2000-07-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT MC NALLY
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PETER & KAREN BOGERT
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 133 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNDECK ABOVE AN EXISTING DOCK AND
SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 33-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/2000 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.30
ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60
PETER & KAREN BOGERT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the continuation of a tabled action, and we’ve got two tabling
motions. The original one, “The Queensbury Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request
as stated below, and has resolved the following: Area Variance No. 39-2000 Peter & Karen Bogert,
Meeting Date: Wednesday May 17, 2000 Action: Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 39-
2000 Peter & Karen Bogert: Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Paul Hayes: 133 Seeley Road, Cleverdale. The purpose of the tabling is to allow the applicant to
submit a modified plan for their dock which may include reducing the overall size of the dock, may
include covering one slip rather than the whole dock, and in every case modifying the amount of the
side setback relief needed. We’ll table it until the July meeting, no later than the first meeting in July.
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally,
th
Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” And then we have
another, “Motion on the Basis of the Request by Peter & Karen Bogert, I move that we extend the
tabling for Area Variance No. 39-2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Charles Abbate: Through the end of July, so that they can be on the agenda for the July
26 meeting. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.
thth
Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES:
NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes”
MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Bogert. Please state your name for the record.
MR. BOGERT-I’m Peter Bogert. This is my wife Karen. This is my son Gregory.
MRS. BOGERT-First I’d like to thank you for tabling it last week, and making it possible for us to
join you guys. You’re always good company. We were sent away last time to more or less take a
look at our plans, to see if we could reduce it. By “it” I’m speaking of the existing dock that we have
on our property. We did send a letter in with a little bit of a modification. The problem that we ran
into is that the north, I’m sorry, the south side of our dock is crib dock, and it’s the only part of the
existing dock that is constructed in this manner. We went over our plans with the contractor who
had suggested doing the repair work that we were taking a look at. We were trying to do whatever
was necessary to more or less get by, do the least amount that we could to the existing dock. He
indicated that the side that we were really looking to get more relief from, in other words we were
looking to reduce it on the south side to get as far away from the property line as possible, would be
the side of the dock that has cribbing on it. He pointed out what is involved in cribbing. Another
lesson I’m learning, because I didn’t know the difference between cribbing and just normal posts.
He pointed out that it gives us the most support of the existing structure. The existing structure, I
believe, was constructed late 60’s, early 70’s. It seems to be stable. We didn’t have any problems
with that, and we weren’t going to touch it. It just seems like what we were asked to take a look at is
causing us problems because we really can’t do much more with it than the way it is today.
MR. BOGERT-We can’t afford to tear the cribs up and move them over in one direction or the
other. The reason we opted to put a new cover on was because the original was falling down, and we
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
had to do something with it, and the supports that held it up were splinted. They were rotted at the
water line, and splints were actually put down to that, to shore it up. Estimates, I got estimates last
summer for re-doing the entire dock in the configuration that it is now, with a flat roof and a deck,
and it was more than I could afford. I also got an estimate for doing it in a U-Shaped configuration,
more to the center and moving the crib dock, and it was more than I could afford. Replacing the
covering, basically, is what we could afford.
MRS. BOGERT-But we did take a look at the plans. We took a look at what the County had wanted
from us. The County took a look at the plans, looked at what we had, and didn’t think we were
asking for anything, you know, over and above, or anything too extreme. The only concern that the
County had was the plans that we had for stairs going up to the proposed deck, and their attitude was
if it went over the water, it constituted being a bridge, and they didn’t want to do that. So that was
no problem. We can shift the stairs over and have them come down on the existing deck that’s
there. We’ve also been in touch with the Lake George Park Commission, because they also require a
permit. I’m sitting on the application for that because, speaking with them, they have no problem
with what we want to do, as long as we stay within the height restrictions, unless we touch the dock.
If we touch the dock, then they want to know about it.
MR. BOGERT-If we change the configuration of the dock, then they have a problem with it. If we
don’t change it from the original, that’s fine with them as long as we stay within the height
restrictions.
MRS. BOGERT-So actually I’m waiting from the outcome of tonight to know what to ask them for.
I’ve been in touch with Molly Gallagher there, and we’ve had numerous conversations, and she
suggested I just hold on to the application, to see what the Town of Queensbury ends up asking
from us. Estimates ranged, to do an entire dock, estimates were ranging from $40,000 to $60,000,
and it beats me why. There’s no electricity. There’s no plumbing. I’m thinking you could build a
small house for $60,000. So what we did take a look at was we took a look at repairs, took a look at
replacing the roof, came up with the flat configuration, because you see a lot of that on the lake, and
it kind of looks good, and it sounds nice. In addition to that, I know the first time we were here in
front of you guys, we were here in May, and I didn’t know if anybody would get the opportunity to
come back on site and take a look at what it was. So I did have pictures, just of the north view from
the existing deck, and also the south view, if you’re interested in seeing what immediate properties
look like around us. At this time what we had done was we took a look at what we wanted to do,
and thought maybe the entire configuration of the deck that we were asking for was on the large size.
So we resubmitted the plans, with a smaller deck. We would still like to have two slips covered. It’s
kind of convenient. You like it once you’ve had one, and this is the way it was when we purchased
the house. We’d like to keep it that way, if at all possible, and we’re just asking you to reconsider,
take a look at our position. Take a look at what we’ve looked into, and get a feeling back from you
guys about how you feel about it.
MR. BOGERT-I have estimates from last summer I brought with me to show you, if you’d like to
see what we’re up against, and what we can’t afford, which would be to re-do the entire dock. No
interest?
MR. HAYES-No, please, submit them. It’s information.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That was one of the questions I was going to have. I’d like to see copies of the
estimate.
MR. BOGERT-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Bogert, the only changes in the revised sketch has to do with the deck size and
the positioning of the stairs. Is that correct?
MR. BOGERT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t really change the size of the whole structure at all, does it?
MR. BOGERT-No.
MRS. BOGERT-No, it doesn’t.
MR. HAYES-What is the reduction in the deck, specifically?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. BOGERT-In the overall square footage?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. BOGERT-Do you know what that was?
MRS. BOGERT-I think it reduces the square footage by about 100 feet, maybe a little more.
MR. HIMES-One hundred and sixty-four, I think. The way I figure it, it’s about 616 square feet.
MRS. BOGERT-Where originally it had been like 780.
MR. HIMES-It was 780, I think.
MRS. BOGERT-Yes.
MR. HIMES-From the drawing we have in the application.
MRS. BOGERT-That’s what I got from the drawings also.
MR. HIMES-If I could ask a question of you folks, again, trying to recollect what we talked about
last time, I certainly appreciate your efforts to compromise, and the fact that you have reduced the
deck area, and I don’t have any expertise here in connection with the foundation. I’ll take your word
for it that that is the case, that the south end, the matter, again, of the roofing. I remember we talked
a lot the last time about how about just going back to the way it was.
MR. BOGERT-The peaked roof?
MR. HIMES-Yes, the peaked roof that you had, because that then, maybe we could say, all right,
even though it is like building new, we could maybe look at it as human error, as opposed to a
slightly enhanced usage. What would be your thoughts on that, just as being maybe the one
approach that we could take?
MRS. BOGERT-To be honest, we haven’t discussed it between the two of us, because I believe
when I suggested that at the last meeting, I was met with silence. That wasn’t what was, that wasn’t
exactly what anybody wanted to hear. So it wasn’t, it really wasn’t discussed between the two of us.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I’m going through the notes and trying to pick that part of the thing out.
MR. BOGERT-Can I, the pictures are going to come around. If you look at them, that shows the
north and the south. There’s a marina, 350 feet from our little place on the lake, and the boat traffic,
if you look up to the north, you see nothing but squared, peaked roofed, four sided boathouses.
That’s what we see. If you look to the south, you see the marina, and we constantly, on the
weekends have a highway of boat traffic going back and forth, and we thought that having a deck up
in the air there would give us a little relief and a little privacy from the craziness that Castaway’s
causes in that little corner of the bay. That’s the only reason we opted for, we probably would have
gone for a peaked roof if we didn’t put two and two together and say, it would be nice if we had a
little way to get away from the craziness there.
MR. HIMES-And I can agree with you. You are in very close proximity to a busy boat yard at the
end of the bay there, and I might just say, in connection with, in my own standpoint, I go to various
lakes and see these things, and often times, in my own situation, I look and I say, well, goodness,
look two houses down, or ten houses, or all ten houses, and they have things which are similar,
maybe, to what the applicant is asking for, and in connection with that, I would sympathize with that.
Sometimes the zoning, you know, is done to abate that kind of thing. In other words, if some of the
structures that you refer to, for example, were to undergo a kind of re-construction or what not,
faced with here, they would have a problem, too. So, from our standpoint, it might seem that we’re
turning the screws on somebody when everyone else around them has got, you know, X plus stuff.
MR. BOGERT-But as far as giving up lake view to my neighbors, the flat roof gives them more than
the peaked roof did. They have a better view with my flat roof because it’s, you know, you can see
across and you can see under it.
MR. HIMES-I understand. Personally, I would want the same thing that you do. I’m just looking at
it from the standpoint of a representative of the Board, here, and not being able to anticipate what
my fellow members are going to ask, as to, well, technically speaking, if we had to go back to
something that would be the closest possible to maintenance and repairs, which (lost words) we
talked about the last time are okay, or something else, going from your original application down to
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
what’s proposed today, how would you feel about that, think about it a little bit. You don’t need to
answer that question right now.
MRS. BOGERT-I believe the last time we were here, we really left with a lot of food for thought,
and I had taken notes, and we hashed it out together, more or less went over what was being asked,
and to be honest, we didn’t have all the answers the first night we were here. One of the things that
we were taking a look at is we realize that our lakefront is on the small side, property wise. It’s only
50 foot wide, and one of the questions that had been put to us would be, would you consider moving
it to the center to, you know, to reduce the relief that’s needed on the side? The only thing is, when I
did start looking around to see what’s around us, it seems like even people that have a good 100, 125
feet, they’re still sticking their decks and their boathouses over on the side, so it doesn’t bother their
view of the lake. So, you know, at first I thought, maybe we are asking a lot. Maybe it would be a
good idea to reduce, you know, to comply and everything like that, but then I looked around and I
thought, it seems like even people that have the right amount of footage still would prefer to have
the front of their property wide open.
MR. BOGERT-Yes, but we still can’t afford that.
MRS. BOGERT-No, I know that. I was just indicating some of the things that did come out of the
last meeting. So, I mean, we did do a lot of talking about some of the points that were made, some
of the things that we took up on.
MR. HIMES-Thank you for the information. That’s it for me, at this point.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions of the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. and Mrs. Bogert, you did downsize this, and certainly appreciate the cooperation.
At the present time, 22 by 28 is around 516 square feet. Is that square feet that you submitted to us
the diameter of the deck itself, or does that include the extension of the dock?
MRS. BOGERT-That’s just the deck itself.
MR. ABBATE-That’s just the deck itself.
MRS. BOGERT-Yes. The dock is around, the dock comes out further. So actually the rebuilding of
the cover that we’re submitting is actually within the bounds of the existing dock.
MR. ABBATE-And I did go over, maybe I’m naïve, but I went over these estimates, $44,300 for
repairs and $36,000 is another bid. It seems to me that that’s quite expensive for a dock, but I’m not
in the real estate business. So I don’t know the real values on there.
MRS. BOGERT-I agree with you.
MR. BOGERT-Just the covering alone is 13 something, $13,500.
MR. ABBATE-Well, maybe only wealthy people live around here. I have no idea.
MRS. BOGERT-Well, Mr. Abbate, I must have placed about six calls to Pro Built Docks, because,
you know, you see what they do on the lake, and it looks really good, and I have to tell you, I
embarrassed myself when he did finally return my call, and I said, do I need to give you my first born
son, and he said to me, I’ll take him, and I didn’t know what to say.
MR. ABBATE-These are American dollars?
MRS. BOGERT-Yes, they are.
MR. ABBATE-I just want to make sure of that.
MRS. BOGERT-Pro Built had told us anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000, and I said we’re talking
about a dock. We’re not talking about a boathouse. There’s no sides to it. It’s a dock with cover.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I don’t believe that your application is inconsistent with other docks
throughout the area. I have no other questions. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve done some figuring here. Their original proposal, 30 by 26, was 780 square
feet. Their current proposal comes out 616, I believe.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. ABBATE-Twenty-two by twenty-eight?
MR. MC NULTY-Twenty-two by twenty-eight, is 616. So they’ve reduced the square footage by
164.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions? Okay. At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing.
