we go up the hill?
MR. STONE-We only have one height measurement, and that’s from the ground directly.
MRS. SALVADOR-What part of the ground?
MR. STONE-Directly under the high point of the house as it goes, as the ground goes up.
MR. HAYES-The corresponding part of the house.
MR. BROWN-I think if you look on the applicant’s drawing there, it shows a parallel line to the
proposed final grade.
MRS. SALVADOR-I thought this was brought up in the Comprehensive Plan, and it was going to
be the lowest point of the ground, not the highest point of the ground where we start to measure
from.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. BROWN-If it was addressed at the Comprehensive Plan, it’s not something that’s been adopted
as of yet.
MR. ROUND-There’s been no change in the Zoning Ordinance to reflect.
MRS. SALVADOR-There hasn’t been any change. So we can still go, then, if this house, at the
lowest point, we start measuring at the lowest point, and the roof is say 36 feet high. You’re going to
measure up that hill, and you’re going to still say that it’s only 28 feet high, because that’s the roof at
the highest point of the ground. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. ROUND-I think Mrs. Salvador may be referring to the way the APA measures height.
MRS. SALVADOR-No. I’m just looking at the house.
MR. STONE-The finished grade, the building structure height, the distance measured along a vertical
plane from the highest point of the building or structure to finished grade at any point adjacent to
the building or structure. In other words, lets say we had land going up this way, the house can go
up exactly the same way, as long as the vertical is no more than 28 feet. That’s the Code that’s been
adopted two years ago.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. So you’re saying, as I’m looking at this drawing, on the easel, that the
highest point of that building, the ground goes up, to the highest point of the roof is 28 feet?
MR. STONE-Or less.
MRS. SALVADOR-Or less. So that if you go downhill and you measure that lower point up to the
roof, even though it’s more than 28, you’re still saying that it’s 28?
MR. STONE-That’s a measurement that doesn’t come into play in the zoning code, the way you’re
talking about. If you were on the side of a hill this steep, and you start a house down here and have
the thing up here, it might be 50 feet above the lowest point.
MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. STONE-That’s not what the Code calls for.
MRS. SALVADOR-So you can build a house on the side of the hill, and you can build it 50 feet
high, as long as the lowest point is only 28 feet high?
MR. STONE-No, no. You can’t be more than 28 feet above the ground directly underneath the
point that you’re measuring. It’s a plumb line from the roof to the ground.
MR. HAYES-Up a hill it’s going to be a parallelogram, like, basically.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-As you go up the hill, this represents the grade, the existing grade.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand.
MR. MAC ELROY-This represents a measurement 28 feet from that adjacent grade.
MRS. SALVADOR-So the highest point over here is 28 feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-The peak of the roof happens to be the closest point, so that’s 28 feet.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and that’s 28 feet. You’re obviously much lower here. Okay. I just want
to get it clear in my mind, that’s all. I’m not the engineer in the family. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Does anybody want to speak opposed or seeking information? Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-How does my wife’s comment, regarding new versus renovation, effect the
application? The application has been made here as a renovation, and I think we can show that
within the technical terms of the Uniform Building Code, that as my wife points out, if you modify,
expand, build a new septic system, it’s automatically new construction. Okay. Now are there
different parameters, different design parameters, different area?
MR. STONE-Would Staff like to talk to this, please?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. ROUND-The building permit process, and the Codes that will be applied to this, this project
will be reviewed according to the Uniform Building Code. I think any time you make a renovation to
a septic system, I’m not going to be able to elaborate on all the definitions. The application in front
of you, the judgements you make on it, are subject to setback reliefs, and that’s what you’re
entertaining tonight, and the septic system will be in compliance with our local Code, State DEC and
Health Department Codes, and the building will be constructed according to Uniform Building Code
requirements.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand that. That’s not the question. Our Ordinance addresses
renovations versus new construction. Okay, and there are certain, I’m not familiar with all of them,
but we dwell on this renovation versus new construction.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll address that.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, is it addressed on these drawings and in this application? That’s my only
question.
MR. MC NALLY-I think, Mr. Salvador, it’s a combination of an existing structure which is being
modernized, and that’s the structure closest to the lake, and then there is new construction, in the
sense of a garage being built. The issues in front of us is a 75 foot setback relief, 25-foot side setback
relief, and the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Now, if there are other requirements for
septic systems in the Building Code, then that would go in front of another body. The ones we’re
responsible for addressing today, I don’t think involve themselves in the appropriateness of the
septic system.
MR. SALVADOR-You must consider, in your deliberation and in your evaluation, you must
consider this as a new construction. That is the existing one doesn’t exist.
MR. STONE-You’re giving us information that I will certainly ask Staff to rule on. We have never
taken this into consideration.
MR. SALVADOR-I know. You duck it every time.
MR. STONE-We’ve never ducked it because we’ve never known about it. I have not been aware of
this particular point that you’re making.
MR. SALVADOR-I can’t tell you how many times we’ve brought this up.
MR. STONE-Okay. Not to this body you haven’t. Any other comments? Any other people wish to
speak opposed? Anything in the file?
MR. LAPPER-Can we address the comments?
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. With respect to this issue, renovation versus new construction, it’s a
distinction without a difference, as it relates to an Area Variance. What Mr. McNally said, the Code
that we are here to talk about today is what the standards are for an Area Variance and what the
requirements in the Town Code are for an Area Variance, which are all of the issues that are on the
table right now. That is totally separate and apart from the Uniform Fire and Building Code, which
the construction process would also have to comply with, and how Dave Hatin views this, in terms
of the building permit, the inspections, the standards that the house has to meet, including the septic,
are separate, and it’s not before this Board, and of course they’ll be complied with, and there’s no
variance that’s going to be requested in Albany from the Uniform Fire and Building Code. Our
septic discussion, the Salvadors seem to have sort of turned that around as a negative. We're saying
that we’ve got a septic system that’s something in the order of 25 feet from the lake right now, that’s
going to be completely relocated, both in terms of the design will meet Code and the location will
meet Code. That’s a positive about this project, and there’s new construction here, regardless of the
definition, because we’re moving the septic system. There’s new construction because there’s new
construction that’s going to be built, and the new construction will have to comply with the fire and
building code for new construction.
MR. STONE-That’s certainly my understanding. I appreciate that.
MR. MAC ELROY-I just want to add something, in regards to our dealings with Staff, because Staff
had asked questions about the appropriateness of the lot to support a replacement septic system, and
that word is what I've been working with, in terms of the Town of Queensbury Wastewater
Ordinance. It’s a replacement system for an existing four-bedroom system, and the renovation, the
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
house is a four-bedroom house, in its final form. The system that will be constructed is a
replacement system for a four bedroom.
MR. STONE-In considering this variance, we do consider the house, where it is, whether it’s being
built anew at 12 and a half feet from the lake, for example. That’s part of the variance that we grant.
The septic system, the Board of Health is not, and the Building Department is not our germane.
Having said that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. STEC-I do have one piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-You do? Excuse me. I’ll re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. STEC-I have a letter dated August 27, 1999, to Chris Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Chris Mackey residence, 15 Wild Turkey Lane, Queensbury, NY
Application for Area Variance “Dear Mr. Thomas: On behalf of Chris Mackey, I hereby submit an
original and nine copies of a revised Area Variance application, site plans and schematic elevations.
In response to the obvious concerns voiced by the members of the Zoning Board at the meeting on
August 25, the renovation plans have been significantly scaled back. The proposed upper floor has
th
been completely eliminated so that the home will be no higher than the existing structure. As such,
no height variances will be necessary and the addition at the rear of the structure will not be visible
from the lake. Visually and functionally, it is not possible to relocate the proposed garage structure.
However, it has been reduced in size so that it will now be a minimum of 16 feet from the east
property line at the closest point. It also has been relocated four feet farther from the lake, to 47
feet. The floor area ratio has been reduced from 12.7%, as previously proposed, to 9.5%, and the
total floor area has been reduced significantly from 7,250 square feet to 5,412 square feet. The actual
living space is much smaller than 5,412 square feet. I hope that the Board will recognize that the
removal of the top floor is a major concession in order to address the Board’s concerns. Please place
this matter on the agenda for one of the September meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper,
Esq.”
MR. LAPPER-I just want to point out that the second to last paragraph is no longer correct because
the architects were redrawing the plans as we were making the deadline getting this in. That didn’t
include the bedroom in the attic, which is 800 square feet, approximately. So the plans that you have
are correct. It’s just that that last sentence doesn’t have the right numbers.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. I will re-close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant, gentlemen? All right. Lets talk about it. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I recognize that this new proposal is certainly much more modest than the original
and on shoreline concerns, as far as setbacks go, my prime concern is usually the height variances
that are typically sought, and in this case, the need for one has been eliminated because of the
reduction of the number of stories in the home. I do think that it is an aggressive addition. It’s a
large addition, but it doesn’t encroach any further on the lake. It is an improvement from the
previous application, but that’s not to say that we want to send a message, well, you just plan for two
meeting nights, the first one to ask for the moon, and the second one to hopefully come in a little
under, but in general though, I see that I guess I’m still bothered by the construction, this addition 12
and a half feet from the lake. I recognize that there’s probably not a whole lot that the applicant
could do to mitigate that. Any addition to the home is going to be certainly within the 75 foot
shoreline setback, as the entire proposal is virtually inside the 75 foot setback, but I’ll listen to the
rest of the Board, but as I stands right, I still think it might be too much, but I haven’t ruled it out.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, could I just respond. Just one comment, I’m sorry. The construction
isn’t 12 and a half feet from the lake. That’s what the pre-existing is, and the construction, except for
replacing the roof, it’s.
