2001-04-18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 18, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY
ROBERT MC NALLY
NORMAN HIMES
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
PAUL HAYES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2001 TYPE II MARY BROWN AGENT: ROBERT E.
RUGGLES OWNER OF PROPERTY: LINDA P. RUSSELL LOCATION: 10
GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 32 SQ. FT.
BATHROOM ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
ZONE: SFR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 106-2-13.3 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-26 LOT
SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-20
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2001, Mary Brown, Meeting Date: April 18, 2001 “Project
Location: 10 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction
of a 32 sf bathroom addition and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-
1A zone, § 179-20. Note: previous variance file depicts an existing 11 foot setback, therefore relief
required for this addition would be 13.33 feet. Map enclosed. 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 bathroom addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include reconfiguration of the interior to accommodate the proposed facilities. 3.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot
requirement may be interpreted as moderate to significant. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5.
Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-381 170 sf residential addition C/O issued
9/23/96 BP 98-135 180 sf deck permit issued 4/20/98 AV 41-96 res. 6/26/96 5.5 feet of setback
relief….west side Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action.
Public comment, in favor of the application, has been received from the most affected neighbor.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Any County?
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Okay. I assume you’re Mr. Ruggles?
MR. RUGGLES-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to the application?
MR. RUGGLES-Well, first of all, I do have another letter of support that they had absolutely no
problem with having this little bathroom being created, from across the street. First of all, we
decided, Mrs. Brown, first of all, is 90 years old, going on 91 almost. She does have a hard time
getting around. She has to be helped in and out of a tub, which is a little bit embarrassing, and she
could do it herself if she had a shower. She does have a shower in her existing tub, but she can’t use
it, especially can’t use it to take a bath because she can’t get back up again. We built this house for
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
her 21, 22 years ago, and at that time, we only needed 10 feet on each side. We happened to have 14
feet at the time. So I decided we could maybe get by with three foot eight to four feet. We still
would have had the 10 feet left. However, I did find out, or was told, that in, well about eight years
later, that they changed the regulations on Garrison Road, which I knew nothing about. So, Mrs.
Brown didn’t know what to do, and I said, well, you need this bad and I think we ought to go for a
variance. We designed the bathroom for a three foot eight, about the minimum we could use there,
to get a shower in there, including the thickness of the walls and insulation and so forth. There’s no
other way we can do this. So, we can’t actually put it in another part of the house, without a big
problem. So if we don’t get the variance for this, we will naturally forget it. Mary Brown has to have
a walker, now, and things aren’t going to get better. They’re just going to get worse. I can’t see,
personally, why this is going to have any effect on anybody in the neighborhood. It’s going out from
one end of the house, three foot eight inches, and that’s all, and it’s wooded there. There was a tree
that we had taken down, hopefully to be able to get this to go through, but it’s still wooded there. It
will be seen from the street, but not noticeable, really. You’ve got to be looking for it. I don’t know
what else to tell you except that we are in dire, she is in dire need of this particular unit, and it’s up to
you people.
MR. STONE-Okay. I have at least one question. There was a residential addition in 1996, for which
there was a building permit. Do you know what that was?
MR. RUGGLES-It was a bedroom.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RUGGLES-There was a bedroom added in the back for a lady that stayed with her overnight.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions?
MR. HIMES-One question, in connection with the alternatives. The existing bathroom with the tub
and all, why couldn’t, say, the existing tub, which is the problem, be removed?
MR. RUGGLES-Well, we talked about that, but it seems a shame to take a tub out, and actually the
tub isn’t as deep as the shower. So it’s going to cut off a little bit of the use of the bathroom itself,
the free space.
MR. HIMES-But it could be done?
MR. RUGGLES-But if we’re taking the tub right out of the house, someone’s going to want to buy
the house, she’s 90 years old. Actually, she does not own the house right now. The house has been
deeded over to her daughter who lives in Virginia, but the daughter, naturally, doesn’t want the tub to
come out. It’s pretty hard to buy a house today without a tub in it. It’s got to have a tub, but no
other place to do for it. So, if this, as I said, this is the logical place. It takes up no more room in the
house, no room in the house. There’s no room for the shower in the house. So we’ve got to do it
this way. That’s all there is to it, and I hate to see anybody take a tub out and try to buy a house with
just a shower.