Anybody that would like to speak in favor of the application, please step forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VERNON BURKHART
MR. BURKHART-Yes. My name’s Vernon Burkhart. My address is 132 Seelye Road, right across
from Mr. Bogert, and I know what the original configuration of the dock was. I know what
condition it was in, and I’ve seen the plans that he’s got for the new cover, and, to me, it looks like a
much more desirable cover. It’s better looking, and as he stated before, it does not block the view as
much as the original one did. I did send in a letter to the Board.
MR. HAYES-We’ll read those into the record after the people have spoken.
MR. BURKHART-Right, but I’m in favor of it because I think it’s an improvement over the original
configuration.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. BURKHART-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Would anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? Would anybody like to
speak opposed? Is there any correspondence, Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-We have a number of letters.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The first one is from Mr. Burkhart, “In reference to my neighbor, Mr. Bogert,
who has undertaken to rebuild the cover over his dock, I find no objection to the appearance of the
roof. The new design is no larger in area than the original cover erected sometime in the 60’s or 70’s.
The new flat roof design is aesthetically just as pleasing as the original which was deteriorating to the
point it was unsightly. The new design will be easier to maintain and keep in good repair and
appearance. It is structurally stronger and sound in design. The interior headroom is increased to
accommodate a higher boat without increasing the overall height of the structure. To restrict a
design of a structure as long as it is no larger or unsightly does not make common sense. I believe
the new structure is beneficial to the appearance of the lakeshore especially having seen the
deteriorating condition of the original roof. I also had the understanding that an existing structure
may be repaired or replaced if it is deteriorating to the point where it is unsafe or unsightly. It should
make no difference if the appearance is changed as long as the size is no greater than the original
structure. Sincerely, Vernon C. Burkhart 132 Seelye Road – Box 186 Cleverdale, NY 12820”
MR. HAYES-Where is he in relation to your camp, just so we place these people.
MRS. BOGERT-He’s actually directly across the road from us. So he’s not on the lake. He’s directly
across the street from us.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BOGERT-But he does have lakefront.
MR. HAYES-So he’s across the street, then?
MR. BOGERT-But his lakefront is, it’s one down from ours, no, two down from ours.
MR. HAYES-So you’re the one that spoke, then?
MR. BURKHART-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. BOGERT-He shares a common lakefront with another neighbor.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-All right. Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-All right. This is a note from, I believe it’s Yvonne Koniowka, 7670 Sheldon
Road. I guess that’s their home address. Well, let me read it. Maybe it will tell us a little more. “As
one of the owners of property at 131 Seelye Rd., Cleverdale, I have no objection to the proposed
plan and construction on the dock at 133 Seelye Rd. belonging to Peter and Karen Bogert. There has
been no change to the size of the existing dock, but they have only made much needed repairs to the
dock. The deck on top of the dock would not bother us in any way and would be an enhancement
to the existing structure.”
MRS. BOGERT-She’s our neighbor right next door to us on our north side. So she’s actually on the
lake to us, to the north.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and we have a letter from Martin P. Dion, “I would like the following noted
at the zoning meeting scheduled to hear the proposal by the Bogert’s to construct the sundeck on
their dock. I live next door to this property to the west and find no reason why this variance should
not be granted. The existing dock was in great need of repair and that has been reconstructed. The
addition of the sundeck to the top will in no way harm anything in the area. Rather it will be a nice
enhancement. The Bogert’s are very constructive and responsible neighbors and are to be
commended for their continued care to maintaining this property. I have no objection to this
construction. The dock has in no way infringed on our property or rights and I feel this is a sound
and responsible proposal. Sincerely, Martin P. Dion P.O. Box 213 Cleverdale, NY 12820 P.O. Box
764 Averill Park, NY 12018”
MRS. BOGERT-Martin is part owner with Yvonne on the property. I believe it’s to the north. I
know his letter mentions west, but I think it would be to our left.
MR. BOGERT-They’d be northwest, I think. That bay kind of comes in at an angle.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got a note from, it looks like Dr. Joseph Guerra, “As neighbors of
the above property, 127 Seelye Rd. and 123 Seelye Rd. – Please note that we do not oppose replacing
boathouse cover with a sundeck on the existing dock. Actually, we think it would enhance the area.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.” And they give their Schenectady home
address and telephone number.
MRS. BOGERT-Dr. Guerra owns the next two properties beyond Yvonne and Martin, on the lake
side.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The next one is from Martin Roberts, “In reference to the above addition
to an existing dock, which is four docks down from mine, I am asking that the owners be allowed to
continue with the sundeck as I believe it to be a vast improvement to the property. Thank you.”
MRS. BOGERT-Mr. Roberts is to our south.
MR. MC NULTY-And then we have a note from Robert G. Marra and Mary Jane Marra, “I’m
writing this letter to show my approval of the boathouse replacement at 133 Seelye Road, property
owned by Peter and Karen Bogert. It is a vast improvement over the thirty year old boathouse that
was badly in need of repair/replacement. I would like to see them get their variance so that they may
finish construction.”
MRS. BOGERT-They’re neighbors across the street from us, a few houses down to the north,
northwest.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and then we have a letter from Mary Ellen Merrigan, “I’m writing in
support of the work the Bogerts have done to maintain their property, including the work done on
their dock. My husband and I have lived two houses away from their property for over twenty-five
years. Previously, their property was owned by the Czabans, and Mr. Czaban was a master carpenter
who took meticulous care of his home. After his death, Mrs. Czaban was away often, caring for sick
relatives and was not in a position to keep the place up in the way that it had always been done. We
were very pleased when the Bogerts purchased the home from Mrs. Czaban and showed the same
kind of interest in keeping their property beautifully cared for. I believe the dock was badly in need
of maintenance and we were not offended when the Bogerts chose to replace the corrugated
fiberglass roof of the dock with a wooden roof that also could serve as a deck. In my opinion it
looks better and does not interfere with the neighbors’ view of the lake. I hope that you will support
their efforts and grant them the necessary relief to keep the dock the way it is now. Sincerely, Mary
Ellen Merrigan”
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MRS. BOGERT-The Merrigans are across the street from us, next to Mr. Burkhart, and they also
share lakefront property with Mr. Burkhart, which is two properties down from us.
MR. MC NULTY-And the final letter is from James P. Merrigan, Ph.D. “I’m writing on behalf of
my neighbors, Peter and Karen Bogert. The Bogerts live adjacent to us and their waterfront is just
one residence to our north on Warner Bay. I have lived here for over 20 years and know the
property well. I would ask that you approve their request for a variance to complete their dock repair
and roof deck. In my observation, they have not changed the configuration of the dock and have
only replaced the supports. They have removed the old roof and replaced it with a deck and
proposed rail. Aesthetically, this is an improvement over the old roof and structurally no different in
size. It does not change our view or create any problems for us whatsoever. I hope that you will
pass their variance as requested. Sincerely, James P. Merrigan, Ph.D.” And I believe that’s all the
correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I’ll poll the Board members. Why don’t we start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-It seems to me that the Bogerts have made more than a reasonable attempt to
improve this property, and their neighbors have spoken on behalf of them, and they don’t seem to,
not only don’t they not have a problem with it, but they actually support the improvements they’re
going to be making, and I, too, support the moves that they tend to make to improve this area, and I
think they should be granted their variance.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I echo my colleague’s comments, and I would just add that, again, I don’t believe
your request is inappropriate. It’s consistent with what I’ve seen within that area. Your support and
the overwhelming support of your neighbors certainly lend a great deal of weight to approving such
an application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. and Mrs. Bogert, I think with a couple of more letters, you could probably run
for Congress.
MRS. BOGERT-Can I say into the record, we are in a great neighborhood, and we do have great
neighbors.
MR. BRYANT-I see that. I’m in favor of it because I think it’s an enhancement over the original
dock, but I just want to point out that since our May meeting, there are a lot of unanswered
questions, and I think some of the major objection here on the Board, and why this thing was tabled,
was, Number One, because the work had already been started, and, Number Two, there was a
question about the number of boats that this dock was going to house.
MR. BOGERT-There’s only two boats there.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but it’s big enough for four plus.
MR. BOGERT-Well, I don’t rent out spots or anything like that.
MR. BRYANT-As Mr. McNulty pointed out, the revised drawings do downsize the deck, but they
really have no overall effect on the size of the dock. That being said, I’m going to vote in favor of
the project.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel, too, the, actually, when you look at the application form here, it’s
construction of a sundeck above an existing dock, and really where everything started to go to pieces,
as Al mentioned, is when demolition and some reconstruction had been started, and one thing or
another that brought it back to kind of a different criterion, and that’s where all our problems started,
and I think that, you know, under the circumstances as you explained, I can see how repairing a dock
doesn’t need any application. It’s just the sundeck, and that’s what we’re looking at, I guess, at this
point, from my recollection of things, and I, too, from what else has been said here, appreciate your
efforts to compromise somewhat, in the research you’ve done in connection with the construction,
and I feel that the sundeck would be certainly no harm to anyone. It seems to have a lot of support
from the people who live closest to you, and I favor the application.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, am in favor. I was in favor of the application the last meeting, and I
stay with the same position. It strikes me that you’re changing the configuration of the roof, but
you’re not making it higher, and I’ll agree with a lot of the comments that the neighbors had, that I
think probably it’s going to make it look nicer, the way you’re doing things. I think it’s also
important that you did get the comments from the neighbors, because in the process of trying to get
these comments, if you’d had a neighbor that was objecting, we would have gotten those in, too, and
that’s important to know how the neighbors feel, and while it would be nice to downsize the size of
some of these docks that are on the lake, in your case, the thing is there, and as you pointed out, it
would be prohibitive, costly to try to rip it out and do something different. So I have no problem
with this. I think it’s a good project, and I’m in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I basically agree with the rest of the Board members. All these
neighbors that have come out and given you really sweeping support, I guess they’re the ones that
gave you the bad advice initially to tear it down. So they’ve remedied that to some degree. I agree
with Allan that at the first meeting, based on the fact that you’d started construction, your application
came in a little bit jaded, as far as the Board was concerned, because we certainly don’t appreciate
that, but getting around that and getting right to the facts that are in front of us, I think that some of
the letters that were read are entirely correct. The dock, as I saw it was almost a wreck, and it had a
corrugated fiberglass roof, and the plans that you’ve submitted to me look very tasteful, and they also
looked entirely consistent with the neighborhood, as I look up and down the shoreline there.
Without going any further than that, I think it just basically boils down to a common sense,
aesthetically pleasing replacement of a structure that needed to be replaced, and the neighbors want
it. So I can’t see any reason not to let you go forward at this point. Having said that, is there a
motion out there, but I’d like to just comment that I think that some kind of contingency about the
land bridge is still important. I think that’s a legitimate concern. At least that’s how I feel. Having
said that, I’ll ask for a motion from someone.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2000 PETER & KAREN BOGERT,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
133 Seeley Road. Based on merit and in view of the support from the residents, I believe that this is
a good proposal, and I believe it is justification for approval. The applicant proposes construction of
a sundeck above an existing deck, and the kind of relief that he has requested is seven feet and
sixteen feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side line setback requirements of the shoreline
and wetlands regions, Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to
construct a boat shelter area as well as an additional recreation area at the shore. Feasible
alternatives, feasible alternatives may include repairing the pitched roof and constructing a patio area
on land. However, in view of the bids that were submitted to this committee of approximately
$44,000 to $36,000 for new construction, it would seem to me that that’s kind of an exorbitant or
prohibitive price, at least for the average family anyway. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? Seven feet and sixteen feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement maybe interpreted
as moderate to substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and this is supported by the
overwhelming support of the neighbors, in view of the documentation submitted to this Board. Is
this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing condition of the site,
and now I’d like to add a contingency, and that deals with the land bridge, that no land bridge be
constructed, and I’d like to make reference to the new deck area submitted is now 28 feet by 22 foot,
and this comes to 616 square feet, and that’s the second contingency, that that deck be limited to the
diagram that you submitted to the Board.
Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally
MR. HAYES-There you go.
MR. BOGERT-Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Good luck.
MRS. BOGERT-Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, thank you very much for your
cooperation this evening. I appreciate it.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2000 TYPE: II BEVERLY C. TOBIN OWNER: SAME
AGENT: EDWIN J. TOBIN/JAMES D. TOBIN ZONE: WR-1A, CEA , APA
LOCATION: 196 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
DEMOLISH EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT NEW
RESIDENCE AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON
SAME LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP
NO. 8-1, 8-1-27 (CONSOLIDATED) LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-12
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2000, Beverly C. Tobin, Meeting Date: July 26, 2000
“Project Location: 196 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to demolish the main residence on the property and construct a new 2,955
square foot dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from §179-12 for the construction
of a second principal dwelling on the same lot. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to reconstruct an enlarged, second single family dwelling on the same property. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the proposed demolition and then
expansion of the remaining camp. Also, removal of the kitchen facilities from the “guest house,”
may be considered, in which case it would no longer be considered a principal dwelling. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: One hundred percent relief, 2 dwellings where one is
allowed, may be interpreted as substantial relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the
proposed reconstruction of the “main” dwelling may or may not present an adverse visual impact on
the neighborhood, an adverse impact may be anticipated if the new dwelling creates a more intense
use of the property. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP97-054 Septic alteration 7/2/97
AV1-1989 res. 1/18/89 construction of a 10 x 20 covered porch addition to
“guest” house. ----- approved.
Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While two
principal dwellings currently exist on the property, the proposal calls for a larger building, not only in
floor area but in the size of the footprint as well. Note that the proposed development is to occur
entirely on the lands on the lake side of the road, formerly parcel; 8.-1-5, a 22,000 sf lakefront lot.
The consolidated parcel area of 45,375 sf. includes lands to the East of Lake Parkway, on which the
septic system is currently located. Is a garage anticipated for the future? AV1-1989 depicts the
existing “main” building to be 57 feet from the shoreline. It does not appear that the applicant will
be deprived of a reasonable use of the property if the reconstruction does not occur. SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 12, 2000
Project Name: Tobin, Beverly C. Owner: Beverly C. Tobin ID Number: QBY-AV-59-2000
County Project#: Jul00-28 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing main residence and to construct new
residence and seeks a variance to build a second principal building on the same lot. Site Location:
196 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Staff Notes: There are currently two principal residences on the
lot, and the applicant proposes to replace one of them with a house that is 689 sq. ft. larger. The
proposed new house would meet all setback requirements, though the existing guest house (to
remain) does not meet the side yard requirements. Due to concerns about lake shore crowding, Staff
recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for July 2000.
County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the cottage’s septic system
be inspected for adequacy and replaced if found to be faulty.” Signed by Terry Ross, 7/13/00.
MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing Edwin Tobin and Beverly Tobin. They are the applicants
in this particular application. With us also is Jim Tobin, who is Mr. Tobin’s brother and was the
architect who prepared the plans for the structure that’s to be constructed, and also present is Mrs.
Tobin’s mother, Anna Sopola, who resides in the small cottage to the back of the property. This
basically is an Area Variance, and we’re going to get into the question of balancing, as we always do,
but before you get there, I’d also like you to look at the historical use of this property. We’re not
introducing something new to this property. There have been two residences with separate facilities
in each of those residences on this property since 1962, or before that. The present ownership began
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
late in 1962 or early 1963. We’re really not talking about changing anything that would effect the
character of the neighborhood or that would have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. In
fact, Mr. Tobin has been to the neighbors, and specifically I know by name the neighbors
immediately to the north, which is Mr. Stone, who also sits on this Board, but is not here tonight,
and to the south, which is Mr. Owen, John Owen, and he’s explained to them, showed them the
plans, and neither of those neighbors have any objection to him improving his residence. Basically, if
you really take a look at the application, and I’ll go through it step by step. What they’re going to do
is expand the building 12 feet or so to the north, and basically make the rooms more livable. They
have a bedroom in there that is now nine by five, in which two adults sleep in a bunk bed
circumstance. They have a dining room that sits six. When they have the family there, they sit
twelve in there. They’re really trying to just accommodate their family needs, and build a structure
that would accommodate that. They could, if they wanted to, if you look at the density requirements
and everything else, tear down both structures, and build one structure, of greater size than what’s
proposed here, if you get into the issue of density. They are trying not to do that. They’re trying to
keep the quaint, cottage type appearance, by maintaining the existing structure that’s to the back of
the property, as well as building a smaller structure toward the front of the property. They are
maintaining all the setbacks. Some place in the Staff notes they talk about an earlier application
where it says that the front setback is 50 feet. In actuality, and I’m not sure how that was measured
back at the time of that application, the front setback is 66 feet, and if you take a look at the footprint
of what’s proposed here, it’s 66 feet for the whole structure as it now exists. The new structure only
a portion of it. The porch that’s on the left hand side will be out at 66 feet. There’s actually a
setback of another three or four feet for the structure as it’s going to be reconstructed. The structure
will meet all setbacks on the south side, north side, and the rear, and we’ve got some photographs
which I think clearly depict that this is a very heavily wooded area. It’s not going to be something
that’s going to be imposing. It’s not going to be something that’s going to impact anyone else.
There is no planned tree removal, particularly in the front of the structure. The lake appearance
would be the same as what it presently is. There are no neighbors that have a home that is directly
behind this property, that has a view of the lake, that you’re going to effect the view shed. In fact,
the new structure probably is going to be about approximately the same height as the old structure.
Basically what it’s going to be is a little bigger on the second floor. So that they’ve got four decent
bedrooms. A few years ago, they put a new septic system, and it’s to the back of the property on the
other side of the road. It’s a septic system that was sized for a five bedroom house, so that there’s no
impact from a septic area or from a septic question. I’ll show you some photos. Probably this photo
shows you the best. This is the cottage, or the home looking at if from the lake, and the expansion is
going to go in this open area, toward Mr. Stone’s house, and that basically is what we’re talking
about. This is further out. The second one on the dock looking at it. This is a different angle, but
again, looking in the side yard from the principal addition that’s going to go, where the new
structure’s going to go. This is looking across the front, toward the south. Stone lives to the north,
and Stone lives on the side the addition is going to go. This is looking toward the south side of the
property, where John Owens lives. In this photo, you see John Owens’ house a little bit better. You
see part of the cottage that’s in the back. The photograph with the barbecue apparatus in it is
looking from the where the back of where the new house will be, toward the back of the lot, and you
will see that there are no structures behind there. This is not going to impede upon anybody to the
rear of the property. This is a closer view of the back property that’s across the road. In fact, when
they put the septic system in, apparently what they did is they went back into the lot. They left the
trees out along the road, so that they didn’t change the appearance of it. The septic system was
behind the trees in the back. This is, again, looking toward the back of the lot, and the last two
photographs are looking in the opposite direction, standing up, I think, on Forest Road, looking
down Forest to the house to be constructed toward the lake. Given the setting that you have there,
basically, it’s our proposal or our submission to you that there is no, or would be no undesirable
change produced in the character of the neighborhood, if you allow the variance that we’ve
requested. Certainly, they would benefit by it. They would be able to improve their living
conditions. They’d be able to have larger room and have bigger bedrooms and a dining room that
would accommodate their family. Right now they’ve got two and a half bedrooms in the structure.
They propose to have four bedrooms. You can see the size of what we’re talking about. Even
though they’re two and a half bedrooms, they’re very small bedrooms. Is the requested variance
substantial? It’s my position it isn’t, because you already have two existing separate structures on this
property. They were grandfathered some time in 1967, when the Town first adopted its Ordinance.
Conceivably, they could make due. They’d have to live with the structures as they are, if you turned
them down. It just would not be very practical. It would not be very accommodating to them and
their family needs, if that was what you were going to do. Feasible alternatives, I talked about the
fact that if they tore down both structures, then they could build a house big enough to
accommodate the square footage and the allocations that they have, but Mrs. Sopola has lived in that
house that’s in the back of the property for some number of years, and if you want to speak to her
about changing her living accommodations, Mrs. Tobin tells me you can speak directly to her.
Because it’s not something that they wish to impose upon her. They don’t think it’s a practical
solution. You’re also talking about a structure, the one that she lives in, that they spent about
$35,000 on, within the last five years, and if you take a look at even the square footage of that, and
you get into the practical difficulties, or practical hardship. I believe that structure is 20 by 36 on the
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
first floor, which I have as 720 square feet, and I think it’s 24 by 20 on the second floor, which is
another four or five hundred feet. So you’ve got say 1,000 square feet of good living space right
now. To make them tear that down and mesh it, you’re talking about throwing out some place
between $65,000 to $100,000, with no little effect or no little benefit, if you went from $65 a square
foot to $100 a square foot, which I think are reasonable prices for construction. That is a year round
home. It is only used by the family in the summer time, but it would demand that type of
replacement, if you were going to build that into the new house, the new house would cost $65,000
to $100,000. They talked about just doing an addition to the existing house, as maybe also an
alternative, but apparently when that house was built, it didn’t have a full foundation under it, and
some place along the line, somebody put a foundation under it. They jacked the house up and put a
foundation under it, I’m told, and that, according to Jim Tobin, is not a sound foundation, and
probably wouldn’t be worth trying to make into an addition. It would just create additional problem.
So there’s reasons, there’s practical reasons for what they’re talking about doing. The proposed
variance, as I said, can be submitted, won’t have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood or the district, and I don’t think the difficulty was self-created. This
was a piece of property that when they bought it in 1962, had two principal structures on it. They’ve
occupied it and enjoyed it and used it, having some separation between the two family units that
actually live on the property, and the difficulty was created by the Statute which said that we can’t do
that. We used to be able to do that, in fact, I don’t think that two principal structures on a single lot
was even part of the original 1967 Ordinance. I think that came in much later. I don’t know if it
came in in ’82 or ’88, but that’s something that, a change that’s there by Statute. It’s not a change
that they created. Speaking directly as to the comments, I think I’ve addressed the comments of
Staff that perhaps we could demolish everything and expand the remaining camp. The remaining
camp can’t be expanded, not with this existing foundation, and if we did demolish everything, you’re
talking about wasting $65,000 to $100,000, which seems to be a great difficulty to impose upon
somebody, when they have no impact, when you look at the balancing effect of what you’re actually,
what we’re asking to do. Talking about removing the kitchen facilities from the guest house, I’m not
sure what the thought process is on that. That doesn’t have any impact as to the size of the building,
and it also would make that house not usable in the manner in which it’s been used. It’s been used as
a separate residence. It’s been used as a separate residence since these folks have owned it in 1962 or
1963, and for some time before that. I said I don’t think it’s substantial relief because I think we
already have a pre-existing use, and except for the fact that we are tearing down the structure, we
wouldn’t have an issue there at all. I don’t think it has any effect on the neighborhood, as has been
related by Mr. Stone and by Mr. Owens. Both have no objections to what has been requested, and
I’m told that other neighbors who were home also had no objection, and going about the
neighborhood, Mr. Tobin found no one who had an objection. We didn’t carry a petition with us.
We didn’t ask, you know, them to write letters. Certainly they all received the notice that everybody
receives, and I don’t recognize, or didn’t recognize, anyone here that would speak. No one spoke at
the County meeting. That’s basically what we would present to you. We’d be glad to answer any
questions that you have.
MR. HIMES-If I could just ask one. On the occupancy, you mentioned it was summer only. Is that
both?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, both are winterized, but the small cottage is used summer only, at present,
and the other occasionally on weekends.
EDWIN TOBIN
MR. TOBIN-I go up myself. I use it. I go there.
MR. HIMES-But the applicant’s mother doesn’t live in the guest cottage year round?
MR. TOBIN-No. It’s Memorial Day to Labor Day, both of them.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-The guest cottage, is that the house number 200?
MR. TOBIN-Yes.
BEVERLY TOBIN
MRS. TOBIN-We call it a guest cottage in these proceedings, but actually it’s my mother’s, her
home. She’s been there since 1962, 1963. It’s her home. It’s really not a guest cottage, and, you
know, when you talk about self-created problems, if we’ve created this problem, it’s because we had
children and we have grandchildren. That’s the reason we’re looking for the variance.
MR. HIMES-Good point. I was going to ask if you could describe the family that is there.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MRS. TOBIN-Well, I was an only child. So there was no problem initially, and then we have three
children. Two are married, one is, I expect will be getting married, and we have three grandchildren
at present, and it’s a wonderful family gathering. We have all our family together, just about every
weekend, and we’re really cramped. We’re bursting at the seams, and that’s really the reason we’re
here. We need the space to accommodate our family.
MR. TOBIN-You have a situation where two adults sleep in a room that’s five by nine feet, in bunk
beds. The children sleep on air mattresses on the living room floor. We have a dining room that’s
eleven by twelve feet, and when we’re not out on the patio, we use the dining room for the family
meal. That’s twelve people, usually, in a dining room that’s eleven by twelve feet, and it’s pretty
crowded.
MR. HIMES-I can appreciate that.
MR. ABBATE-Craig, is this grandfathered in. It would seem to me that it is.
MR. BROWN-The maintenance of the existing building is grandfathered, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Both the buildings are grandfathered in?
MR. BROWN-Right. The construction of a new building is not.
MR. ABBATE-And Counselor raised a question about what effect the kitchen would have, but am I
correct in stating that if there were no kitchen then it would be like a reclassification, it would not
constitute a dwelling. Am I right on that?