MR. STONE-Well, the roof is going up, starting at 12 and a half feet.
MR. LAPPER-Right. No question.
MR. STONE-So there is construction at 12 and a half.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. LAPPER-Technically correct, but where the building is going to be, most of the building.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. LAPPER-And Dan, also, I mean, there are certainly times when I’m representing a commercial
developer and we’ve got a Sign Variance and they insist that they ask for something, but I get them
to back off, and this was a case where this was not the plan, and we went and redesigned it after
listening to the Board.
MR. STEC-I didn’t want you to misunderstand. I was totally not accusatory in my comment. I
certainly didn’t mean that in this case, but in appearance, it may send a confusing message to others.
MR. LAPPER-Understood.
MR. STEC-But again, I haven’t ruled it out. It is definitely better, and the first one I thought was
unreasonable. This is a reasonable request, but I’ll listen to the rest of the Board and see if they
convince me or unconvince me.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess, getting back to the first meeting, I think that most everybody on the
Board expressed the consensus that on first sight of the property, that the first thing that came to
mind was the need for an update. Lew expressed some good feelings about the 60’s, but most of us
have a different, outside of being born then, a different view, but in this particular case, one of the
most striking things is obviously that this property is 12 and a half feet from the lake, but I think that
has more to do with a failing in the past than an attempt by the applicant to gain in the current.
Clearly our Ordinance should have prevented that type of position of a property of that size, or any
property for that matter that close to the lake, but failing that, I think that feasible alternatives for
updating any, possibly increasing the size of the property, are very limited in this particular case,
based on the location of the current structure, and the steep contour of the land involved. I mean,
this is a unique lot. We’ve dealt with problems of this type of magnitude and this type of occurrence
with this particular area. Because of the steep grade, it makes certain kinds of construction or more
obvious, more compliant additions less feasible. As I look at the plan as it appears now, most of the
square footage, the additional square footage, is going behind the building, where it’s not going to be
viewable at all from the lake. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my calculations tell me that about 2300 of
the overall 3100 are going to be actually behind the existing structure, further away from the lake, and
I don’t think they’re going to be in view at all. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I think that
it is. I think that clearly there has to be little or no impact on the neighborhood for me to feel that,
on balance, which this test is a balancing test, that to be in favor of this, I have to feel that it’s an
improvement in the neighborhood, and I guess that’s where I feel the crux of the test falls, in this
particular case. In examining that, how would I feel if I lived next door? One, they’re improving the
septic system substantially, if not dramatically in this particular case, which is always a concern,
particularly if I was the next door neighbor, and, Two, the house really does need a modernization
project, and I think it’s a little bit aggressive. I agree with Dan, but as I look at the plans, I look at
the fact that he’s not trying to do the additions and gain the square footage in a way that’s cheap or
inexpensive or untasteful or any of those type of things that would be of concern to me as a
neighbor. I think that this will improve this area of the lake. I think that this building will look very
good when it’s done, and in that way, the impacts on the neighborhood are going to be positive,
particularly based on the plan submitted, which are professionally done, and in my mind, tasteful. So
the last part of the test, is this difficulty self created? I think only partially, being that this is a pre-
existing location on this property, obviously too close to the lake, but the alternatives are minimal,
and in that way, I think the difficulty was created when this camp or this home was constructed long
ago. So I would be I favor of the application, in the overall sense.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I join in everything that Jaime said. He said it well. I think it’s a significant
concession and a substantial effort to conform to our Zoning Ordinance on a structure which is way
out of date, truly an eyesore, and unfortunately close to the lake, but not likely anything we can do
about. The bulk of this renovation is in that main structure. They’re really not changing the floor
plan significantly there. The garages are a wee bit closer to the lake then I would have ever liked
them to be, but you’ve tried to move them back a bit, and it’s only because they coordinate well with
the rest of the structure, and tie in with the entry way that you talked about, I’m in favor of it. The
height has been reduced substantially. I like that close to the lake. There’s a lot less glass than there
used to be next to the lake. All these things indicate to me that on balance this is a good proposal
and that the effects on the neighborhood or community would be minimal. I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I kind of echo Dan. My first concern is not comparing it to the previous
submission, and I think that’s more of a problem for us than it is for the applicant. There’s always
the danger, at least for me, of looking at something and saying, gee, somebody cut their project in
half, we ought to give it to them, and that’s not necessarily the case, if it still is a big change from
what the zoning allows. So I’m trying to look at this as if this is the only project that I've seen. Like
Dan, too, I’m a bit concerned about the garage sticking out there. No problem with the addition
that’s on the back of the house, and I don’t see any big problem with the roof. I’m not sure how I’m
going to come down
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, he makes a very interesting comment. Obviously, in the past, I have
spoken strongly about the effect on the lake. As has been stated certainly by Mr. Hayes and Mr.
McNally, the impact on the lake has basically been made. It was made 30 years ago. I wish it hadn’t
been made, but it has been made. So what do we do with a piece of property which is antiquated,
not so much by its design, but by the way it was actually implemented and the way it was
constructed. It’s just not in very good shape. I wish that we didn’t have to put the roof as starting
up immediately at 12 and a half feet, but that’s what you have to do in the North Country to build a
house that is going to withstand a few winters with all the snow and the ice, particularly with the
wind, the north wind coming down from directly onto the house. I am concerned, but I do think it’s
a project, and I like the way Mr. McNulty looked at it. Lets look at it as if this was the first time it
was presented to us. What do we have? We have a house that’s 12 and a half feet from the lake, bad,
but it’s there. How can we improve it? Well, we can put a roof in, because we have to make a
modern house, and we’ve got to start somewhere. We’ve got to start where the roof is. So, we’ve
got to do that. So that kind of says, well, if you’re going to do anything to the house, you’re going to
be at 12 and a half feet somewhere from the lake. The garage, which is the new construction that is
going to be within 50 feet of the lake, 47., what, 2 I guess the number is, I mean, if this were one acre
zoning, it would be only two and a half feet relief from the 50 feet. We do put things within 50 feet
of the lake. This particular lot is wooded in such a way that I think that it will be not seen too badly.
On balance, looking at the benefit to the applicant, considering the detriment to the community that
already exists, on balance, I think I can support this application, primarily because the construction is
going to be to the rear. We are going to end up, even though it’s not in our purview, we know we’re
going to end up with a new septic system. If the house were to remain the way it is, there would be
no obligation on the part of the applicant to put a new septic system in. It’s there. The way things
go with our Ordinance, it would be there, and could stay there as long as it didn’t really totally fail.
So having said that, I would reluctantly, as I say, I wish the house weren’t there, but I think I can
support it on the basis that, what else are you going to do to this piece of property. Having said that,
may I ask for a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1999 CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
15 Wild Turkey Lane. The applicant proposes construction of an approximately 3100 square foot
addition and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 62.5 feet of relief from the 75
foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-3A zone, Section 179-16, and the
Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, Section 179-60. Also, the applicant is requesting 9.7 feet of
relief from the 25-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-3A zone, Section 179-16.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from the Section 179-79 for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law, the benefit to the applicant. In this case, the applicant would be permitted to construct
the addition and additionally significant architecturally upgrades to the existing structure. Feasible
alternatives. I believe that feasible alternatives are limited based on the current location of the
current structure, and the steep contour of the land which is relatively unique to the properties in this
area. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it is. 62.5 feet of relief from
the 75-foot shoreline setback is certainly substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I
believe that in this particular case, the effects on the neighborhood or community will be minimal
and positive. The improvement to the septic system from a currently nonconforming, from a new
perspective to a brand new system significantly further from the lake. I believe that the plans as
depicted in this particular case represent significant improvements in the visual impact of the
property from the lake and for the neighbors, and I believe also that, from a community perspective,
the overall improvement of the property as an upgrade only positively impacts the neighbors. So
noting neighborhood support on the record. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe the difficulty is
only partially self-created, being that the existing structure is currently located 12.5 feet from the lake,
and none of the additional construction is going closer to the lake. So, I believe the difficulty is only
partially self-created. Based on the overall balance of the test, I believe that it falls in favor of the
applicant, and I move for its adoption.
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
MR. LAPPER-Thanks. I think you’re all going to be real happy with the house when it’s done.
Thanks very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1999 TYPE II SR-1A KEVIN & MELODY BYRNES
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 56 PEACHTREE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN IN-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX
MAP NO. 121-15-22 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-67
KEVIN & MELODY BYRNES
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-1999, Kevin & Melody Byrnes, Meeting Date: September
15, 1999 “Project Location: 56 Peachtree Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory
Structures § 179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an additional
recreation area on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
relocating the pool closer to the residence thereby alleviating some of the relief requested. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may
be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on
the neighborhood may be 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.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The common area behind this property may help soften if not eliminate any impact on this
project may have on other residential properties. Much of the difficulty may be attributed to the size
and configuration of the lots within this subdivision. Most of these 10,000 sf lots with reasonable
homes meeting setback requirements may require setback relief for pools. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Anything from the County?