MR. STONE-At the risk of sounding like a grinch or a grouch, you do say Mrs. Brown is 90 years
old.
MR. RUGGLES-She is 90, yes.
MR. STONE-We are all temporal, and I’m not suggesting that she’s going anywhere soon. I don’t
want her to, obviously, but a variance lasts forever, and that’s one of the considerations that is always
before us. If we grant a variance, that means forever. That particular house will be closer to the line
than our zoning calls for. It has to be on the table and I put it there and now we won’t talk about it
anymore. Any other questions? Okay. Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak
in favor? You might read that statement in that you have there as part of the public hearing, right
now, because I believe that’s in favor, you told me.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. RUGGLES-Well, this was on your.
MR. STONE-Right, but it’s a statement. Just read it in.
MR. RUGGLES-It was just written on that, and it was given to Mrs. Brown. It’s dated 4/12/01.
“We have no objects”, that’s all it says, Ethel and Ray Wynn,, 1 Garrison Road.
MR. STONE-Okay. So they’re across the street, right on the corner?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. RUGGLES-They’re right, pretty much across the street, yes. They’re next to the new house
that was just built on the corner.
MR. STONE-They’re right next to the new house. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of
this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have three pieces of correspondence.
MR. STONE-Good.
MR. MC NULTY-One is from Mrs. John P. Russell, “To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of
10 Garrison Road in the Town of Queensbury. I support Mary Brown’s request for a variance. She
is my mother. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (Mrs. John) Linda Russell”
MR. STONE-It should be noted, for the record, that she is the one seeking a variance, technically.
MR. RUGGLES-Technically, I suppose.
MR. STONE-Mrs. Brown, I don’t know what the legal ramifications. Does she have life tenancy?
MR. RUGGLES-Well, the house was given to her by Mary Brown. She’s an only child.
MR. STONE-Okay. I understand. So, I mean, she’s actually the applicant. The owner of the
property.
MR. BROWN-Is the owner of the property. Mrs. Brown can be the applicant, sure.
MR. STONE-She can be the applicant?
MR. BROWN-Sure. Just not the owner.
MR. STONE-Yes, but we’re granting it to the property, though.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Second is a letter from Joyce S. Thompson, “To Whom It May Concern: Our
neighbor Mary Brown at 10 Garrison Road is 90 years old. She cannot get in or out of her standard
bath tub. She is anxious to build a shower stall with an enclosed seat. We are close friends as well as
neighbors and the 3 foot 8 inch by 8 foot 4 inch space required for this addition is in no way going
to”, I think they mean ‘affect’ our property, it says, ‘no way going to our property’, “our property.
We are 100% in favor of this proposal and sincerely hope the variance will be granted. Thank you
for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, Joyce S. Thompson” And then we have a
note written on the public hearing notice, from James A. McMaster. It says “We have no objection
to the proposed addition James A. McMaster 20 Garrison Road”
MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else wishing to speak on this application? If not, I’ll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-And a thought just dawned on me. I want to apologize to you and to the rest of the
people here tonight that we don’t have a full Board. Even though we have two alternates, we have
vacations. We have sicknesses, and unfortunately we have five instead of seven tonight. So, we
apologize for it, but you got a good five people. Any other questions of Mr. Ruggles? Okay. Let’s
talk about it. Jim, how about you start.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we have to consider the circumstances in every variance that we
think about granting, and in this case, I think that what they’re asking for is pretty minimal. I mean,
it’s the equivalent of a couple of side by side refrigerators, stacked two together there, and this isn’t a
grand request. It’s going to intrude a little bit into the side margins of the house there, where the
setbacks should be great, but 10 feet is still going to be available as a setback, and I think it’s
reasonable.