MR. BROWN-Similar to the Ginsberg application that you had in front of you a couple of weeks ago
or last month.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, similar to one we had last week.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that from a zoning point of view, but as to impact on neighborhood
or impact on environment or impact on community, I don’t think it has any impact, that part of that
structure is used as a kitchen, and that would be the distinction or point I was trying to make.
MR. BRYANT-There is somewhat of an impact that there’s no kitchen, because that’s not a
permanent dwelling.
MRS. TOBIN-Would you like to discuss that with my mother, as to whether or not she wants to give
up making coffee?
MR. O'CONNOR-But the problem you have is then you have the microwave, and then you have
the, you know, I would rather be very much up front with you and say that the intention is to
maintain that as a separate residence, as it’s been used since at least 1962, and not try to come in with
something else that tells you differently. I know the argument about two kitchens I love, because my
mother has two kitchens on a 50 foot lot on Glen Lake, and some day I’m coming back to you folks,
and every time they raise that, I say that. Then they go the other way.
MR. TOBIN-As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, by speaking to old Mr. Ellsworth who used to own
the sporting goods shop on Route 9, and who lived on Assembly Point as a boy, his father was the
Post Master there, he said that our place was built around 1917, and looking at the style and the
construction, it looks like it’s been there since 1917. The second house is the same style, looks the
same age to me, and in talking to my mother-in-law when they bought it, the kitchen was there.
There was a sink and a washing machine in the kitchen, just to age it for you, as to how long this has
been there, the sink had a pump on it. So, I mean, that has to go back 50 years anyway. So we’re
talking about the legal use of this property in that exact condition for probably 50 years, a long time
anyway, maybe even 70 or more. I mean, there’s no real change here. The only change is there’s a
slight change in the footprint of the building. It goes out about 10 feet to the north, still within the
building lot line, and we go up two stories where we’re only one and a half on the existing building.
That gives us the additional square footage that we need to put the additional bedrooms in.
MR. HAYES-Speaking to that, I see in your application that you’re proposing 2955. What is the
existing structure now, as far as square footage?
MR. TOBIN-Seventeen something
MR. HAYES-Seventeen something.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. TOBIN-That’s not all living space, though.
MR. O'CONNOR-The 29 is, you get mislead a little bit. I think the 29 is footprint, when you, it’s
the footprint of the two structures. The existing structure, if I did my math right, was around 1839
square feet.
MR. HAYES-And what’s the new one going to be, 2900, or is that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the 2900 is, again, going to be the footprint of the new structure and the old
structure.
MR. ABBATE-New structure and old structure, combined?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I’m looking at the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, and it shows the 2955 as the floor area
for the new building.
MR. ABBATE-So the new structure would be in addition.
MR. HAYES-It’s got to be for the new structure, basically.
MR. TOBIN-That includes two open porches. So the living space is not that.
MR. HAYES-Do you count open porches as part of square footage?
MR. BROWN-Covered porches count for the floor area ratio.
MR. TOBIN-They’re both covered.
MR. HAYES-They’re both covered, and what’s their approximate square footage?
MR. TOBIN-One is, the gazebo on the end there, in the front, that’s about 13 feet around, and on
the back, the back entrance, it’s about 8 by 10, I think.
MR. HAYES-That’s 80 square feet. So really we’re talking about, as far as indoor living space, we’re
talking about something that’s like 26, 2500, versus 17 something now.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The permitted floor ratio is like 9900 square feet, and this is calculated at
2900. I think the calculation may be a little bit light because I don’t think it included the second floor
of either the second structure or the new structure, but it’s no place near in violation. It’s well below
what would be permitted, very well below.
MR. HAYES-So you’re saying it’s more than 2900 square feet, the proposed structure, the new
structure now?
MR. TOBIN-The proposed is 2950.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The new structure is 2950. The old, the other cabin is still 720 plus
another 400. So it’s 1100.
MR. HAYES-I’m not concerned about mom’s place. I’m concerned about.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. No, the new one is 2950.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I just want to see where we’re going, because that’s the only thing that’s being
proposed changed. Are there any further questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NULTY-I have one other. The lake side lot and the lot that’s on the other side of the road.
Have they been combined into a single lot?
MR. TOBIN-Well, I filed the papers, at Mr. Brown’s suggestion, with the tax office, and they
accepted it.
MR. BROWN-They’ve been consolidated for tax purposes. That’s different than the legal
combination of the lots, but they have been consolidated for tax purposes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. TOBIN-The same title, owner of both.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Was the application complete before this evening? Was the application submitted to
this Board complete in all respects? I noticed there were some signatures going on. Just out of
curiosity.
MR. O'CONNOR-The signature was to authorize me to speak on their behalf as agent. Mr. Tobin is
an attorney, and Mrs. Tobin is Judge Tobin. They both are attorneys, and their brother is the
architect. They did the application, and I came on late.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So everything is fair enough. So we have to presume everything is okay,
because I see a little shuffling back and forth here, Counselor.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’ve covered the basis, I hope we’ve covered the bases. One point that I
didn’t, for your record, cover, though, and I should cover. The County approval was conditioned
upon our looking at the septic system for the cottage, and determining that it was adequate. We’ve
had a fellow up there three days trying to determine where the septic system is, and we have not been
able to locate it. As I understand it, they did locate what appears to be an orangeburg pipe that
comes out of the cabin, and I would say, or what has been told to me is that the system works well
and they don’t have a problem with it. They’ve never been reported to have a problem with it. For
somebody to actually go in and make that determination, it probably has been decided now they
would have to bring a backhoe in, and dig up most of the back yard. I think that that would be
counterproductive, and notwithstanding the condition that the County has imposed on it, I would
ask the Board to consider that fact. If that’s something that the Board would require, the applicant is
willing to do it, but we don’t know if it would be productive. We’ve never had any sign that there’s
been a failure. It’s a limited use system. Maybe as a good indication, when they had a two and a half
bedroom house, and they re-did the septic system, a few years ago, they actually built a five bedroom
septic system across the road, so that they wouldn’t have problems, they wouldn’t cause problems to
their neighbors or to the lake. So I’d ask you to consider that when you get to reviewing your
conditions.
MR. HIMES-Can I ask you a question on that? Would it be feasible to, let’s say if it came to connect
the guest house septic?
MR. O'CONNOR-If there was a failure, I’m told that it could be done. They may have to put.
MR. HIMES-I’m just looking for the old one to just go ahead and connect it in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’m told that they would probably have to put more of a leach field in on
the west side of the road, they’d have to expand that. That’s a five bedroom system right now. They
propose to build four bedrooms. There are two bedrooms in that existing house that’s in back of the
lot, the guest. So if there was any indication of failure, that’s certainly available for them to do, and
they would do that, but there’s no indication that it’s ever failed.
MR. HIMES-No, I understand that. (Lost words) it would have to be done at that point, I guess,
because you don’t have much choice if we can’t even find the existing one.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not without tearing up the whole yard.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a question, maybe for Craig or maybe for Counsel. The way the two lots,
at the moment, are combined for tax purposes, is there anything that would prevent the current
owners, or subsequent owners from deciding to build a house on the lot that’s on the other side of
the road from the lake?
MR. O'CONNOR-I hadn’t thought about it.
MR. TOBIN-We have no intention of doing that.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I wouldn’t expect that you would.
MR. TOBIN-The area is now woods, and we like it because it provides a barrier to the back of the
house. It gives us the privacy that we like.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m thinking ahead. I presume, probably, you intend the property to stay in the
family, and that’s probably what will happen, but should something happen instead, that it sometime
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
be sold to somebody else, or somebody that doesn’t know your intentions, or have your good
intentions.
MR. HAYES-That’s a good question. Would it be permissible to build a primary structure on the
other lot, at this particular point?
MR. BROWN-Right now, with the current Ordinance, it says nonconforming lots in a CEA we
consider one parcel, similar to the Ginsberg application. I keep going back to that. It’s very similar
to this, several parcels, multiple buildings on one parcel. So for zoning purposes, we’d combine
them as one parcel. The way they’re combined, by tax consolidation, they can be re-separated and
sold separately any time they want to. They could transfer title. One could be in their son’s name,
one could be in their name. Now they’re no longer two parcels that are owned by the same person.
So we couldn’t combine them together.
MR. HAYES-For zoning purposes you couldn’t combine them?
MR. BROWN-We couldn’t combine them if they’re under separate ownership.
MR. O'CONNOR-That would be an illegal subdivision.
MR. BROWN-Not if they’re existing lots. Combining them for tax purposes doesn’t combine them
under the same description.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, but the Merger by Operation of Laws, in the Zoning Ordinance, in a CEA
zone, or APA district, and this is both. This is, it’s APA. I presume it’s CEA. So they’re combined
by Operation of Law. If they were deeded separately, that would be a subdivision.
MR. BROWN-They’re currently deeded separately. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. If they were separated, I don’t know if they are deeded separately. They are
deeded separately right now.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-If they were conveyed for separate purposes, I think once they are together, as
contiguous lands, you can’t do that. I know you can’t do it in the APA. Once the 1973 Statute took
place in the APA, you owned contiguous lands. You can’t, and even if they were indeed separate
deeds, you can’t separate them, without going to the APA for approval, and I think you’d have to
come in here for probably a variance because both lots, then, would be less than one acre.
MR. BROWN-As far as the APA is concerned, they would combine them together for their review
purposes, but my understanding is if they’re two separate parcels conveyed with two separate deeds,
they’re still two separate parcels, and that, obviously not a legal opinion, but it’s, that’s my
understanding.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they are, unless they are on a plat that’s been approved by the
Planning Board. Then their grandfathering would continue to exist, but in their present, I don’t
think that this is something that’s been approve by our Planning Board. Our Planning Board didn’t
start until 1967, ’68. There’s specific sections in the Ordinance, Mr. McNulty, that have to do with
pre-existing lots. You’d have a tough time separating these in use, however they’re owned, because
in particular you’ve got the whole septic system on this parcel.
MR. HAYES-I guess, along the lines of Chuck, though, there’s a pre-existing fairly intense use of the
property now, and you’re actually asking for even a slightly more intense use.
MR. TOBIN-Not really.
MR. HAYES-You don’t think so, by expanding?
MR. TOBIN-No, I don’t, because the intensity of the use won’t change, regardless of what happens
tonight. There’s still going to be 11 people living there.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but I guess where I think that fails is that you, none of us are going to live forever.
Presumably somebody else will own that property some time in the future, and the expansion of the
square footage of the house should, in the practical sense, allow for a greater usage some time in the
future. Be it ever so slight, I’ll agree with you, but, I mean, I don’t know how you could argue that
increasing the square footage doesn’t create some small impact on the property.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. TOBIN-It would go from five and a half to six bedrooms, no, wait, it’s four and a half to six.
That would be the change.
MR. HAYES-I’m not making that an issue as much as I certainly would think that the possibility,
however so slight, of a third structure on the easterly lot, to me, would seem like.
MR. TOBIN-Not in my lifetime. That’s for sure.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I would feel more comfortable if that was impossible, you know, I mean,
would a legal combination accomplish that? I guess it’s a question for Counselor.
MR. O'CONNOR-They don’t own Lake Parkway, or they don’t own Forest Road. You can’t
combine them any better than they are presently combined.
MR. TOBIN-Well, actually, we do own Lake Parkway.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the Town maintains it.
MR. TOBIN-The Town maintains it.
MR. O'CONNOR-By prescription, the Town owns the roadway.
MR. TOBIN-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-So they’re always going to be two separate parcels.
MR. BROWN-Is the question will the combination in one description make it possible so they can’t
be separated in the future? Is that the question?
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I’d like to go beyond the Tobins, and not have to deal with the possibility
that a third house would be, or a third structure would be a part of the equation on this site. It
would seem important.
MR. BROWN-Without appearing back in front of this Board again, obviously. There could be, in
the future. They’d be back in front of the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Let me have a follow up question on that, would you please. Do you folks anticipate
anymore construction on this property? Would you object to a contingency of no construction?
MR. O'CONNOR-Wouldn’t you want to keep the option open, whether or not you wanted to build
a garage there?
MR. TOBIN-I don’t have any plans for it.
MR. ABBATE-No garage.
MR. HAYES-If we combine them in a way that doesn’t allow another primary structure, they could
still build a garage, though, and have that be permissible, right? If it was under the square footage of
a garage structure?
MR. O'CONNOR-If you granted your variance for the two parcels by their tax map number, and
you said that no other principal structures could be constructed there, that would fall within the
application that we’ve made to you.
MR. HAYES-That would be a binding contingency.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s like the garage we keep chasing around over on the west side of the
Town, that is now a storage building instead of a garage. I forget the people’s name. That’s a
binding thing, binding on the owner, binding on the purchasers. It runs with the land.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant? At this time, I’d like to open
the public hearing. Does anyone wish to come forward to speak in favor of the application?
Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence. One’s a very brief one, written on the
notice of the public hearing, from, I believe it’s Miriam P. Brown, 214 Lake Parkway, and she just
simply says, “I approve”, and then we have a letter from Frederick C. Tedeschi and Mary Ellen
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
Tedeschi, “Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We are writing to you in response to the
application described above”, and they reference above the Area Variance No. 59-2000, “because it
is unlikely that we will be able to attend the hearing in person. We have owned a summer residence
on Assembly Point for 15 years, and, therefore, are familiar with the property for which the variance
is being sought as well as the area in which it is located. We have no objection to the tearing down
of the main residence building and its replacement with a new stone structure. We do, however,
strongly object to the continued presence of the second principal building: it should be torn down
with the main residence. There are several reasons for our strong objection to permitting the second
structure to remain on the property: 1. The presence of a second residence on this lot is out of
character with the existing neighborhood. We are unaware of any other lot this size which has two
residences on it. We are unaware of any other property on Lake Parkway which has two structures
both of which have living and sleeping quarters. 2. The presence of a second residence on this lot
creates significant additional waste water from the kitchen and bathrooms which needs to be
discharged into the ground. The applicant also owns lots directly across Lake Parkway from the two
residences. We believe that the applicant has constructed a septic system to serve those two
residences. However, we do not believe that the lots on both sides of Lake Parkway have been
joined together permanently and irrevocably. The permanent and irrevocable joining of these lots
should be a condition of any variance which may be given in order that any residence which
ultimately may be constructed on the waterfront lot would have an adequate septic system to serve it.
If these lots are not joined, potential remains for additional living space to be constructed on the lot
on which the septic system was constructed. Permanent and irrevocable joinder, by preventing the
construction of an additional residence on the lot which the septic system has been constructed,
would alleviate some of the additional burden placed on the fragile ecosystem and reduce the
potential for contamination of Lake George itself. Simply, the property which is the subject of the
application is too small and too close to Lake George to permit the continuation of the over
development which now exists. The opportunity which the Board now has to permanently correct
this problem should not be missed. 3. The property which is the subject of the application is too
small to support a structure larger than the main residence building which is now present on the
property. While the short notice prevented us from looking at the application, we cannot comment
on the plans for the building proposed to replace the main residence building. However, we strongly
urge the Board to restrict the size of the structure erected to replace the main residence to a building
not exceeding the size of the existing structure unless the second residence building is removed. If
the second residence is removed, then the applicant should be permitted to tear down the main
residence and construct a new one subject to the current rules of the Town, County, Lake George
Park Commission, Adirondack Park Authority, and any other governmental entity which has
jurisdiction. Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the proposed application.
We respectfully urge that the application be denied unless each of the conditions set forth above are
made conditions of the grant of the variance. Respectfully submitted, Frederick C. Tedeschi Mary
Ellen Tedeschi”
MR. HAYES-Is that all the correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s all the correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Would you like some re-direct, Mr. O’Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’ve covered most of the points beforehand, as to the character of the
neighborhood and the effect of what we’re doing, it’s exactly what’s there now. It’s been there since
we, in our ownership since 1962, and as Mr. Tobin testified, many years prior to that, much longer
than the 15 years that this particular person has lived in the neighborhood. We’re not changing
anything. We’re not asking you to change anything. As to the concern that the Board had, and also
the concern that they raised as to whether there’d be another principal structure on the other parcel, I
think the application itself, whether you specifically condition that there not be another principal
residence, requires that we would not put another principal residence on, unless we obtain another
variance. Basically, we have involved both parcels in this application, and you’re permission is going
to be that we use these two parcels in this manner, and specifically you’re going to allow us to have
two principal residences on these two parcels, as we’ve configured them, and as we’ve shown them.
If we change that, and came back for a building permit, we’d have to go through a process again,
with the Board. I don’t think deeding the property one way or another makes a difference. I think
the variance runs with the land, and you have to live with the variance as you’ve granted. If there’s
any question on that, I would try and make sure that that’s not an issue. It’s not our intent here to
build another residence on that other parcel, and as far as the adequacy of the septic, you know,
we’ve got a modern five bedroom septic system that we’re going to serve a four bedroom home.
The other septic system in the other cabin has worked, never had a problem with it, never any
indication of a problem, either inside the structure or outside the structure, and I think the photos
will show that that back yard is very well landscaped. If that’s a condition that we tear up that, have
somebody say, yes, it’s okay, that’s something we’d have to live with, but we think it would be kind of
a waste of effort. We’re not going to, we’re going to try not to do that in our own construction
efforts.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-I just want to follow up. Counselor states unequivocally that there are no intentions
by your clients to construction another residence, and I take you at your word, but are there any
intentions to build any type of construction such as garages?
MR. TOBIN-I have no intention to build anything. I particularly have an aversion to building on the
back lot. I don’t want to put anything there. Years ago, when Lew Stone tore down his house, he
had a garage sale. So I saw the sign “Garage Sale” and I went over to Lew and I said, okay, I’ll buy
the garage, and he got a big kick out of that, and he said we have a real garage sale, and I looked into
moving the garage onto the back lot. That’s what I wanted to do at the time, but my wife raised the
devil over it. She said these are the only woods we’ve got. We’ve got to keep the woods pristine,
and she talked me out of it, and I agree with her 100%. I think the woods should remain woods. I
like it over there. I do work over there. I’ve got little paths through the woods and enjoy it. I’ve got
flowers over there, put a lot of Rhododendrons an things like that in, and I just want to keep it that
way, a horseshoe pitch, but you, there’s no intention to ever change that at all. As far as these
comments in the letter, I would just point out that the house has been there, as far as I know, for 83
years. This gentleman came 15 years ago, when he had two eyes and he could see. If he didn’t like
two houses there, he could buy some place else. It doesn’t change his view. It doesn’t change
anything, as far as he’s concerned. The septic system, an approved, it’s been approved by the Town,
whoever approves the septic systems here, has absolutely no effect on the lake. It’s much further
setback from the lake than it’s required to be, and it’s more than adequate for the house we’re
planning. So, I mean, this business about the fragile ecosystem and contamination of Lake George is
a lot of bunk. I’m the type of guy that when I’m out in my boat, if I see a Styrofoam cup floating in
Lake George, I’ll stop and I’ll pick it up. So I’m not interested in doing anything that’s going to be
detrimental to Lake George.
MR. ABBATE-Let me attempt to add a little bit of humor here. Tobin, any connection to Tobin
Packing?
MR. TOBIN-No.
MR. ABBATE-I was going to say, if it is, I would have to recuse myself because I eat their products.
MRS. TOBIN-No baloney here.
MR. ABBATE-No baloney here.
MR. HAYES-We’re digressing, obviously, so, are there any further questions? All right, at this time,
I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I’ll poll the Board members. Chuck McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m torn. I don’t like the idea of two principal residences on a lot, and I
think the zoning was put in there with the intention that we get away from the two principal
residences. At the same time, I can understand why the Tobins are asking for what they’re asking. I
can flip back on the other side and say, okay, if the family’s outgrown the property they’ve got,
maybe they should move and buy a new piece of property, which is another argument to be put
forth. Summing it all up, it strikes me that they aren’t asking, really, for that much of an expansion.
What is there looks nice, and I’m going to be inclined to approve.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I sympathize with all the reasons given for your wanting to do what
you are applying for. The aspect of the growing family, and the needs for such, being the principal
building, in my understanding, for your wanting to have something a little bigger, I think that
somewhere in our book family is talked about as a single housekeeping unit, and a mother, father and
kids, and so on, and in that connection I kind of feel one way. I feel that there are adults with living
children, I feel a little differently in connection with the need. It’s one definitely of convenience. I,
personally, would feel the same as you, but looking at it from the standpoint of my position here, I’m
thinking, well, I don’t know. The statement was made which leads me to believe that you have the
resources to combine the single one structure on the lot. There wouldn’t be any arguments here
anymore, then, and those are the reasons why I feel, much as I hate to do so, that I don’t feel I’m in
favor of the application, because I think the wherewithal is there. I just hate to see money wasted on
what you put into the cottage and all, but there is the capability to put a nice, new structure that
would accommodate all your needs, and so for that reason, I would tend to decline the application.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with both of my colleagues so far. I’m kind of on the fence. From a
personal perspective, I understand the concept of the growing family. Counsel makes some good
points, that the houses have been used that way since the beginning of time, but as I look at the Staff
notes, this AV 1-1989, refers to the porch addition to the guest house, and not a primary dwelling.
So somewhere along the line, that was considered a guest house. Mr. Tobin makes a statement that
there’s no difference in the use, and you’re going to tear down the building. You’re going to build a
new building, but there is a difference in the footprint, by 50%. It’s about 50%, give or take a few
percent. Is that correct?
MR. TOBIN-Not in the footprint. The footprint’s about 10 feet. Overall square footage, you’re
correct.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it’s 1100 versus an additional 600. Is that correct?
MR. TOBIN-That’s correct, but it’s not the footprint. The footprint only changes by 10 feet,
because it’s a one and a half story structure now, and it’s going to become a two story structure. So
you’re going up.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not an architect, okay, but, you know, I’ve only been on this Board a short
time, and we’ve only had one such case where you had two principal dwellings on a single family lot,
and it was rejected by the Board, and I would be more inclined to go in that direction.
MR. HAYES-Mr. O’Connor, did you want to clarify something?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I sense that we’re confused as to how big an expansion we’re talking about,
and probably this map, this second map, I don’t know what maps you have. Do you have a map that
shows the actual floor plan?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think we do, do we? Yes, we do. I’m sorry.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. The front stays the same, and what changes is that this piece here goes
to the north, probably about 10 feet with that projection in the back. That’s the change. It’s still the
same on the south side, on this side, and on the back.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but in the application here, on the square footage of the building, the original
building is 1150. The proposed addition is 689.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the 1150 is the first floor.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Jim, do you want to come up? You did the figures. I think we’re confusing
ourselves and maybe confusing the Board. This is Jim Tobin. The existing building right here is 46
by 20, which is actually, what, this is a portion.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s listed as 720 square feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the existing building. That’s the cottage. Okay. This one here is 23 by
50, and actually it’s 23 by 40. Is that what we came up with, the actual house?
JIM TOBIN
MR. J. TOBIN-Yes, the house, if you can look at this plan quickly, I don’t know if you have it all in
front of you, but the house portion is, actually, the house now is a two story house. By building
code, it’s a two story house, and we’re putting a two story house on. So the one and a half story
doesn’t exist in the building code, by the way. What we have on this, in the front portion of the
building, is a porch which faces the lake which is approximately 14 foot in depth. That’s one story.
The two story portion of the house is a relatively small portion of the footprint that you see here in
the 50 foot dimension. The rear portion of the building is a one story kitchen. So the actual two
story portion of the building is considered with less than what we show here.
MR. O'CONNOR-My point, though, is that they’re comparing this to the 1150 square feet, which,
that’s the footprint.
MR. HIMES-It works out to 36% and 59%, depending on whether you include both structures or
just the main structure.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. J. TOBIN-Right. The proposed addition is 689 square feet. That’s correct, and that would be
two stories.
MR. O'CONNOR-But the 1150 is 23 by 50, which is actually the same as the footprint on the first
floor. It doesn’t include the second floor, and I don’t know if I got lost.
MR. BRYANT-I understand perfectly what you’re saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. So the expansion would be 1150, plus 900 feet, or about 700
feet on the second floor, compared to what the new structure would be, when you compare what the
expansion is. Basically, you’re going from two and a half bedrooms there to the four bedrooms that
are shown on here. That’s what we’re talking about. Maybe I’m confused myself. I’m sorry.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I’m having a very difficult time. I appreciate what you folks are saying, I truly do, but
I’m concerned with the concerns of my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, maybe, perhaps, I don’t
understand it properly. I think if I had more time to understand it properly, I could appreciate it
more, but there seems to be some confusion as to the square footage.
MR. BRYANT-There’s no confusion. It’s kind of clear. It’s 23 by 50 existing, and the new is
proposed, which is 45 by approximately 50. Is that correct? So the difference is 600 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-I think that’s what we said initially, 600 square feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not the footprint. That’s because it’s second floor, as well as first floor.
MR. BROWN-I think if you look at the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, the numbers that are listed
there for the first floor, floor area is 1150, and the first floor floor area for the new addition is 1800
and something. I think those are the numbers that Allan’s going to come up with. The difference in
floor space on the first floor is 689 square feet, and then the total increase in floor space is whatever
those numbers work out to be. I think from 1700 up to 2900.
MR. ABBATE-2955.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the difference.
MR. BROWN-So the total increase is roughly 1200, approximately 600 on each floor, but the
footprint of the building, according to the Floor Area worksheet, is increased by about 600 square
feet, and I think that, is that the answer to your question?