MR. STEC-Nothing from the County.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Byrnes, do you want to tell us anything more?
MR. BYRNES-I’m Kevin Byrnes. The only setback relief, I understand, that it is is 20 foot from
your property line, but we have that buffer zone of the common area. So the nearest resident to that
relief would be roughly 80 feet, which is the due, directly behind us.
MR. STONE-Can you talk to me a little bit about what this common area is and what the restrictions
are on its use?
MR. BYRNES-We’ve just moved there at the end of June. The use of it is just basically, I guess what
it means, just a common area that’s not to be developed, and it’s just left natural, if I understand that
to be correct, and we’re not going to be infringing upon the use of that piece of property. That is
just, I guess, commonly owned by the Association members of the subdivision.
MR. STONE-Are all the trees in the common area?
MR. BYRNES-All the trees that are effected are in the common area.
MRS. BYRNES-There are trees there now.
MR. BYRNES-Right.
MRS. BYRNES-We are not touching.
MR. BYRNES-We are not touching any trees in the common area. The trees that were addressed
were on our property.
MR. STONE-So you do have, some of those trees are on your property.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. BYRNES-No. They are no longer on our property, our personal property.
MR. MC NALLY-They’ve been cut down already.
MR BYRNES-That’s correct.
MRS. BYRNES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because you made the comment, current use back yard open, proposed use,
clear some trees, and I was.
MRS. BYRNES-That was on our property, not on the common.
MR. BYRNES-Not in the setback area.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the trees that are there now are in the common area?
MR. BYRNES-That’s correct.
MRS. BYRNES-Correct.
MR. BYRNES-And will remain there, correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions at the moment? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing
to speak in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed to this application?
Anybody opposed? Anything in the file?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. I have a letter from Sherman Pines Homeowners Association, Inc., Ballston Spa,
NY, dated September 10, 1999, re: Applications from owners of homes in the Sherman Pines
Subdivision “Your notice of public hearing relative to Melody and Kevin Byrnes, 6 Peachtree Lane,
was received and a copy sent to the Sherman Pines Homeowners Association Board of Directors.
Hopefully, one of the Board members will be able to make the hearing. However, pursuant to
Article 7 of the recorded declaration and the recorded Amendment Number One to such declaration,
copies enclosed, an application such as that of the Byrnes and that of Robert Stone, 81 Peachtree
Lane, should require the applicant to present evidence that they have complied with the Association
documents and have written or approval of their plans subject to the Town of Queensbury’s
approval where necessary, prior to being granting a public hearing by the Town of Queensbury. All
homes in Sherman Pines Subdivision are subject to compliance with the recorded declaration and
any amendments thereto, and should not be permitted to bypass such by applying first to the Town.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please advise. Sherman Pines Homeowners Association,
Inc. Ruth DeRue, Managing Agent”
MR. BYRNES-We are not familiar with that.
MR. STONE-Well, first of all, we do not get involved with covenants.
MR. BYRNES-Right.
MR. HAYES-That’s a private agreement. If they want to challenge you on that, they can.
MR. BYRNES-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s something that you ought to check with them. That has no effect on our
decision.
MR. BYRNES-A precedent, I believe, had already been set, a pool that you recently, I guess,
addressed.
MRS. BYRNES-After the pool was installed on that same, in that same area.
MR. BYRNES-Subdivision.
MRS. BYRNES-The pool was installed first.
MR. BYRNES-So we were not aware of any of those types of ordinances being, like I said, just
moving there in June.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MRS. BYRNES-And we spoke to many neighbors asking, is there anything else that we need to
address before we come to the Board for the variance, and no one said that to us.
MR. BYRNES-Right, and we had just basically, also, operated off of an observation that a pool was
installed, and we are now here following the Town’s Ordinance.
MR. MC NALLY-How are you going to fence the pool?
MR. BYRNES-We're going to put a cedar fence around the property.
MRS. BYRNES-Adirondack fence.
MR. MC NALLY-How tall is it?
MR. BYRNES-About six foot, within the Code. We won’t need a dumpster.
MR. STONE-You’re proposing this to be 10 feet from the house, which is the minimum it’s
supposed to be, and that’s why you need the variance.
MRS. BYRNES-Correct.
MR. BYRNES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-That fence in the back, that’s on the end of, obviously, the common area.
MR. BYRNES-Correct.
MR. STONE-All right. I was just noticing how some people use the common area. Your neighbor
has a trampoline back in the woods there.
MR. BYRNES-Yes.
MRS. BYRNES-Right.
MR. BYRNES-The observation is correct, but I won’t have an opinion.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I think there are a lot of homes in Queensbury who are very fortunate to have
common areas behind them. This is the, I think, fourth or fifth one that we’ve had where people
have asked for variances from the rear setback because they’ve got a common area which effectively
screens the pool from their neighbors to the rear, and in my opinion, the purpose of the setback is to
allow distance between neighbors, and the common area effectively does that, and then some. I was
actually surprised to see how many trees were missing from your common area.
MR. BYRNES-We noticed that as well.
MRS. BYRNES-Some people have taken that upon themselves to do that.
MR. BYRNES-Again, that’s an observation that I noticed that you had just said, that there were trees
in the common area that were cut down that we didn’t observe people cutting down. I would even
say that trees were taken down maybe in the construction of that subdivision as well. Because there
were a series of nice pines and trees to the right of our back yard, then there’s a big gap, and then you
see the back porch of the home behind us. So that common area doesn’t quite do for half the back
yard what it might have intended to do.
MR. MC NALLY-Right, but I think if your Homeowners Association will prohibit clear cutting and
will allow it to grow back, it certainly would be a great buffer. I don’t have a problem with this
because, on balance, there’s no effect on the neighborhood whatsoever.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have much to add. I’m basically in agreement with what Bob has said. I
think the common area provides a great buffer, and the only question’s whether we allow these
people to have a pool or not to have a pool, because there’s nothing else they can do with it, other
than what they’re proposing. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Dan?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I’m in favor. I have no problem granting this
variance. I think that the relief sought is minimal and is mitigated by the existence of the
buffer/common area.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s all been said. I think I wish they were all this easy. We have a splash zone
of 80 feet. If that’s not enough, I don’t know what is. So I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-I agree. If it weren’t for the buffer zone, one might ask, for the common area, one
might say, well, maybe this property wasn’t designed to have a pool, but since it is there, and as Jaime
just said, splash area. I hadn’t heard that before. I like that. There’s certainly ample room behind
you that your neighbor is certainly going to be protected. You’re not asking to, your neighbors on
either side, that’s perfectly fine. So I have no problem with it. Having said that, I’d ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1999 KEVIN & MELODY
BYRNES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
56 Peachtree Lane. The applicant has proposed construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback
relief. Specifically, I move that we approve 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback
requirement of the Accessory Structures Section 179-67. The benefit to the applicant is clear, that
they would be permitted to construct an additional recreational area, i.e. a pool, on their property.
Feasible alternatives are limited, essentially, since they’re looking to put a small pool in, to no
addition of a pool, but that doesn’t seem reasonable, and the relief sought is minimal, in my
judgment, because while we’re being granted 12 feet from the 20 foot requirement, the intent there
was to protect the neighbors from the noise and visual effects associated with pools in back yards,
and that is mitigated by the presence of a common area in the Association, and I feel there’ll be
minimal impacts on the neighborhood, and the difficulty is self-created only in that the applicant
seeks to add a pool to the yard, which I think is reasonable and should be accommodated when
possible. So, with that said, I move that we approve the relief sought.
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. BYRNES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-You’ll be ready for next year.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1999 TYPE II CR-15 DOUBLE A PROVISIONS OWNER:
BEN ARONSON MAIN STREET APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ADDITION
AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING
RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 49-99
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1, 14 LOT SIZE: 1.31
ACRES SECTION 179-24, 179-72
BEN ARONSON & FRANK LEO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-1999, Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: September 15,
1999 “Project Location: Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed an addition to an existing dry goods storage facility and is requesting setback relief. Also,
the applicant proposes construction of an additional parking area and request permeability relief.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 22.9 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback
requirement as well as 4% relief from the maximum 70% impermeable requirement of the CR-15
zone, § 179-24. Further, since the CR-15/SR-1A zone line runs along the southerly property lines, a
50 foot buffer is required between the commercial use and the residential zone. Therefore the
applicant is requesting 50 feet of relief on both sides of the zone line. By definition, a buffer zone is
a natural area, undisturbed, inhabited with natural vegetation to sufficiently screen adjoining uses or
zones. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the addition. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created. However, the applicant had anticipated purchasing additional lands to
alleviate this difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Use Variance 18-
1997 res. 5/21/97 wholesale meat distribution Area Variance 19-1997 res. 7/30/97 setback relief
Site Plan Review 22-1997 res. 7/30/97 warehouse addition & site improvements Staff comments:
Previously, this project was reviewed and approved by both the Planning and Zoning Boards with
the understanding, which was made a condition of the approvals granted, that the applicant had
purchased the additional lands from Fish. Apparently, the applicant has not been able to secure the
title to the properties, which were previously believed to have been conveyed. All previous approvals
were conditioned upon the transfer of the Fish property and the same to be consolidated with the
existing Aronson properties. Since the proposed easement area is not on property owned by the
applicant, relief would, technically, need to be granted to Fish, currently not an applicant. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Would you read the letter of August 25, which is part of the application, I believe.
th
MR. STEC-I have a letter from Double A Provisions, Inc., 64 Main Street, Queensbury, NY, dated
August 25, 1999, “To Whom It May Concern: Due to a breach in a contract with James Fish on
acquisition of property behind us, rather than spend a lengthy and expensive time in court, we are
asking the Town for a variance on Setback Rules. We feel we are reasonable in this request as: 1)
We have met all town requirements for fire lane access to all sides of property. 2) We have set aside
a green area on South and East side of property in addition to a green area in front of new office.