MR. STONE-Norm?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. HIMES-Thank you, yes. I can appreciate and understand the need. However, I still feel that
there may be options. The aspect of whether the tub was taken out and replaced with a shower, and
if that wasn’t sufficient for a future owner, they can reverse the situation. So I’m kind of on the
fence right at this moment. Certainly can appreciate the need, but I am not convinced that there isn’t
another alternative to taking care of the problem within the existing square footage of the house.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This is a very modest application. Mrs. Brown certainly should have a bathroom
that she can use in her home, that’s adjacent to the existing bathroom. So in that sense, it makes
sense that you would build an addition where plumbing and the other fixtures and the other facilities
are located. I don’t think there really are any other feasible alternatives. It sounds silly to build a
separate bathroom, just so you can have a standup shower somewhere else in the house. The relief is
not substantial. We’re talking about a three foot eight inch bump out. If you put a big shrub in front
of it, no one would notice it. You take into account the existing side yard and the neighbor’s side
yard, there’s plenty of space between homes, and I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or
community. The nearest neighbor certainly finds it favorable, and I’m sure that Mr. Ruggles would
build an addition that’s commensurate with the rest of the house, and look just as much, as nice as
the rest of the house. So I’m I favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with Bob. Certainly there is an alternative. You could take
the bath tub out, put a shower in, and change it back when the time comes to sell the house, because
as Mr. Ruggles indicates, it would be kind of tough to sell a house with just a three quarter bath, but,
this is a balancing thing here with an Area Variance, and I think also as Mr. Ruggles has pointed out,
I think the addition’s going to be minimal. It’s going to be shielded by a lot of the vegetation that’s
already there on the property. There’s a good distance between that and the adjoining house, and it’s
the garage that’s on the end of the adjoining house. So there’s good insulation that way, and I think
certainly the benefit to the applicant is very clear, and I think the balance falls to the applicant. So,
I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Well, I basically share the statements of the majority of the Board. I also am
sympathetic to what Mr. Himes said. We are making a permanent change for the benefit, realistically,
for the short term benefit of the current occupant. Having said that, I certainly have no problem in
granting the variance, with the thought that, would you be willing to condition this variance on
putting in proper shrub, proper landscaping, as I think Mr. McNally said, or somebody said, would
you be willing to make sure there is a reasonable planting in front of that, on the street side?
MR. RUGGLES-Absolutely, no problem. In fact, I think she kind of discussed that, too, with me,
Mrs. Brown.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim, do you want to do a motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. STONE-With that condition.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2001 MARY BROWN, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
10 Garrison Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 32 square foot bathroom addition and
seeks relief from the setback requirements, specifically asking for 12.66 feet of relief. The benefit to
the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct the bathroom, for which the
apparent need is evident. Feasible alternatives would be to take out the tub that’s there, but that
doesn’t seem very reasonable at this time. So I think that we’ll go ahead and grant the 10 feet of
relief. The effects on the neighborhood would be minimal as the result of this, especially with the
apparent screening that’s going to be put in place out toward the roadside. So I would vote that we
grant this appeal.
Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Craig, this is one that we need an as-built survey.
MR. BROWN-But, I’m not sure about that. You could certainly request that if you want to. In the
notes, there’s a survey that came from a 1996 variance file that appears to have accurate setback
information on it. I think that’s good to start from.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the addition’s not on here.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. BROWN-The addition’s not on here, but we know, or we can reasonably assume that.
MR. STONE-If you think it spells out exactly where it’s going to be.
MR. BROWN-I’m convinced that the drawing that’s supplied with the Staff notes is from Van
Dusen and Steves, shows an accurate side line setback, we can do the subtraction and come up with
the right number.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-The accurate number, and I don’t know how I did my math before.
MR. STONE-I don’t know how you did it, either.
MR. BROWN-But the setback relief should be 12.66 feet, not 10 feet. That’s the only difference I
would have. The map that we have on file we can include as part of this variance. It should be fine.
MR. STONE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got your variance.
MR. STONE-You’ve got your variance.