MR. BRYANT-Exactly.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. TOBIN-Ten by fifty would be five hundred, plus there’s a little bit on, where the family room
is, it goes out a little bit further.
MR. HAYES-Chuck, do you want me to come back to you?
MR. ABBATE-Would you mind doing that, please, because I really want to do a fair evaluation, here.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I don’t know if I’m in any better position than Chuck is to evaluate it. I’m torn. Like
Chuck, I’m opposed to having a second single family dwelling on this lot, but I also understand the
circumstances. I think in an ideal world, a very practical world, that we can all follow the codes very
easily, but it doesn’t seem to be a perfect situation. They’ve lived there a very long time. Somebody
has occupied a spot there, apparently very comfortably, for a very long period of time, and I think
that makes this decision very difficult. On the other hand, we recently had a similar case, and the
gentleman was made to take out the kitchen facilities in order to accommodate things. So, I don’t
think I’m ready to make a decision yet.
MR. HAYES-Do you want to respond, Mike, or are you trying to clarify his questions?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll wait. I would like to respond a little bit, if I could.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, obviously, the Board is very divided at this particular time about this issue.
I do believe that there’s going to be a small, I think, expansion in the intensity of the use on the
property, by definition. I think that’s really the logic of their argument, why they want to spend the
money to build a new camp, honestly, but in this particular case, I don’t think that we’re going to
solve the two primary residence issue here today. If you don’t get the variance to build this new
place, we’re still going to have two houses on the lot. You’re not going to tear down one because
you don’t get the variance, either. So are we going to solve the two residences, two primary
residences, or two principal structures on this property by not granting this variance? I don’t think
we are, in this particular case. To me, we’ve got to go back to the Area Variance criterion, and in this
particular case, I think the relief that’s requested, with some irrevocable condition that the variance
would run with the property, that I think the impact on the neighborhood is very negligible. I don’t
think that the fact that two existing primary structures are there now, two will be there in the future,
albeit a slightly larger one for the second dwelling. I don’t think that that is going to have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood or community, that’s going to overbalance or override the, what I call
apple pie benefits to the applicant, with his expanding family and a desire to accommodate everyone
including mom. So I guess, you know, with the irrevocable contingency, I could go along with the
application, as it is, in this particular case, only because I believe that the addition, even though
Allan’s concerns about the footprint are very valid in my mind, I think that it’s still, in the cumulative
sense, a modest addition to the existing primary residence number one. So, on balance, I think it’s
slightly in favor of the applicant.
MR. URRICO-Jaime, I think I’m ready to concur with you.
MR. HAYES-All right. So, basically, we still need to hear from Chuck, then.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I guess one of my major concerns is consistency. We disapproved a similar
application, if I’m not mistaken. Did we not, Craig?
MR. BROWN-The applicant chose to withdraw the application by removing the kitchen facilities
and one of the buildings. So it’s no longer a consideration.
MR. ABBATE-Right. So it’s no longer applicable.
MR. BROWN-They don’t need a variance.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Perhaps that’s a moot point.
MR. BROWN-But their withdrawal was in response to your concerns over two principals on the
same lot.
MR. HAYES-What was the proposed size of the second residence there? Second primary structure.
Do we remember?
MR. BROWN-I don’t remember. Slightly larger than this one.
MR. ABBATE-And there was discussion about having a kitchen, etc., and they decided that they
would take the kitchen out, because if not we were prepared to disapprove the request. Yes, see, my
problem is, and we had a discussion a while ago, about consistency. The Board has to be consistent
in its decisions. We can’t say it’s okay for Mr. A to do it and not for Mr. B to do it. If it were not for
that, I’d approve it. I’m all for it. I wouldn’t have any problems with it.
MR. HAYES-That’s very true. I just want to make one comment, Mike, is that basically, certainly we
want to maintain precedent and consistency, but, you know, we’re charged with entertaining each
case on a case by case basis, because the fact pattern on these applications are not identical, even
though they’re similar, and I guess that’s, I’m not trying to sway you either way. I just think that the
precedent’s certainly important, but each variance has a test to apply, and you should apply it based
on the criteria of each case, but having said that, are you still undecided?
MR. ABBATE-No. I’m going to recuse myself on the vote. I’m not going to vote.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. O’Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve indicated that you would be in favor of the application if there were some
irrevocable restraint that there not be another principal dwelling constructed on these two lots, and
the applicant is willing to enter into that, as a stipulation. I’m not sure how we effect it, but we
would put a declaration on, if you want, and that would be my suggestion. We’d file it in the County
Clerk’s Office. As a condition for the approval of a variance that’s granted, the applicant would not
seek permission, or would not construct another principal residence on these two lots, and it would
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
be enforceable by the Town, or by adjoining property owners. My problem with, when I say I don’t
know how you’d do it, is I don’t know who would be enforcing it.
MR. HAYES-There’s no private agreement possible here, obviously.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, it’s not like a restrictive covenant that we’d put on that benefits another
piece of property, and the other property owner comes forth and says that they have the right to
enforce it. So we would make it a general declaration.
MR. E. TOBIN-You could combine the descriptions in one deed, if that will help.
MR. HAYES-Well, I’d like to cap off any further intensity. I mean, you’re asking for a little more,
and, to me, that’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-My point that I would really make is that, you know, in essence, the strong
objection is, apparently, that there are two principal residences on the property. Whether you
approve the variance or not, there are still going to be two principal residences on the property. The
suggestion of the new residence is not that much larger than the first, it’s just a more comfortable
house for a modern family to live in, whether it be somebody with three or four kids, or somebody
who’s trying to accommodate their kids who have grown and gotten married. The impact, and that’s
what I get into when I take a look at Section 267B, is what is the impact on the neighborhood.
You’re not creating an impact by saying we can build another 600 square foot footprint. I mean,
that’s not an impact that I’m aware of. It doesn’t effect anybody’s view shed. It doesn’t effect
anybody’s property in a negative manner. The two property owners that are most effected, or would
be most effected, have indicated to us, and we’ve stated on the record, that they have no objection to
what we propose. I haven’t looked at the other application that you spoke of to try and make it,
whether it’s apples to apples or apples to oranges, but I know that this application, as it stands on its
own merits, really has no impact on anybody. The question is, can they live in a more comfortable
home, and that’s really the issue.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to withdraw that. Counselor has just made a compelling
statement to me, and I should have caught it earlier. You’re absolutely right. No matter which way
you go, there would still be two primary residences there, regardless of what happens, and so, based
upon that, I’m going to vote in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? At this current time, we have four
yes votes and two no votes. Based on that, I guess I’ll request a motion at this time, and see where
this is going to go.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2000 BEVERLY C. TOBIN,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
196 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. Applicant is proposing to demolish a main residence on the
property and construct a new, 2955 square foot dwelling. The applicant’s requesting relief from
Section 179-12, for the construction of a second principal dwelling on the same lot. The benefit to
the applicant will be that the applicant’s permitted to construct an enlarged second single family
dwelling on the same property. Considering feasible alternatives, they could include the proposed
demolition and then expansion of the remaining camp, or removal of kitchen facilities from the guest
house or second house. However, the applicant’s pointed out that this is not really practical in their
family situation. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? If you look at it from a zero base, yes, it’s
substantial. They’re asking for a second principal dwelling where only one is allowed. On the other
hand, if you look at the existing situation, it’s not substantial because there’s already two principal
buildings on this property, and have been for years. Considering the effects on the neighborhood
and community, the basic effect is going to be a slightly larger main dwelling on this property. It’s
not adding an additional dwelling. So, in my view, the impact is probably going to be minimal. Is the
difficulty self-created? In a sense, yes, it is. It’s something that the property owner wants to do, but
it’s also part of existing conditions that have been there. I would move approval of this variance with
one specific condition, that in one way or another, either through adding a covenant to the deed that
applies to the lot that is on the far side of the road to the lake, or by combining the deeds of the lake
front lot with the other lot, the applicant make an irrevocable commitment that no additional
principal building will be built on these two lots. A second condition is that when the septic system
for the second or the guest house ceases to function properly, that the applicant agrees to tie that
system in to the existing system for the main house, and improve the existing system to the extent
necessary to make the capacity sufficient for the two houses combined.
Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, did you want to make any condition in reference to the County
recommendation about the septic, or you’re satisfied with the septic?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-How does everybody feel about that?
MR. ABBATE-That’s one of the areas I was going to question, but, I’ll leave it up to the Board.
MR. HAYES-How do you feel, Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. My feeling is the applicant’s indicated that they see a way of solving
the problem if the septic system on the existing second house should fail. I think it’s going to be
discovered if there is a problem with it.
MR. HAYES-Why don’t you make it a second contingency that, if and when the current system fails,
that it be tied in to the more progressive system, which is across, to the east.
MR. ABBATE-That keeps it nice and clean.
MR. HAYES-Do you want to frame that up?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, a second condition is that when the septic system for the second or the guest
house ceases to function properly, that the applicant agrees to tie that system in to the existing
system for the main house, and improve the existing system to the extent necessary to make the
capacity sufficient for the two houses combined.
MR. O'CONNOR-The application has no objection to that.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. E. TOBIN-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2000 TYPE II RANDY BARRETT OWNER: SAME ZONE:
CR-15 LOCATION: 10 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT
OF A MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. RESOLUTION: 198, 2000 TAX MAP NO. 130-1-12,
13 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-24
RANDY BARRETT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2000, Randy Barrett, Meeting Date: July 26, 2000
“Location of Project: 10 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
placement of a double wide mobile home as a replacement of an existing single wide home. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 9 feet of relief on both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback
requirement of the CR-15 zone, §179-24. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include a smaller home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
9 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial,
considering the relief is requested on both sides. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the
proposal is for an enlarged replacement, the home will be the only one on the site and will meet all
other requirements. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While difficulty may be interpreted as self
created, a portion of the difficulty could be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has applied to and
received approval from the Town Board for the replacement of a mobile home on this site. To date,
no public opposition has been noted. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Barrett, please state your name for the record, and is there anything
you’d like to add to your application?
MR. BARRETT-Randy James Barrett. I just want a bigger place, that’s all.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BARRETT-I don’t want to make it confusing.
MR. HAYES-Does the Board have any questions for, could you state your name for the record, too?
ELIZABETH WALRACK
MS. WALRACK-Elizabeth Walrack, I’m Randy’s fiancée.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Does the Board have any questions of the applicants?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. We met briefly the other day, and also met with one of your
neighbors who supports your application, and we discussed, you know, you’ve got that, there’s like a
camper trailer in front that’s got the awning over it, and almost looks as if it were occupied, and I
asked you about that, and would you tell us the status of that thing and what your plans are for it, in
relation to your new setting?
MR. BARRETT-Just recreational, and could be moved any time. I’d just like it where it is, or I could
take it up on the camp. It’s not permanent. I’ve got three vehicles there with three hitches on them.
MR. HIMES-Is anyone living in it?
MS. WALRACK-No.
MR. BARRETT-The kid might sleep there on the weekend or something.
MS. WALRACK-Between the two of us, we have seven grown children, and we have grandchildren,
and the trailer that we have is only a one bedroom. So when they come to visit for the weekend, it’s
kind of hard to cram, you know, a mom and dad and two kids into a.
MR. HAYES-You only stay seasonally, then, is what you’re saying?
MS. WALRACK-We just bought the camper two years ago, and it’s in need of repair.
MR. BARRETT-I’m waiting for a place up on Schroon Lake, but the guy hasn’t come out yet, and
then that’s going up there. It’ll be permanent up there.
MS. WALRACK-Yes. We have the awning out, and we sit out there in the evening, just to get out of
that little cracker box we live in.
MR. HIMES-You mentioned you were going to move it further out back?
MR. BARRETT-I can. I have no particular plans, no.
MR. HIMES-With the new, much bigger mobile home you’re going to have, as far as your kids
visiting and all that, there’ll be room for them inside.
MS. WALRACK-We won’t need it.
MR. HIMES-I’d kind of like to see that awning rolled up and that, you know, kind of a, so that it
wouldn’t look like it was really another residence. To a passerby, it looks like a, like we just went
through with the last application.
MR. BARRETT-I didn’t think about it, yes.
MS. WALRACK-I just didn’t want the awning to rot, and we just sit out there in evening and enjoy
the weather.
MR. HAYES-I guess Mr. Himes’ question has to do with the intensity of use, and you’re moving the
intensity of the use up.
MS. WALRACK-It takes 10 minutes to fold up the awning,. The tires are all on it. We just pick up
our jacks, hook it to the truck, and we can take it camping. That’s what it was bought for, was to go
camping.