Plus the existing island with a total green area of 19,776 square feet. We are also proposing in
addition to above, 1,150 square feet of planters and shrubbery that will be professionally installed and
maintained. 3) Mr. Fish has given us a 50 foot right of way at the rear of the building which is
presently fenced with new stockade. We hope this matter can be amicably settled at this time.
Sincerely, Ben Aronson”
MR. ARONSON-That’s me.
MR. STONE-What are we going to do? Talk to us about it, please.
MR. ARONSON-Well, it’s stated in the letter that you just read that we received a permit to put the
building up, based on a contract from him, and I have copies of the contract here, I think you have,
too, from Mr. Fish that the property was going to be sold to us, and I guess there was a family
disagreement as to the sale of it, but they have agreed to give us ample room behind it to meet the
setback requirements. I have photographs I took today if anybody wants to look at them, of this.
MR. STONE-Yes, because you can probably give me some explanation, in terms of, I looked at it
today, and the way the stockade fence goes, I want to know what we’re talking about.
MR. ARONSON-All right.
MR. LEO-Okay. This is our line here, okay. This is the right-of-way that the Fish’s have given us.
MR. STONE-They’ve given you behind the building, but not this part.
MR. LEO-No. There’s no building here. This is our line.
MR. HAYES-Is this Fish property over here, too?
MR. LEO-No. Everything on this side of the fence, from this post, belongs to Double A.
MR. HAYES-I understand that. I’m talking about on this side of the fence over here. Did they give
you a contoured right of way?
MR. ARONSON-There’s better pictures than that.
MR. LEO-This is the fence, and this is the part that comes around. That’s where we go around,
okay. This is the Fish property here. This here, this corner here belongs to Double A. The building
comes all the way over to here.
MR. ARONSON-Dave Fish is here, by the way, if there’s any questions that you have.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-But this is the property line where you had the cones today, and he’s giving you the
easement that goes behind the building, but.
MR. LEO-Which is right here.
MR. STONE-Right. I understand.
MR. LEO-This part here.
MR. HAYES-So it’s an easement. It’s not a conveyance, then, it’s an easement.
MR. ARONSON-It’s an easement.
MR. LEO-This point here is that post here.
MR. HAYES-You’ve actually got a contract on the easement, it’s recorded?
MR. LEO-We’ve got one.
MR. STONE-Yes, but you had a contract to sell.
MR. LEO-It’s all notarized and everything.
MR. BROWN-I might suggest maybe getting a copy for the file, because I don’t think we have one
in the file currently.
MR. HAYES-If it’s not a recorded easement, it would probably need to be, ultimately, to make it
binding.
MR. STONE-Well, it says by signing and notarizing, they mutually agree to accept all terms. Is that
not enough, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s not enough. It has to be acknowledged, which is not a sworn to statement,
as that one is. It has to be in the form of a deed that can be filed, and there’s a special form they
have to file.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s good for their purposes, but it’s not good enough to convey a title to the
easement.
MR. HAYES-He’s conveying part of his title with an easement, right, or essentially a portion of it.
MR. MC NALLY-You make it iron clad by filing an easement. If this wants to change, it can get
changed. You can breach your contract to sell. You haven’t bought it, and if you think you have an
easement, well, tomorrow you might not have an easement. The only one way to get an easement is
to file.
MR. HAYES-But you can go ahead with this application, because we can make it contingent on you
actually getting the legal easement.
MR. ARONSON-I’m not familiar with this procedure. Mr. Fish is right here. Explain to him.
MR. HAYES-It’s more of a fact that this isn’t quite an easement yet. We can make anything we do
contingent on actually getting a real easement, which is a legal.
MR. STONE-We're getting this pro bono work from our lawyer over here, see, but this is pro bono.
It’s an opinion, but in his judgment, this is not a binding, the judgment is that it’s not a binding
document on Mr. Fish, to allow you to use this in perpetuity. Is that correct, what I’m saying?
MR. MC NALLY-Right, and it’s not binding, it’s not something the Town can rely on in the future,
if you choose to give the variance because it could change, and we’re stuck with where we are right
today.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the picture the way I saw it today. That’s from the other side. Okay.
You belong to about here?
MR. LEO-This right here.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-That’s right, it comes in there. That’s right, your property goes back a little way.
MR. ARONSON-It’s not much of a piece of property, really. It gives us the setback requirements
that you’re looking for. That’s the front of the building.
MR. STONE-The assumption that you’re stating is that you have an easement for the perpetual use
of this particular piece of property?
MR. ARONSON-I assume that that piece of paper would do it.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s your assumption, and we can condition it on that. Any other questions
at the moment?
MR. MC NALLY-Why couldn’t you buy the property? What’s the problem?
MR. HAYES-I guess that’s a question for Mr. Fish.
MR. STONE-Mr. Fish, we were lead to believe it was a done deal.
MR. MC NALLY-We had signed statements it was a done deal.
DAVID FISH
MR. FISH-My name’s David Fish, and I represent Jim and Judith Fish. There’s two parties involved
in this. Jim Fish doesn’t own this property completely. He has a wife that owns this property with
him, and she would not sign these papers to sell that piece of property. So, our feeling is, legally, that
we can’t sell this property to Ben, even though we promised it to him. So we’re willing to give him
an easement onto our property. That house that is on that property there now, we own the business
next door, okay, and as far as selling that house to somebody else, it would never happen.
MR. STONE-Never is a long time.
MR. FISH-Well, I mean, between Benny and I.
MR. STONE-Never is a long time. That’s just a statement we have to live with, that’s all.
MR. FISH-Right. So, as we feel, asking the Town, if we give Benny the right-of-way of 50 foot onto
our property, it’s dead land to us, because the house eventually would be torn down, for our
business.
MR. STONE-You have to understand where we’re coming from, in the sense that we gave a
variance, after much deliberation. It was fairly long deliberation over a couple of evenings, in terms
of granting Mr. Aronson the right to build this building where he built it, and we were lead to believe
by Mr. Aronson and his agent that this was, in fact, a done deal, and all of the stipulations were being
met, and that the variance that we granted was in fact in place, and then we come to find this week
that that is not the case. Obviously, it doesn’t make us very happy. It’s not quite like the comments
we make when someone has done something and hasn’t even talked to anybody. We get very upset
with that. So this is kind of in the middle of that, but it is a situation that is disturbing to all of us. I
think I can speak for the whole Board when I say that. If you are willing, I guess from what I’m
hearing that we need, if we grant this variance, we need a more legal piece of paper. Is that a better
way of saying that?
MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Judy Fish is the one that won’t
sign the contract? She won’t convey the property, and is she married to James Fish?
MR. FISH-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Are they estranged, are they together as husband and wife, or are they separated?
MR. FISH-No, they’re together. I mean, the deed reads James C. and Judith A. Fish.
MR. MC NALLY-As husband and wife. Why won’t she sell?
MR. FISH-She just doesn’t want, I guess, the business creeping closer to our business, and she just
doesn’t want to sell her property to Ben. She just doesn’t. She feels that if we sold the property, that
we would have a fence right up next to our business, and it gives them more room to possibly add on
or do more business, and they live right across the street, and she just doesn’t wish to do that.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. HAYES-So it’s not a consideration issue, then, as far as Mr. Aronson is concerned? She doesn’t
feel like he’s offering enough?
MR. FISH-No. It has nothing to do with money or anything. It’s just she just does not wish to sell
the property. She is looking for the business for myself, down the road, that if I wish to expand, I
have property to do that, by using that 3 Second Street.
MR. MC NALLY-Your business is Jim’s Glass?
MR. FISH-Right. Jim owns Jim’s Glass.
MR. MC NALLY-And there’s a buffer zone on either side of that line, is there not?
MR. STONE-Yes, where is the zoning line on here?
MR. BROWN-The zone line is the property line between, well, I can show you on the map.
MR. STONE-Yes. Well, does it have this jog in it? That’s what I’m?
MR. HAYES-By definition it has to, really, right? That’s 50 feet, it jogs right with the line, right?
MR. BROWN-Yes. This is the buffer line.
MR. STONE-It does jog with the line, okay.
MR. BROWN-So there should be a 50 foot buffer here, as well as on this side.
MR. STONE-And this is the variance we granted him, no, we didn’t. We thought he was going to
own this property.
MR. BROWN-He was going to purchase this parcel here.
MR. STONE-And therefore make it one lot, so the line goes down here.
MR. MC NALLY-And it would be vacant.
MR. STONE-But when we gave it, just to clarify my own thinking, this line, this zoning line, would
have moved down here.
MR. BROWN-The zone line wouldn’t have moved.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s still a buffer.
MR. BROWN-And I think buffer relief was granted last time, as well.
MR. STONE-That’s what I thought we did. Okay. All right.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, if Jim’s Glass expands, they would have to expand into the buffer, wouldn’t
they? That same buffer?