MR. RUGGLES-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 TYPE II GARY AND MELINDA LEWIS AGENT: N/A
OWNER OF PROPERTY: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 237 FIFTH STREET
EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 480 SQ. FT.
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 12-2000 (WITHDRAWN BY
APPLICANT) ZONE: SR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 131-7-11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.15-
1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-19
GARY LEWIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2001, Gary and Melinda Lewis, Meeting Date: April 18,
2001 “Project Location: 237 Fifth Street Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 480 sf residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirements.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement and 0.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot total side setback requirement of the SR-1A zone,
§ 179-19. Additionally, since the structure does not currently comply with the 30 foot minimum
front setback, relief is requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 construct the desired addition. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include an addition, offset from the main home, to a more
compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief from
the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, while the 0.5 feet of relief
from the 30 foot side setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV12-2000
two story residential addition-setback relief-withdrawn 2/23/00 BP 96-327 200 sf deck c/c issued
9/4/96 BP 92-511 septic alteration c/c issued 8/21/92 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may
be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition is to be located approximately 14 feet
from the edge of the right of way for Fifth Street. The proposed plot plan depicts setbacks from the
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
center of the road. The location of the driving surface within the right of way is uncertain. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Before we go to you, Craig, do we know where the right of way is?
MR. BROWN-Do I know? No, I don’t know. There’s a way to determine that, sure.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, you say it’s uncertain. So it’s still uncertain, as far as his measurement,
visa vie the right of way.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-But measurements were taken from the center of the road, the paved surface?
MR. BROWN-Apparently.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that so, sir?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, it is.
MR. MC NALLY-So when it says, like dimension E is 42 feet 6 inches, that’s from the center of the
road?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a survey of your property?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. You should have the survey. I made several copies.
MR. STONE-You mean this?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a drawing
MR. STONE-That’s a drawing.
MR. LEWIS-That’s just a drawing.
MR. STONE-A survey is signed by a surveyor.
MR. LEWIS-Well, I thought my wife had dropped off the actual survey drawings. I did make copies
of them.
MR. STONE-We don’t have them, Craig, right?
MR. BROWN-I’ve not seen them.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, go ahead, speak about anything that you want to add to your application,
knowing, right now, that we have to know where the right of way is before we can grant specific,
numerical relief.
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. STONE-And without it, I mean, we can discuss it.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s difficult to know what you’re asking for, even. Because we don’t know exactly
how far this proposed addition is from your line, and that’s what’s the important issue, not from
where it is in the road. Sometimes the road is wide. Sometimes the right of way is even wider than
the paved road, but the setback is from your front line. So we need to know where that is before we
can really intelligently discuss it.
MR. LEWIS-So that’s the key dimension you need?
MR. MC NALLY-Pretty key.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s pretty key, because that’s the big relief that you’re seeking. The half foot, I
can’t speak for the Board, is a minimal thing, I think, as Mr. Brown has stated in his Staff notes. The
16 feet from the 30 feet, it could be much more than that, in terms of the right of way. The right of
way could be on your property, as you perceive your property. It’s possible. So we need to know
that, and without that information, we’re, we don’t know what we’re discussing, frankly.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. LEWIS-Dead in the water.
MR. STONE-Dead in the water.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think that, if you’re looking for a way to progress, you could certainly grant the
relief that’s requested here. It would be the onus of the applicant to make sure that that’s what he
does, and when he does the actual construction he meets those setbacks.
MR. STONE-But the house may be in violation now. The deck, particularly, may be in violation.
MR. BROWN-The deck appears to be. I don’t know if that’s an issue with this application.
MR. STONE-Well, as you know, Craig, when you apply for a variance, you open up the whole can of
worms.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I understand that part.
MR. MC NALLY-I just don’t know if I would feel comfortable granting relief.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I was just going to offer that.
MR. STONE-Yes, I’m not.
MR. MC NALLY-I can’t tell from these dimensions where the house is and what the real setback’s
going to be.
MR. STONE-What I would propose is that we table this until next month or the month after,
certainly next month. If you can come in with a survey so that we know exactly how much relief
you’re seeking.