MR. HIMES-Okay. The thing is, would you roll up the awning, and have it there, so that it didn’t
appear to be another?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MS. WALRACK-Sure, if that’s what you want.
MR. HIMES-Okay. I had another question. I can’t remember what it is right now. I’ll give up the
floor for the moment.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? I guess my only question would just
be expanding Mr. Himes’ perspective. For the variance that you’re asking for, part of the criteria is
the effect on the neighborhood, and will the increased size of this trailer, versus reducing the set offs.
Is that going to have a negative impact on your neighbors, and it would be easier for us, I think, to
feel that that wouldn’t be a negative impact on the neighborhood if there was less usage outside of
the trailer. Maybe the increase of the size of the trailer would allow you to not necessarily have the
camper and the awning and stuff. Do you understand where we’re coming from on that?
MR. BARRETT-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, are you sure about their answer, because I’m not.
MR. HIMES-Well, when I talked with him, he explained that they’re going to put it up on Schroon
Lake next year. They couldn’t get a lot this year. Next year that’s what they plan to do with it, and I
thought he had mentioned if the new dwelling was brought in, that that was going to be moved
further to the back of the lot, or maybe I misunderstood you.
MR. BARRETT-I’m just thinking, because it’s out in the woods. I don’t even use it.
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a contingency, but it’s mobile. It’s permissible to have a camper.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think it’s a reasonable condition.
MR. ABBATE-No, okay.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I don’t think so, either. A camper’s a camper.
MR. BROWN-If you have a tent on the property, it’s a portable, temporary, seasonal structure.
MR. HIMES-That was all I asked.
MR. HAYES-Well, you certainly have indicated an intention to move it up to Schroon Lake, and
that’s an answer. So, are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. At this time
I’d like to open the public hearing, and I’d like to ask anyone who is in favor of the application to
step forward and comment. Anyone opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILFRED KLINE
MR. KLINE-Well, I wouldn’t say I’m opposed. I only have a couple of small concerns in the size of
the lot versus the size of the trailer, as far as access to the back portion of his property. As far as
their being 11 feet from the side of the trailer, providing there’s 11 feet from the side of the trailer to
the property line. You add in a garden. It starts to cut down on the access to the back portion.
Their lot is 415 deep. He’s got 200 foot of lot behind the trailer. I have a lot right next door to him.
We have had, in the past, property line disputes. I have no problem with upgrading the trailer. I
think that’s a great idea, removing the old one, putting in a new one. I don’t have a problem with
that. The other concern I have was, and I don’t have a tax map. I only have a survey map.
Originally, the lot was actually two lots, a front lot and a back lot, and my concern there is, one, have
they been combined or could they be combined, so that that lot is no longer landlocked?
MR. HAYES-Can you clarify that for us, Staff?
MR. BROWN-I think if you check the file, there’s a consolidation. Didn’t you consolidate them at
the County?
MR. KLINE-Like I said, I don’t have a tax map. I just know. My name is Wilfred Kline. I live at 12
Newcomb Street. Like I said, I have no problem with the upgrade. My concern is more with his
access to the back portion of the lot, and the combination of the two lots as one, and if it’s been
consolidated, then that’s not a concern at all, as far as that’s concerned. Like I said, my main thing is,
because in the past there have been property line disputes, his mother lived there before. There’s
been slight conflicts in the past. I’ve owned the property about 20 years. So, on and off. At present,
everything is going fine, and God bless them if they want to upgrade. Again, my only concern is, as
far as any access towards there, the back portion of the lot.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. BRYANT-Your lot is to the left of Mr. Barrett’s?
MR. KLINE-My lot would be to the south side. It depends on where you’re looking at it. If you’re
looking at it from the road, it’s the left, yes.
MR. BRYANT-The left.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. BARRETT-I think the (lost words) that he’s talking about is the driveway, and quite a while ago
there were quite a few dwellings down through there. He did away with quite a few of them, and
there’s more trailers down through there, and there’s more on his side, and everybody thought it was
a road, but since he bought it, that is his driveway, and it’s his land, but everybody thought it was a
(lost words) which it was, because of all the buildings, but now it’s (lost words) and it is his lot.
That’s what he’s talking about.
MR. HAYES-Would anyone else like to speak opposed to the application?
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got correspondence. We have one letter from Connie L. Fish at 6
Newcomb Street, “It is my understanding that Mr. Barrett wishes to replace his current mobile home
with a new and larger home. As the property owner of numbers 5, 6, and 8 Newcomb Street, we
have no objection to Mr. Barrett’s plans. I have spoken with Mr. Barrett and have looked at his plot
plan and brochures of the home he wishes to bring into our neighborhood. It appears to me at this
time, the requests he is making are reasonable. There is no question that the current home is in
desperate need of replacement. Placement of this new home will not interfere with our life style or
the way in which we choose to use our property. I feel there is a good distance between our homes
(as our house is located to the North side of our property), with a vacant lot separating the dwellings.
I feel this change/upgrade Mr. Barrett will be making to our neighborhood, far out weighs the
current setback requirements. Thank you for allowing my family to express our opinion in this
matter. Very truly yours, Connie L. Fish 6 Newcomb Street, Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-On this one I’ll start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Barrett, I think this is a straightforward application. I don’t really see any
complications. One of your neighbors has indicated in writing that they think it’s a nice upgrade. A
gentleman here this evening felt that it would be upgrading the area as well. So, quite frankly, I’d be
in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. Anything you put in there at that time, he’s going to
operate it, and I think it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm, Sr.?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I feel it’s certainly a worthy application, and I approve it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say, ditto. I think it’s going to be an improvement to the
neighborhood. I think it’s a reasonable request, given the situation, and I’m inclined to approve.
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think that the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the pre-existing
configuration of this lot. Certainly, the trailer that you’re proposing seems to be a popular idea with
everyone and an improvement in the neighborhood, for sure. So, all that considered, I think it falls
in your favor. Having said that, I’d request a motion.
MR. BROWN-Did you go to Roy?
MR. HAYES-I’m sorry. Roy.
MR. URRICO-I agree with everybody on the Board.
MR. HAYES-I knew you were going to say that.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. ABBATE-Do you want to take the motion as well?
MR. URRICO-I’ll take the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2000 RANDY BARRETT, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
10 Newcomb Street. The applicant proposes placement of a double wide mobile homes as a
replacement of an existing single wide home. The relief required, the applicant requests nine feet of
relief on both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, 179-24.
The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the
preferred location. The feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include a smaller home. The
Board’s concluded that would not be a feasible alternative in this instance. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Nine feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted
as moderate to substantial, considering that relief is requested on both sides. Effects on the
neighborhood or community? Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of this action. While the proposal is for an enlarged replacement, the home would be the only one
on the site, and will meet all other requirements, and there have been no objections from the
neighbors, and in fact, one neighbor spoke in favor of the application. So I think that speaks to that.
Is this difficulty self-created? While the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, a portion of the
difficulty could be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration. I propose that we accept this
variance as stated.
Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally
MR. HAYES-There you go. Good luck.
MS. WALRACK-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2000 TYPE II BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
OWNER: SAME AGENT: NORTHERN DESIGN & BUILDING ASSOC. ZONE: RR-
3A LOCATION: 1167 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH
EXISTING BUILDING OF 816 SQ. FT. AND REBUILD A NEW STRUCTURE OF 1,224
SQ. FT. AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP
NO. 48-1-22 LOT SIZE: 1.67 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-79
GARY LININDOLL & SKIP LA ROSE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2000, Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Meeting Date: July
26, 2000 “Project Location: 1167 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes demolition of an 816 sf section of the existing parish hall and reconstruction of a 1224 sf
addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side
setback requirement of the RR-3A zone, §179-15. Also, since the existing building does not meet the
setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-
79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law. 1.
Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge the structure as desired. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the same amount of
floor area, in order to meet the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
ordinance?: 16.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial. 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, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to
the configuration of the existing building. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): BP 97-084 commercial interior alterations Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed 408 sf addition will decrease the
sideline setback, there has been no public opposition to the construction, to date. However, it
appears that a reasonable use of the property will be possible without the addition. SEQR Status:
Type II”
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 12, 2000
Project Name: Bay Road Presbyterian Church Owner: Bay Road Presbyterian Church ID Number:
QBY-AV-61-2000 County Project#: Jul00-21 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing building of 816 sq. ft. and build a
new structure of 1,224 sq. ft. Site Location: 1167 Bay Road Staff Notes: The proposed new
addition to the church structure is minor and would not change the capacity of the main structure.
With this addition constructed, the church would return to one service instead of two (though the
number of cars and seats in the church remains the same), and gain two meeting rooms where now
they have one. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to the County resources. Local
actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for July 2000. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terri Ross, 7/13/00.
MR. HAYES-Gentlemen, if you could state your name for the record, please.
MR. LININDOLL-Yes. Gary Linindoll.
MR. LA ROSE-Skip LaRose.
JOHN MEINRENKEN
MR. MEINRENKEN-John Meinrenken.
MR. HAYES-I guess the first question is, what happened to the other project?
MR. LA ROSE-The other project right now is on hold. Due to the lack of funds, it just became cost,
and we still have the problem with the, actually, the reason for this is the roof had let go because of
ice load and carpenter ants. So we had to do something with it. So this is what we’re hoping to do,
so we can bring our congregation back together, worship as one, instead of two services.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. LININDOLL-No, just in general. When the existing building was, it was five years ago, I
believe, when the roof was in need of repair and in bad shape. They reinforced it, shut down that
wing of the church, and at that time, I believe, Skip, they had one service. Since that time they have
gone to two services, which has caused some hardship with trying to maintain people, for both
ushers and everybody. The organ players have to stay now the whole morning. So we decided that
either we’d have to replace the other roof, or the alternate would be to replace the roof and then add
on this 12 feet, which would give the church a prayer room and meeting room, keeping the seating
capacity the same, but the main reason for this addition, also, if you look at the plan, opens it up, so
from the chanter or the alter, whatever people call it, the minister or the pastor now can actually talk
and preach to the whole congregation, and just about everybody can see them from the different
angles. So, really, that extra 12 feet, by opening up the wall of the present building, is actually going
to make this now a real workable, you know, room, and a workable church, and for the one
congregation to meet once every Sunday, and feel the unity that is needed within the church. Also, it
solves some roof problems from the other existing church, where the existing building is down about
three feet from the eaves. We’ve had water and ice back up, major problems with that part of the
roof, and by coming forward and tying the roof altogether, as the picture shows, we’re going to
alleviate all the roof problems we’ve had, and basically, you know, we’re encroaching three inches
closer to the property line from the existing building. Other than that, I think we’re going to be
adding a nicer looking building from the road, and it’s going to tie in and make the whole church and
the facility look a lot better. I don’t have anything else, Skip, at this point. I do have some pictures
showing the old addition, if anybody would like to see them.
MR. HAYES-Please.
MR. LININDOLL-It would show the condition of the (lost words). That just shows how much
lower it was from the eaves, and this back one shows the cob job where the roof.
MR. HAYES-While they’re passing those pictures around, does anyone have any additional questions
for the applicant at this time?
MR. URRICO-You went to the two services when there was damage to the roof. Is that what
happened?
MR. LA ROSE-We had to go to two go to two services in order to accommodate the congregation.
Because it happened actually three years ago, this past February.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. LA ROSE-And we went to two services after we stayed at one for the Fellowship Hall for the
summer, and then we had to do that.
MR. URRICO-So you have two services in the same location?
MR. LA ROSE-Right now, for the summer, we just went to one service, just to try it out, and it feels
good.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other further questions for the applicant? At this time, I’d like to open
the public hearing. I’d ask that anyone that wished to speak in favor of the application step forward.
If anyone that wishes to speak opposed would step forward. Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-At this time, I’d like to poll the Board members, and I’ll start with Allan on this one.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m really confused. I went to your church this afternoon, and the pictures
don’t look like the church. Maybe I was at the wrong church. It had the nice little stone wall on the
side.
MR. LA ROSE-It’s right, coming from 149, on Bay, it would be the first, right after Weller’s. It sits
up on the hill.
MR. BRYANT-And you drive in on the right side of the building The addition is actually going on
the left side on the building. Yes, those pictures don’t look like the building.
MR. LA ROSE-That’s the building.
MR. BRYANT-Wow.
MR. LININDOLL-That’s how bad it looks. No, actually, when you’re driving in, you’re looking up
at that addition over there, and those pictures were taken almost on ground level. So it would give
you a total different perspective, because you’ve got those two pine trees in the front, or cedar trees,
and they kind of block part of the addition. So, you know, when you drive in, you get a completely
different look, probably.
MR. BRYANT-I know. I walked around and I was looking at the wall and looking at the addition
where it’s going to go, but that doesn’t even look like it.
MR. LA ROSE-Actually, the wall is just to the left of it.