MR. STONE-Which property is the business on? It’s down here?
MR. HAYES-279, 523, 279.
MR. FISH-Five Second Street. I’m not familiar with the number.
MR. HAYES-It would be south of the house.
MR. FISH-Right.
MR. STONE-South of that one and a half story house.
MR. FISH-Right.
MR. HAYES-And that’s where your parents live, then?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Who lives in the house right now?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. FISH-Nobody.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s a vacant home?
MR. FISH-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Do you have any plans to rent it out, or is it going to be torn down?
MR. FISH-Right now, we don’t plan on renting it out, and we don’t plan on tearing it down at this
point in time. We maintain the property and the land and the house, so it looks like somebody lives
in it. So it’s presentable.
MR. STONE-So you swung a 50-foot radius from the south, the west corner of the building?
MR. FISH-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Does anybody have any questions?
MR. MC NALLY-Is Judy Fish here tonight?
MR. FISH-No.
MR. STONE-Any other questions on the part of the Board? If not, we’ll certainly have another
chance, but let me open the public hearing. Anybody willing to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RANDY WINSLOW
MR. WINSLOW-My name’s Randy Winslow from 60 Main Street in Queensbury. I, for one, would
like to see a site plan of what he’s planning on doing for a parking lot, if that’s possible.
MR. STONE-We don’t have a site plan.
MR. WINSLOW-You don’t have a site plan.
MR. STONE-We don’t do that.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay. Now which direction is his parking lot going to run? Is it going to go to the
east, on the new lot that he just cleared and took the house down on?
MR. ARONSON-This isn’t about that.
MR. STONE-This isn’t about that. That’s not the point.
MR. WINSLOW-Well, in the permeability, that can effect me. I’m downside of the property from
him.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay, and at the last meeting when I came here, when he was getting his variances
to build his addition, he stated that it was going to be landscaped, and you know, clean, nice, and I
have some pictures that I’d like to show the Board, if that’s possible.
MR. STONE-You certainly may. What are you trying to show us?
MR. WINSLOW-Okay, the first picture is what the land looked like before he built his addition.
That is what I bought my house three years ago. This is the land that I bought.
MR. STONE-This is facing which direction?
MR. WINSLOW-Facing from the east to the west, towards, onto the property that is now his big
addition off the back.
MR. STONE-Okay.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. WINSLOW-Okay. This is what, when I bought my house three years ago, it looked like out
there, and I paid every dime I had in my life to buy it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. WINSLOW-And here’s the pictures of his land out there now, as of a couple of weeks ago.
MR. STONE-This particular yard is the house that he bought?
MR. WINSLOW-That’s the house that he bought, yes. That’s what it looked like when I bought my
home, three years ago.
MR. STONE-Gravel is permeable?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. STONE-So there’s not very much permeable land there at all.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. HAYES-Is that all gravel, or is any of that type?
MR. ARONSON-If you look at the pictures that I brought, you’ll see the green area. We’ve got
about 19,000 square feet of green.
MR. WINSLOW-Yes, which is weeds. Okay, and also they’ve erected a fence between their land and
mine, which is illegal according to your Code book right here. It’s height is too high for the last three
sections of fence, unless, I’d like to know which door they call the architectural front door of the
home, of the building.
MR. STONE-I assume it’s on Main Street.
MR. WINSLOW-That’s the one facing Main Street, correct?
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. WINSLOW-Well, it’s about three sections at five feet that isn’t supposed to be any taller than
four feet.
MR. STONE-A valid point, if it’s valid, there’s the man to talk to.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay, and I've taken a lot of grief from this business, with noise, trucks. He told
me it was going to be a fire lane, and they were driving trucks and cars in and out, past my yard,
when they told me it was a fire lane, not a road. The fire lane runs directly adjacent to my land, at 60
Main Street, and I’m just wondering how much farther I’m going to have to go. My driveway is filled
with dirt right now from his work over there taking that house down, from the rain. I mean, how
much more am I going to endure from this business?
MR. STONE-All I can say to you is that that is not what is before us tonight. I mean, I hear you,
and I sympathize with you, from what you’re saying, but that’s not what we’re here to talk about.
We're here to talk about merely the back of his building that was built in accordance with the
variance that we granted, and the variance has been, in a sense, ruled null and void by his inability to
buy the land.
MR. WINSLOW-So now his building is illegal in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-That’s exactly what we’re here to determine, not illegal, but whether or not we.
MR. WINSLOW-Under false pretenses it was obtained.
MR. STONE-That’s a question that we will be discussing.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed?
MR. MC NALLY-This went through site plan review.
MR. BROWN-Originally, and it’s scheduled to go through again, to address the increased parking.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. MC NALLY-Because of the changes.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-The same ones we’re talking about tonight.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-And that may be a better meeting for Mr. Winslow to attend, if he’s concerned with
site issues.
MR. STONE-Yes. If it’s site plan, you should go to the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-The Planning Board. They deal with the stormwater control, runoff, plantings,
landscape. That’s the Planning Board.
MR. STONE-You should be informed of that. Is it on the agenda this month?
MR. ARONSON-Yes, it is.
MR. BROWN-I think so.
MR. STONE-Then he should have been informed of it. It would be the second meeting.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s on for the 28, and I think the notifications probably go out next week some
th
time.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s where parking will be addressed?
MR. BROWN-Parking, landscaping, stormwater.
MR. STONE-The green area and all that sort of stuff. That’s what I’m saying. Any other questions?
Any correspondence?
MR. STEC-I have some correspondence and something from the County.
MR. STONE-The County.
MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 1 September 1999
Project Name: Double A Provisions, Inc. Owner: Ben Aronson ID Number: QBY-AV-83-1999
County Project #: Sept.99-29 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project
Description: The applicant is requesting relief in rear yard setback for a warehouse to stock pallets of
dry goods. Site Location: 62 Main Street, corner of Second Street Tax Map No. 134-6-1 Staff
Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing along with a letter to the Town of Queensbury is
provided with the summaries. The applicant had originally submitted plans that would have this
construction take place, or something very similar to it, as they were going to acquire additional
property from the adjacent property owner. It appears that the applicant needs a variance because
the property acquisition never occurred and now they have a setback of 2.1’ on the rear yard instead
of the required 25’. In addition, the existing structure intrudes on the travel corridor. There is no
additional encroachment on the travel corridor, and as such, that issue is not significant to the
County. Staff is recommending discussion to clarify the issues. County Planning Board
Recommendation: Approve with concerns that this project does not set a precedent for further
infringement onto the travel corridor overlay.” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board.
And I have some correspondence. I have a record of telephone conversation dated September 9,
1999, at 4:10 p.m. between Mr. D’Angelico, 80 Main Street, and Pam, Planning Office, Subject
Variance Double A Provisions “The business is a big asset to that end of Town. It looks beautiful,
and anything Mr. Aronson wants to do is okay with him.” And I have a letter, undated, “To Whom
It May Concern: My name is S. J. D’Angelico. My wife, Donna and I live at 80 Main Street here in
Queensbury. We go on record as saying that Ben Aronson is a big asset to our community, and
anything he wants to do at his place of business (Double A) is perfectly all right with us. Thank you,
Mr. Savino “Sonny” D’Angelico” I've got a letter dated August 23, 1999, Double A Provisions
right-of-way, “This intent of this letter is for James C. Fish and Judith A. Fish to allow Ben Aronson
to have a right of way on our land at 3 Second St., Queensbury, NY for accessibility around his
building for a Fire Lane only. In reaching an agreement Mr. Aronson will allow a sign for Jim’s Glass
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
Service to be erected on the corner of Second and Main Street, Queensbury, NY and to allow such
sign to remain erected for as long as the business is in operation under the name of Jim’s Glass
Service or any other name or by any other family member of the Fish family. Mr. Aronson will also
maintain a fence around his property from Second St. to the back of the Fish property. All
landscaping and maintenance of said fence will be the responsibility of Mr. Aronson and will be kept
neat and clear of debris. Upon signing and notarizing of this document, both parties, Mr. James C.
Fish, Mrs. Judith A. Fish, and Mr. Ben Aronson agree mutually to accept all terms. Any breech of
this contract will null and void all terms. Signed by James. C. Fish, Judith A. Fish, Ben Aronson
Sworn before me this 9 day of September, 1999 Marilyn A Bly, Notary Public”
th
MR. HAYES-The fire lane, did somebody from the Town require you to put that in, or was that?
MR. ARONSON-That’s correct, yes.
MR. STONE-Do we have a definition of a fire lane? There’s nothing in the Code.
MR. BROWN-No, we don’t, but after conversation with Dave Hatin, the Director of Building and
Codes, originally, the New York State Fire and Building Code required this building, based on its size
and construction, to have four sided accessibility. With the removal of the Whitemore house and the
fire lane on the, I guess it would be the east side, Second Street on the west, and obviously Main
Street on the north, it has three sided accessibility, which is sufficient accessibility of the building
based on the size and construction. So the four sided accessibility, while it’s nice to have, is not
required per the Building Code. Originally, it was thought to have been required, but they did some
re-calculation on the size and the construction, block versus wood.
MR. STONE-This is the easement we’re talking about, which has been listed as a fire lane, doesn’t
have to be a fire lane?
MR. BROWN-It’s not required.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Any other correspondence?
MR. STEC-This is the intent to sell from 1998. Is that pertinent to be read?
MR. HAYES-That’s already in the file.
MR. STONE-That’s already in the file.
MR. STEC-All right. Then that’s all.
MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ARONSON-I just have one question for Mr. McNally.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ARONSON-The original contract, there’s two papers signed, both by James Fish. I was not
aware at the time, myself, that Judith Fish was a part owner, and I think James Fish took it upon
himself to do this. Obviously, he thought his wife was going to go along with it. The piece of paper
that we have now is signed by both of them, and notarized. I feel it’s binding. I think the Fish’s do,
too. I mean, I can see where the contract was broken because there was only one signature on the
other, but both signatures are on this.
MR. MC NALLY-Sure. What you have to understand is the difference between a contract and a
right, which guarantees to the Town that there’ll be an easement there forever, okay, and your
contract has not been in a physical form to be filed with the Clerk of Warren County. It just is not.
It’s not acknowledged. It’s a different kind of swearing at the bottom that you all have to do, and
tomorrow, if the three of you agree that you’d like to release each other from that easement, all right,
on that document, you can do that. There’s no easement there. It’s gone. Whereas, if you file
something with the Warren County Clerk’s Office, and you make it a condition of anything, it’s going
to be a permanent easement. It’s a big difference in the effect of that document versus what an
easement really is.
MR. ARONSON-What do you call this document?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a contract. That’s an agreement. That’s an understanding.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. ARONSON-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-It doesn’t convey a legal title to real estate.
MR. HAYES-It’s like a property deal.
MR. ARONSON-So who does this?
MR. MC NALLY-A lawyer, or someone who knows how to write up an easement.
MR. HAYES-It’s a further step.
MR. FISH-I would say that’s fine with the Fish’s, as long as it’s just saying that we’re allowing them
an easement on the property for a fire lane. That’s what you’re looking for.
MR. HAYES-That agreement’s going to be between you and Mr. Aronson, and our variance, if
granted, will be contingent on your agreement. I mean, it’s not an agreement with the Town this
easement, right?
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, it doesn’t give it to the Town.
MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t give it to the Town, but it’s recorded, and can be made a condition of
our approval.
MR. MC NALLY-See, we didn’t require a fire lane. That’s got to be Planning Board, right?
MR. HAYES-It was Hatin, it was Dave.
MR. BROWN-It was the New York State Building Code that required accessibility, in the beginning.
Since then, it’s been determined it’s not necessarily required.
MR. MC NALLY-When we approved this variance the first time around, is the understand that this
house was going to be knocked down?
MR. BROWN-Both houses, the Whitemore house and the Fish house.
MR. HAYES-The Whitemore house has been knocked down.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s gone.
MR. MC NALLY-And that was because we wanted to establish some kind of distance between what
was a residential zone, and what is now becoming a commercial zone?
MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding.
MR. MC NALLY-So the purpose was not to get a fire truck through. The purpose was not to get a
car around the building. The purpose was to make space, so that you don’t have a business on top of
a residence, which is what we have now.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-We have a residence. We have a business.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Because I remember I didn’t have a problem with your expanding your business,
don’t get me wrong. I’d be happy.
MR. ARONSON-No, the understanding that we had was that we had to have a fire lane.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t doubt it, but not from this Board.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but that was not our consideration at that time. It was just creating space between
the back of your building and the neighborhood. That’s what it was, essentially.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-It required 25 feet from you from the property line, because that was also a zone
change line, and 25 feet on the other side.
MR. ARONSON-Right. You didn’t care what it was.
MR. STONE-Well, it wasn’t our call on the other side, but it was supposed to be there, and you
required 25 feet on your side, and that’s the relief we granted you on the basis that you were going to
get that piece of property, and the fact that you haven’t means right now you’re up against your
property line, within 25 feet, or within 3 feet, whatever it is.
MR. ARONSON-But we won’t be with this easement.
MR. STONE-That’s the question.
MR. BROWN-He’ll still be within three feet of his property line. He’ll be in excess of whatever it is,
50 feet from say a usable area on the residential property, via the easement, but the property line
issue doesn’t go away. It’s still a setback to the property line.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Because you’re not conveying title to any property. The lines don’t change.
MR. STONE-So if we agree to this thing, what we’re saying is that we’re going to grant 47 feet of
relief.
MR. HAYES-Yes. What’s the setback, 25?
MR. BROWN-The property line setback for the building is 25.
MR. STONE-Twenty-five, but we’ve got the zone, though.
MR. BROWN-But then you’ve got the buffer requirement is 50 feet from the buffer line, which in
this case is the property line.
MR. HAYES-So it would give them 47 feet of relief there.
MR. BROWN-Well, you then have given, yes.
MR. HAYES-It would have to be, because the property line’s not changing.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HAYES-I guess the effect of the easement is to guarantee that we’re actually creating a buffer.
MR. STONE-Behind the building. We're certainly not creating a buffer.
MR. HAYES-No, because they could still building residential in there, right?
MR. MC NALLY-They can do anything they please in there, as long as you can get a car through it.
It depends on how you define the easement.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Just because it’s 50 feet wide, if that’s a fire lane, 20 feet, as long as the 20 feet can
get a truck through it, they can put a shed, a playground, whatever they want. It’s residential.
MR. HAYES-Can that easement be constructed that, you know, naming the purpose and describing
what activities can be?
MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t they give an easement along the entire way, saying they’re not going to
build, and then (lost words)? Why can’t they take down that building, or promise they’ll take down
that building, just as we did with Mrs. Whitemore, and that when they do take it down, nothing be
built on that land?
MR. ARONSON-I can’t answer that question for them.
MR. HAYES-It’s essentially because you don’t want to sell it, right?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. FISH-I don’t wish to sell the land because we need it. I’m forecasting that I need it for Jim’s
Glass Service, for parking area, because if we expand on the building, more than likely it will be on
the back of the building, pushed back. So it does save more parking on the side, and it would be
dead space. I mean, I can’t say all of it would be, because if we added a building on, we would have
to go sideways, too, probably 50 feet which originally (lost words) he didn’t want to buy the whole
property. He only wanted to buy half of it.
MR. STONE-He wanted to buy to the line that goes through the garage, if you will.
MR. FISH-That’s their garage, to the garage, which was not quite all the property.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FISH-So, that didn’t give us much room from our business to his line. So this is why she
wished not to sell it. I can’t say that, myself, I would say probably, no, nothing would ever be built
on that 50 feet from Benny’s property onto our property. It would be more parking than anything. I
don’t wish to take those trees down only because of the buffer, to keep the noise down, and keep the
dust down, and so on, and so forth.
MR. HAYES- Well, really, if he doesn’t need the fire lane, and we grant the buffer relief, we don’t
have to necessarily get into where that easement is.
MR. STONE-No, we don’t, if we choose to just say we’ll grant the relief the full relief to the
property line.
MR. HAYES-We could avoid a lot of these conflict issues.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, on the line separating the Fish property from the Aronson property that
we’re talking about, is there still a buffer?
MR. BROWN-Both sides of the property line.
MR. MC NALLY-On both sides. We granted relief only as to Mr. Aronson earlier?
MR. STONE-That’s all we can do.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what we did in our last time this variance application was in front of us.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s technically all you have to do, if you don’t want to give them the right to
have the fire lane across the property, or the driveway across it and use it on his property.
MR. MC NALLY-And if the Glassworks ever wants to expand on this property, they can’t put a car
or a parking area in that 50 feet, can they?
MR. BROWN-From that property line, that’s correct.
MR. HAYES-Without a variance.
MR. BROWN-Without a variance.
MR. MC NALLY-Without a variance from us.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So if they want a variance, they’re going to have to come to us to do something.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-We may be over engineering this thing at this point, you know?
MR. STONE-Well, that’s a good point.
MR. MC NALLY-So we’re going to have a buffer in the future, as long as that house goes away.
MR. BROWN-There’s no guarantees of that.
MR. HAYES-It seems like the buffer is to protect the Fishes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Bob, why don’t you start talking.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. MC NALLY-I can start a lot of places, but it occurs to me, as we said a moment ago, we don’t
need an easement for fire trucks or a fire lane. That’s not what we’re here for. We're here to say
whether or not he gets the setback relief, or whether he gets the buffer zone relief, under the existing
circumstances. Now, we can have conditions. We can have as a condition (lost words) that
easement. He seems to be willing to give it to us, but the bottom line is, what do you do? He’s
already built the structure? You say the Fishes aren’t going to sell that property. I would never have
granted the variance had I known the Fishes weren’t going to sell that. I would have told them no.
What’s in the storage and cooler building back there? Dry goods?
MR. ARONSON-Dry goods, canned goods.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a block building, faced block along the front.
MR. ARONSON-No, it’s frame.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s frame. I don’t like being in this situation at all. We were promised something
and now it’s not here. I’m more inclined to say, it’s their problem, not ours, but I suppose we have
to give some consideration to leniency here. I don’t understand the Fish’s position, either, because
don’t get me wrong. There’s a 50 foot buffer there, and parking can’t go there. If they’re concerned
about, they’re going to be parking on it, it’s going to be busy, there’s going to be construction, that’s
not going to happen. So I don’t understand the objection, really.
MR. FISH-She just doesn’t wish to sell the property.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, that’s a separate issue. She’s concerned about things being like that.