MR. BRYANT-In any event, you made the statement that you’re adding, you’re only adding six
inches, encroaching an additional six inches on the property line. There really are no neighbors. I
don’t see any problem with it. It looks okay by me.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Himes.
MR. LA ROSE-Allan, I’ll try and take better pictures next time.
MR. BRYANT-I’ll tell you, I was confused. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel the same way. It sounds like something that’s needed. I live not too
far from it. So I think it’s needed, and I’m in favor of it. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I feel the same way. I can see the need for it. The additional encroachment
on the side line is next to nothing, and I think, on balance, the benefit to the applicant certainly
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
outweighs any slight detrimental effect of taking another three inches on the side line setback. So
I’m in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I agree. I think the applicant, in this case, represents a congregation, and any time
you can bring a congregation together, closer, I think that has to be a very positive effect. I’m very
much in favor of this.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I agree. I’ll echo what my colleagues said, and it’s certainly a worthwhile cause, and
816 square foot, to 1224 square foot, no water, shorelines, etc., etc., and I have no turmoil on this
one. This one I’m not going to have a problem with. I would certainly be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I agree with the rest of my Board members. Certainly, the desire to
worship in a unified way or the way that you desire to is an important benefit to the applicant. So,
outside of some other part of our test being overriding to that benefit, which I don’t think, I think
it’s been pointed out that there is no real negative impact here, whatsoever on the neighborhood, I
think the test falls in favor of the applicant substantially, and I have no problem with it as well.
Considering that fact, is there a motion out there?
MR. ABBATE-I’ll take the motion.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2000 BAY ROAD PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
1167 Bay Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an 816 square foot section of the existing
parish hall and reconstruction of a 1,224 square foot addition. The applicant requires 16.75 feet of
relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirements of the RR-3A zone, Section 179-15.
Also, since the existing building does not meet the setback requirements, relief from the expansion of
a nonconforming structure is requested per Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, applicant
would be permitted to enlarge a structure as desired and provide for the needs of the Church and its
members. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the same amount
of floor area in order to meet the setback requirements. However, these plans submitted by the Bay
Road Presbyterian Church I feel are appropriate. Is this relief substantial relief relative to the
Ordinance? 16.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed
to the configuration of the existing building.
Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally
MR. HAYES-Good luck, fellows.
MR. LININDOLL-Gentlemen, thank you, and I must say, I was Chairman of the Zoning Board for
Kingsbury for 11 years, and every time I go to a meeting and I sit on the other side of the table, I get
to feel what the applicants feel like before a meeting. So, once again, thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Craig, how do we proceed when it doesn’t appear that Mrs. Jones is here? Do
we read the application?
MR. BROWN-She’s not. I actually just spoke to somebody at her number on the phone. She was
here at the beginning of the meeting, I saw her. She had to leave. She was ill. I told her you may
proceed without her. There’s been a public hearing advertised, so I think you should go through the
process and open the public hearing, albeit that there’s no one here, but you can proceed in absentia
if you want to. I informed them that you may table it, if you have some questions for her and she’s
not here to answer. They were okay with that, but I think you could proceed if you wish to.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Let’s fire away.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2000 BARBARA JONES OWNER: ELLA M. DANAHY
ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: INDIANA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 16’ X 76’ MOBILE HOME ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND SEEKS
SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 127-8-20 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-18
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2000, Barbara Jones, Meeting Date: July 26, 2000 “Project
Location: Indiana Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 16
ft x 76 ft mobile home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3 feet of relief on both sides from
the 10 foot minimum side setback requirements of the MR-5 zone, §179-18. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place the desired home in the preferred location. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller home. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the ordinance?: 3 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be
interpreted as minimal, however the request for relief on both sides 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, as it is possible to place a home on the property in a
compliant location. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable
Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed action appears to be a use, which would be in character with the neighborhood. However,
since there appears to be adequate area for a reasonable sized home, it does not appear that a smaller
home would deny the applicant a realistic use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Let me state for the record that Mrs. Jones is not present at this time, and I guess Staff
has indicated that she was ill. I’m going to proceed with the application through the polling process,
and if we have direction or agreement then we’ll continue with the application in its entirety. If we
don’t, we’ll table it, and we’ll resolve those questions.
MR. HIMES-I have two or three questions that could mainly be for Craig, probably. I may be way
off base. Based on the application, the drawing of the lot that came in, it indicates a 90 by 88 lot,
which would come to about 7,920 square feet, and I think 179-18 requires 10,000 square feet. That’s
one. Now I’ve got two other things. I don’t think that, beyond that, even though it’s high density,
mobile home is not one of the allowed uses. So should this be a Use Variance as well as an Area, or
does it need to have Town Board approval to put, you know, a revocable permit, like we had on one
of the other ones tonight. It says site plan review is needed in there for everything.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but that whole area, I think, is in that Mobile Home.
MR. HAYES-Overlay Zone.
MR. BRYANT-That’s part of that. So it doesn’t really require. What do they call it?
MR. HAYES-Overlay Zone.
MR. BRYANT-Overlay Zone.
MR. HIMES-Okay, so the 10,000 square feet.
MR. HAYES-It’s a pre-existing lot.
MR. BROWN-And the lot is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Right.
MR. HIMES-But that’s not one of the things we have to.
MR. BROWN-No, you don’t consider that.
MR. HAYES-But it’s pre-existing, nonconforming. That’s what it is.
MR. BROWN-And I guess just a clarification of the drawing. This was a sketch that I prepared with
the applicant at the counter, the day before she wanted to submit the application. Direction was
given to take it back and make it the way she wants it. The sketch that I prepared was submitted. So
there’s a question, if you look at the front of the building, if you will, there’s three different 30 foot
dimensions, front setback dimensions. I don’t know what she’s considering, a large deck on the
front, a small entry deck, or just a 30 foot setback to the home. I don’t know. So if you found the
drawing confusing, the reason is it was a sketch that she was given direction to clean up and make
accurate the way she wants it.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, if I could comment, you know, the Zoning Board of Appeals has very
specific duties and responsibilities, and I suspect each of us takes them quite seriously. Conversely,
the applicant has a responsibility, and that responsibility is to appear before this Board. Now, the
applicant indicated to Craig that she was ill. She could have requested that this motion be tabled.
She did not. So in view of the fact that this Board is being deprived of asking specific questions of
the applicant, I’m going to make a motion that we deny the application.
MR. HAYES-Well, first let me go through the public hearing aspect of the hearing, then I’ll
comment on that. At this time, if the applicant has nothing to add to their application by definition,
I’m going to open the public hearing. If anyone that wishes to speak in favor of the application
would step forward. Would anyone wishing to speak opposed to the application step forward. Is
there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence, from Kelly A. Smith, 258 Corinth
Road, “This letter is in response to the letter sent from the Town of Queensbury about a Public
Hearing Notice. The property involved is Tax Map location 127-8-20. The applicant, Barbara Jones,
would like to put a mobile home on a lot size of .18 acres. I would like to express my opinion. This
lot size is too small for the proposed mobile home. This will not provide a good quality of life
atmosphere for anyone. Both the applicant and the neighbors will be affected. While there are many
mobile homes in that area, adding more mobile homes on a cramped lot space will ultimately
diminish the value of the surrounding properties. Please consider my comments as you look at the
overall picture and goal for growth in Queensbury. Sincerely, Kelly A. Smith”
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff. This is a 16 foot wide trailer, based on her, what is a typical
size of a trailer? I mean, day in and day out. I’m talking about feasible alternatives now.
MR. BROWN-Twelve, fourteen feet.
MR. HAYES-So sixteen would be a little bit wider?
MR. BROWN-Sixteen’s a little wider than average. I mean, it seems every year they get bigger. I
mean, that’s the trend, everybody wants, bigger is better. Seventy-six feet long is a little longer than
average, I would think, 60, 65 feet is a, 14 by 60, you know, 14 by 70. Those are common sizes. This
is a, I don’t want to call it large, but it’s a larger than average, if you would.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And that’s based on no comparison. It just seems larger than ones that I’ve seen.
MR. HAYES-All right. Well, what I’m going to do now is I’m going to proceed to the polling of
members of the Board, and if the majority of you feel that you have important questions that have to
be answered, and you can’t proceed with the application, then we’ll move to discussing it at that
point. If you feel that it’s straightforward enough for you to move ahead, then I don’t want to table
it just to add to our agenda next month either. I mean, I guess we’re trying to avoid that a little more
than we used to in the past. So, having said that. I’ll start with Mr. Himes.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Before making a statement, I have something I wished I’d thought of in
the last application. The limited amount of space left on the lots. Do you think it would ever be
necessary for any emergency vehicle to have to get around behind this thing, with only, what is is,
seven feet?
MR. HAYES-One thing I’d caution you there is with pre-existing lots, you know.
MR. HIMES-Yes, but, no, I just thought as a precautionary, it’s, nothing will ever be able to get
behind it, even the septic tank thing, as designed here, unless, it’s put in front, I’m wondering if there
might be some placement or design things that a person might want to think of, in connection with,
what was the thing that you asked me to comment on?
MR. HAYES-I guess, do you feel that you’d like to proceed with a decision on this application as it
sits, or do you have material questions to ask the applicant that you would have to have answered
before you would feel comfortable proceeding?
MR. HIMES-Well, I think that the items that I just mentioned, can a septic, question for Craig, be
put in front of the house? I’m just wondering for her own welfare whether it might be good for her
to have this in mind.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MR. MC NULTY-On the other hand, most of the trucks can pump from that distance, if they back
up to the front of the trailer, and put a hose around.
MR. HIMES-I think we could go ahead with it. I mean, I feel okay. Other than that, I don’t have
any other questions that I can think of. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I look at it today. I think Norm makes a valid point. There are fences up. It’s an
empty lot. My question to the applicant would be, did you buy that lot with the idea that you were
going to put the trailer there? Do you own the lot? I mean, what is the status? There’s a For Sale
sign on it now. So, what is the status of that? Did you buy it with a contingency? I kind of agree
with Chuck. I wouldn’t go so far as to say deny the application, but I think that we should really
table it and let the prisoner face their accusers, and come before us and make their case, whatever,
even though I would have a tendency to be in favor of the whole thing anyway, from the looks of the
neighborhood. I think we should probably table it.
MR. HAYES-I certainly respect that. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m not going to vary. I think we should deny it. The applicant isn’t here and
apparently didn’t feel it was important to be here. As I said, she had an option. She could have said
to Craig, would you ask the committee to table it, and I would have said, sure, I don’t have any
problems with that, but she didn’t.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I didn’t speak to her directly, in her defense.
MR. ABBATE-You didn’t?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I spoke to someone who had taken her home and she’s unable to come to the
phone. I started to leave a message, and somebody picked up the phone and said, wait, you know,
she’s not going to be there. She’s sick. We had to take her home.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Then I’ll humanize a little bit and say I believe this should be tabled.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m kind of the rookie here. Well, I am the rookie here. The property owner is
somebody different than the applicant?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Is that normal procedure?
MR. BROWN-It’s common. Yes. The property owner has given the applicant the permission to get
the variance for the property.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I would give her the benefit of the doubt, and the doubt, in this case, would
mean to table it, and give us a chance to talk to her specifically.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can go with tabling it. I also could go with approving it with conditions, but it
would be nice to get clarification on this 30 foot front setback for instance. So if I were to proceed,
I’d want to put that in as a stipulation, but otherwise, tabling it, I would think, would be reasonable,
until she has a chance to be here.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think we’ve got a basic agreement, then, at this particular time, that we still have
some material questions that we’d like to ask Mrs. Jones, and I also think that certainly she’s entitled
to consideration on this matter, at least this time, if she’s ill. So I think, at this time, I would
personally be in favor of tabling it until the next month. I think we need to make resolution. So I
would look for a tabling motion.
MR. BROWN-I think you left the public hearing open? Is that correct? I would suggest you keep it
open.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I’ll keep the public hearing open, and I would look for a tabling motion for 32
days, or 31 days.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/26/00)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2000 BARBARA JONES, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Indiana Avenue. That this be tabled in view of the fact that we have questions to ask the applicant.
That we table it for approximately 32 days or to a meeting during the month of August.
Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally
MR. HAYES-Do we have any minutes, Craig, that we want to cap off here?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know where you left off. You’ve got new ones tonight, but I don’t think
anybody’s reviewed them.
MR. ABBATE-When is our meeting, by the way, before we close?
MR. BROWN-August meeting?
MR. HAYES-It’s going to be the third Wednesday, for sure, and maybe the fourth Wednesday.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. As long as it’s not sooner. Okay. Great.
MR. HAYES-I’d like to close the July 26 ZBA Meeting.
th
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul J. Hayes, Acting Chairman
34