MR. FISH-I’m here tonight just to help.
MR. MC NALLY-We understand. You’re trying to be a good neighbor.
MR. FISH-We work with Benny because he’s worked with us for so many years. We work together,
so, I mean, we’re trying to make a mutual.
MR. STONE-But you have to understand where we’re coming from. We have a letter here, from a
previous time. This letter is to inform you that we, James and Judith Fish, have sold, not will sell,
may sell, but have sold, the property at 3 Second Street. On the basis of that, and I know I’m
preempting you, Bob, but we said this variance approval is to be conditioned on the two lots being
merged, which one could read that no construction should have taken place, until the lots were, in
fact, merged. That was a condition of building. We have a lot of ammunition here, quite frankly, to
be very hard on this situation. We were told it was sold. It wasn’t so. We were told that it was going
to be merged before, in a sense, before building takes place. That didn’t happen. Anyway, Bob, I
don’t mean to.
MR. MC NALLY-No, we’d like to work with you, but we’ve got a responsibility to the Town. I
mean, this setback is going to be up and down that entire road, when businesses with frontage on
Main Street start developing, and they’re going to look to us and say, what did you do over here?
Did you have a buffer or didn’t you have a buffer at all? Double A doesn’t have a buffer, why should
I? So it causes problems, is what I’m saying, and understandably.
MR. ARONSON-I could say that about a lot of property on Main Street.
MR. STONE-There’s no question about it.
MR. MC NALLY-I know. We're trying to clear it up.
MR. ARONSON-You talk about permeability, what’s the Hess Station got, a couple of planters? I
mean, there’s variances all up and down the street. It’s commercial.
MR. MC NALLY-But it buts against residential. That’s the problem. That’s why we needed that
extra space.
MR. ARONSON-His residential, which he’s willing to give us an easement. Nobody is fighting this.
MR. STONE-See, I would be happier if it were a straight easement from Second Street all the way to
the property line. I mean, I would feel more comfortable that we didn’t have this wonderful radius
there.
MR. HAYES-You can’t give an easement through the house, though.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. STONE-I know. I’m saying I would be more comfortable. It was all going to be taken care of
when the properties were sold and merged. That was the whole problem. Anyway, Bob, we keep
taking away from you.
MR. MC NALLY-I might want to sit back and table this and think about this for a little while.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Maybe give the opportunity to the applicants to try to work on this a little bit
more, because I know I’m disturbed, and I don’t like the idea that I have to do this now. We did this
once. Now we’re asked to do it again. What do you other guys think?
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I wasn’t involved in the earlier approvals. Well, several things, I guess.
One, I have a real problem on giving a variance on the setback where you’ve got commercial
bordering residential. I have a real problem giving away all the buffer zone, where commercial
matches residential, and I think there, in this particular case, it’s probably more important based on
precedent than it is this actual situation, because unless somebody does move into that house there,
really, we don’t have commercial bordering actual residential in use at the moment, but it could be in
use, and it is a precedent for up and down the rest of Main Street. So, I have a real problem with
that. I also have, given the history of this particular property and promises and promises that
couldn’t be delivered, I have a real problem even allowing something contingent on a more formal
easement or whatever. I’d rather see any easement that needed to be filed filed first. So at this point
in time, I’d be inclined to vote against this proposal.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I, too, was involved with this particular project in the past, and we were, actually,
we were asked to take several things on faith in this particular circumstance, and one of those things
at that time was that the Whitemore house would come down, and it did. So, I mean, there were
some of the things that Mr. Aronson said he would do, when possible, he has done, and we all are
aware of the difficulty associated with Main Street and that area, and certainly Mr. Aronson’s example
of the Hess Station, and there’s dozens of others for sure that are involved, you know, where the
property creates difficult circumstances, but in this particular case, you know, I think that, while I’m
probably more in the middle, as far as, I’m not necessarily quite as alarmed by this because of the
nature of the neighborhood all the way up and down that strip. The next, past the commercial
ventures on Main Street, it’s butted up against a residential neighborhood all the way down the strip,
and I’d be willing to hazard a guess that there’s a great deal of buffer zone, grandfathering things
going on there, but I would like to see, it’s difficult for me to imagine that there isn’t, I guess I would
say, changing my mind a little bit, that there, that when we get into legal disagreements and obviously
this whole thing was caused by a lack of true meeting of the minds between the Fishes and Mr.
Aronson in this particular case, that it’s nice to see those parties take responsibilities for their own
faults, if you will, or their own.
MR. ARONSON-So you’d like to see me take Mr. Fish to court? I mean, I think that’s ridiculous.
MR. HAYES-No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying the opposite of that. I’m saying this particular, it’s
not ridiculous totally, but I mean, because obviously this is not a perfect deal, but in this case, it
seems like you guys have come to an accommodation between each other, that involves you both
making some sacrifices or not getting exactly what you want.
MR. ARONSON-Absolutely.
MR. HAYES-And that’s partially, I think that in our legal system, that there’s a certain amount of
appreciation for that type of activity. Whether that’s acceptable to us is what the reservation is that I
think you’re hearing from Bob and Chuck, and certainly it’s a stretch. So I guess at this particular
time, I would say that I’m not convinced either way, at this particular moment.
MR. STONE-Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, I wasn’t involved in the original application, either, and I sure don’t prefer to do
business this way, but just looking at the application, I do think that we’re talking about a lot of relief.
I’m bothered by granting that much relief from a buffer zone between two zones. In the past, we’ve
been reluctant to do that much. I do recognize that there are some issues in the Main Street area, as
far as there’s other grandfathered or pre-existing, nonconforming parcels there to our zoning code,
but just looking at the relief that’s sought, I think it is an awful lot of relief, and I think really the best
solution would have been to sell the land, but apparently that’s not going to happen, but action was
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
taken by this Board based on promises that the land was going to be sold, but I don’t think the
applicant should be penalized for that. I mean, it takes two, and I believe that they thought they had
a deal, but just looking at the amount of relief sought, I’m not sure I’m really in favor of granting this
much relief either, myself.
MR. STONE-Okay. I really would implore the parties to attempt to come to a better solution than
you’ve presented tonight. Keep in mind, I know we don’t want to send anybody suing friends and
neighbors, but you do, Mr. Aronson, possess a great deal of power on your side. You were told that
you were going to buy the land. You made that statement to us, and we took it on face value. We
have the power to say, right now, you are in violation, to deny your application, which results in
whatever legal action the Town might want to take against your building. They can fine you, I guess,
on a daily basis, make you take down the building, I’m not sure all the, but there are certainly
remedies that the Town can seek, which would be very expensive and very damaging to your
business. I would ask you to let us table it for a couple of months and see what you can possibly
work out with Fishes, if the Board is in agreement to that. I heard Bob say that at least in his
conversation. I just think that, on the face of it, it’s an awful lot of relief if we just granted 40,
whatever the amount of relief. I would like to see if there’s some accommodation you can make,
based upon what has gone before. We accepted your statements in good faith. You thought they
were in good faith. You made them in good faith. We recognize that, but nevertheless we’re in a
situation that none of us are very happy with, and I just wish that, I’d like to see if there could be
some kind of solution that you could come back with, because I don’t think this easement, even if it
were a registered easement, really makes me very happy, because you’re still very close to that
building that still exists, even though it’s 50 feet. I mean, I just think that the property needs to be
looked at. Is that possible for you to do?
MR. ARONSON-Anything’s possible.
MR. STONE-I mean, I’m sensing a vote right now, I've got one person who wants to table it. I've
got one person who says no. I've got two others who aren’t very sure, and I’m not happy, and I’m
not sure where I would come down if we had to make a vote right now, and if we said no, then it
becomes Mr. Brown’s problem on, what does he do with you. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct, and if I might, I don’t want to speak for the applicant or Mr. Fish, but
I get the sense that a big concern of the Board’s is to maintain some sort of buffer between this
property and the residential properties.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And setback is the same thing basically.
MR. BROWN-And the setback, right. Technically, short of taking the building down, there isn’t a
lot you can really do about the setback issue, as far as the property line goes. An alternate may be to
strictly maintain the 50 foot buffer on the south side of the property line, which would impose a
pretty heavy burden on the Fish property, no further development with the house, because basically
the 50 foot buffer is going to encompass 85% of the property.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-So if that buffer zone could be strictly maintained, maybe suggest some plantings to
vegetate it and make it a solid screen. That may give you the separation from the residential zone
and at the same time give the applicant what they want in their setback relief. I don’t want to speak
for them. I certainly, they can make what they want.
MR. STONE-No, that’s what I’d like them to talk about and come back.
MR. BROWN-It would keep the ownership in the Fish’s name, and at the same time would maintain
the buffer between the two zones, at least on the Fish side. The Aronson side, obviously, is not
maintaining the buffer. There’s parking, building within the 50 foot, which was granted last time.
You’ve accepted that already. So if you’re looking to maintain some sort of buffer, that’s just a
suggestion.
MR. LEO-Can I say something?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. LEO-The 50 foot buffer zone that you’re talking about, right, is an empty lot, but the next lot
over is Jim’s Glass, which is a regular commercial business.
MR. STONE-Nonconforming in a residential zone.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. LEO-Right. So you’re wanting us to put a buffer zone between two businesses, is more or less
what you’re telling us.
MR. STONE-That’s where the zoning, well, that’s a suggestion that was made. That’s what the
zoning requires us to say.
MR. MC NALLY-For whatever reason, the Town Board set the buffer line right there, right, and it’s
not just 50 feet on that side. It’s 50 feet on both sides. Literally, it’s supposed to be 100 feet wide.
Now, we didn’t even care when you applied to us last time. We said fine, 50 feet, that’s all we need is
50 feet. You got the lot next to you, told us you purchased it, we don’t care. Now we’ve got no
buffer. What are we going to do? You put a building up in that buffer.
MR. ARONSON-We’ve got a permit.
MR. MC NALLY-You had a variance, too, but no more.
MR. STONE-We get enough criticism of things that we do that I don’t think that any of us want to
be pressured, and it’s not a personal pressure. I mean, but the situation pressures us to say
something, to grant something that we’re not happy with, and we’re saying is there anything the
Fishes and the Aronson’s can do to come back to us with something which might be more
acceptable? You’ve heard we’re concerned about the buffer zone.
MR. ARONSON-Of what use is the buffer zone between me and a glass company? Lets be logical.
MR. STONE-Because it may not be a glass company some day. It’s a residential zone. The business
could come down and it would be a residential area.
MR. ARONSON-Do you really think so?
MR. STONE-I didn’t say that. I didn’t say I thought so or not, but we know that whole area is in
transition. You’re about to have the plan what ends up with three lanes, I guess, going to be three
lanes through there, soon, which.
MR. ARONSON-Which is going to take part of my property, which.
MR. STONE-It’s going to have an impact on the whole area. No question about it, and I don’t think
that we’re ready to forego what the zoning code calls for in this particular case. Because it can be this
one and then that one and then that one and that one.
MR. ARONSON-I really don’t think so, but that’s my personal opinion.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. ARONSON-I don’t foresee any new residential subdivisions in that area. I don’t think that
there’s going to be any Twicwoods or anything like that on Main Street in Queensbury. I don’t think
you’d even want to consider it. Would you consider a new house, would you consider a new
residential house on that lot, if I wasn’t there? I doubt it.
MR. STONE-If you weren’t there? Why not? If you weren’t there.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a small house. It’s not the best neighborhood in the world, but there are a
lot of people who would buy that house.
MR. STONE-It’s a house. I mean, we have a gentleman here who said he spent every, and I’m not
taking his side, every penny he had to buy a house on Main Street. Would I buy a house on Main
Street? I would not buy a house on Main Street, but that’s me, and that’s this gentleman.
MR. ARONSON-This gentleman bought a house with commercial property. He would like to open
a business there.
MR. STONE-But the point is, we cannot account for what people, that’s what zoning is supposed to
do, to protect the Town’s growth in an orderly fashion.
MR. ARONSON-The people that are involved are myself and the Fishes. We're protecting each
other.
MR. STONE-No, we’re involved. We're involved, because we were mislead. We were just mislead.
Lets put it that way. I can’t speak for these two gentlemen on the end, because they weren’t here.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
Three of us were mislead. We granted a variance on a condition that we thought had been met. It
was not met. We granted the variance on the condition that the two lots were merged, because they
were now both owned by you. This was not met. We have been made fools of, in one sense, one
could argue.
MR. ARONSON-Not really, you. This was not met. We have been made fools of, in one sense, one
could argue.
MR. ARONSON-Not really, you’re saying that.
MR. STONE-I’m saying that, just for.
MR. ARONSON-Nobody else said it.
MR. STONE-No, I understand, but we get criticism all the time for granting certain variances. You
heard it earlier tonight. I don’t know if you were here. The first person up tonight accused us, I’m
not sure what he accused us of, but it certainly wasn’t something that I was a party to, but
nevertheless, we were accused of it, and I don’t want to confound this thing and compound it. I’m
not saying we’re not going to give you the variance. I just think, I would like you to take some time
to see if there’s something better that you can do, and, Bob, I hear you said that. Right? How about
the rest of you, am I speaking for all of us?
MR. MC NALLY-By the same token, don’t think that we’re going to give the variance, either.
MR. STONE-No, of course not.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s up in the air. This is a serious problem, and something that we think needs
a lot more work.
MR. STONE-I mean, you heard somebody come before us earlier tonight who made a drastic
change in what he wanted, and we were amenable to it because he listened to what we were trying to
say, that this was too big, this was too close, this was too high, and we said, he said, okay, I hear, and
if I want this variance, I will do something, and all I’m saying is, I don’t know what the answer is. I
really don’t, but I think that there is some obligation, both on the part of the Fishes.
MR. ARONSON-They’ve already done something.
MR. STONE-We're not sure what it means. That’s the whole thing. It’s a roundabout variance
along the back of the building.
MR. ARONSON-Which meets the requirements for the setback. He’s given us 50 feet, from all
points of the building.
MR. MC NALLY-Not from the line.
MR. STONE-But not from the line, which is what we have to, we still have to grant you a variance,
even though he’s granted you this supposed easement. We still have to grant you a variance.
MR. ARONSON-But I've given you the means to grant us that variance. Mr. Fish has given you the
means to grant that variance.
MR. STONE-Well, you heard everybody speak. You know our mood. That’s all I can say to you. I
mean, if we were to vote now, and we can vote now, if you want, I suspect we would probably not,
you’d not get a decision anyway, because you’ve got to have four of us to say yes or no, and I’m not
sure I heard four yeses or noes. So we’d be coming back eventually anyway. I mean, my comments,
I had, Dan, you were not sure.
MR. STEC-No, I was pretty sure.
MR. STONE-No?
MR. STEC-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I missed that, but, okay. We might be able to say no if you wanted us. I’m just
suggesting that you don’t want us to say no.
MR. ARONSON-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-So, can you work with us, come back in a month or so?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
MR. ARONSON-Absolutely, but I don’t know what the answer is going to be. Mrs. Fish does not
want to sell.
MR. STONE-I don’t know what will satisfy us, either. I can’t tell you that, because I think, as Mr.
McNally just said, whatever you do might not be enough in his mind. Of course the other thing,
hopefully we will have seven of us here. You still need four votes, yes or no. No matter how many
of us are here, you’ve got to have four votes.
MR. ARONSON-How many are supposed to be here?
MR. STONE-Seven.
MR. ARONSON-Why aren’t they here?
MR. STONE-The Chairman has got business, I believe, and one woman is recovering from surgery,
one person, who happens to be a woman.
MR. ARONSON-I can dot the I’s, too.
MR. STONE-No, but a lot of people don’t understand that you have to have four, even if there’s
only four of us here, and we can meet with four, but we have to have unanimity. We have to have a
majority of the total Board in anything we do, and I don’t hear it here tonight. So, if you’re willing,
we will table this, until a month, we’ll give you two months. You’ve got the building. He’s not going
to jump all over you. He’s not going to come down and cite you for a violation. I don’t believe you
are, Craig, are you?
MR. BROWN-Well, the big issue here for Mr. Aronson is we’re not able to grant him a final
Certificate of Occupancy until he has met all requirements, whatever approvals have been issued. So
right now we’re still holding a final CO for him.
MR. STONE-Has he got a temporary?
MR. BROWN-He’s got a temporary.
MR. STONE-Are you using it?
MR. ARONSON-Of course.
MR. STONE-Of course. I assume you are.
MR. BROWN-And I’m not certain how much longer the Building Department would feel
comfortable doing that, renewing a temporary CO. I can’t speak for.
MR. STONE-But if we’ve taken an official action to table, that gives you license to wait until we
make a decision. We're not going to do it again. We're going to table it one time.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HAYES-There wouldn’t be an avoidance of process then.
MR. BROWN-No. It would help the applicant.
MR. STONE-Is everybody happy if we table it? If they come back with the same thing, we’ll handle
that at the time when you come back, but I would advise you to see what possibly you could do to
make it more like we thought it was. I guess that’s the best way to say it, make it more like we
thought it was. If you fail, you fail. I understand that, but we were given certain assurances. All I’m
saying to you, and I’m getting some nods, make it more like we were told it was going to be. That’s
all I can say. Having said that.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1999 DOUBLE A PROVISIONS,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
The applicant has constructed an addition and seeks setback relief and relief from the permeability
requirements of the CR-15 zone. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the buffer zone
requirements. This application will be tabled for no more than 62 days, in which time the applicant
will consult with his neighbors as to make the situation more like it was when we granted the
variance two years ago.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/15/99)
Duly adopted this 15 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I mean, what the motion says is that we want you to come back, make it closer to, we’d
like it closer than what we assumed when we did it.
MR. ARONSON-What if I fail?
MR. STONE-Then we will handle it. We will go through this same thing, and we will state where
we’re coming from, and there’s a very distinct possibility that we will not grant the variance. Is there
a second to that tabling?
MR. STEC-I second it.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
MR. STONE-So, basically what you have is two months, actually a month and a half to get back on
the agenda, to work out something that you think, and we’ve given you, you’ve heard what we said.
We can’t be anymore specific. We’ve got concerns with the buffer. We’ve got concerns that certain
statements were made to us on which we granted the variance, and we’d like you to approach those,
however you can, and if you can’t, then you will have to, we will make the decision. We're not going
to shirk the responsibility, but I don’t think you want us to make a decision right now. I really don’t.
Having said that, I move we adjourn.
MR. HAYES-I second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Acting Chairman (Vice Chairman)
44