MR. MC NALLY-And maybe do the same kind of thing you’ve done here, only with a surveyor’s
map. So we can see exactly.
MR. STONE-I mean, the fact that you’re drawing it is fine. We can work with that, but we need to
know where the line is that we’re starting from.
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-You may want to consider, and this is just up for grabs, if there is a survey map, just
to table it until next week. If there’s a survey map we could have in the meantime.
MR. STONE-Sure. If you’ve got an actual survey, a signed survey, that we can work with.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I do. When I bought the house, it came right with the house.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-And what I’m wondering right now, at this point, is what my wife did with copies.
MR. STONE-Yes, we could do it next week.
MR. BROWN-Yes. The survey map’s going to have the house on it?
MR. LEWIS-Yes. It has the whole, all the property plotted right out with the land. The only thing
that’s not on there is the deck.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Which is to the existing house right now.
MR. STONE-But that can be measured, too, approximately. We can table it until next Thursday.
MR. LEWIS-That sounds great.
MR. STONE-So let’s table it until.
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment before we proceed, maybe save a little time. I
would like to see, when you come back, an answer to the feasible alternatives, which was put on the
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
comments here, that, you’ve got the house straight across with the addition going on it. If this was
offset from the front of the house back a few feet, some, I don’t know how far to say because we
don’t know what the figures are we’re dealing with, but that would be a question that I will ask, and
maybe you want to give that some thought, and whether you need more than a few days.
MR. LEWIS-I can honestly answer that already.
MR. HIMES-Well, we’ll wait until the meeting. All right.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I’ll put that in the tabling motion, to your satisfaction, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Just before you act on the motion, you may want to at least open the public hearing.
MR. STONE-Is there anyone here to speak on this subject?
MR. BROWN-And then just leave it open.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll go back. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of
the application? Anybody opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No, there was no correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open until the meeting on Thursday the 26.
th
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 GARY & MELINDA LEWIS,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
237 Fifth Street Extension. In order that Mr. Lewis provide a survey of his property, so that
adequate knowledge of the relief desired is known to the Board, and that Mr. Lewis be prepared to
discuss possible alternatives concerning offset from the main house.
Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-See you next week.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2001 TYPE II LISA M. JACKOSKI AGENT: VAN DUSEN
AND STEVES LAND SURVEYORS, LLC OWNER OF PROPERTY: LISA M.
JACKOSKI LOCATION: BARBER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1880 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: RR-3A AND
WR-1A SPLIT ZONING CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR IN WR-1A ZONE OLD TAX
MAP NO. 45-3-32.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.31 LOT SIZE: 1.05 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-15
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2001, Lisa M. Jackoski, Meeting Date: April 18, 2001
“Project Location: Barber Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an 1880 sf single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback and height
requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.35 feet of relief, on both sides of the
proposed home, from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement, 8.38 feet of relief from the 50
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
foot minimum shoreline setback and 1 foot of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement
of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. 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
downsizing the home to meet the setback requirements, relocation of the proposed home to a
compliant location on the site (upper area). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 1.35 feet of relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement and 1 foot of relief from
the 28 foot height requirement may be interpreted as minimal, however the 8.38 feet of relief from
the 50 foot minimum front shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
significant. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self-created as there appears to be a compliant location available for
construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty associated
with this request is entirely self-created; the lot is vacant and there appears to be sufficient area for
compliant construction. A two foot narrower home removed 8.38 feet further from the lake does
not appear to be an unreasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Any County?
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor. I assume you’re speaking for Mrs. Jackoski?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I am. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little &
O’Connor, and I am representing the applicants on this application, and with me at the table is Lisa
and Steven. Lisa is the property owner, and they obviously are the people that are going to build the
home that they’ve requested permissions for. I’d begin by saying they have worked very hard to try
and make this project compliant. They began, some time ago. The first map that I have up here is a
map that you may or may not have in your file. The lake is out here. This is the lot that we’re talking
about. They were the people that put together the effort to purchase this back land, if you will, that
lies between Hall Road and the lake lots. They purchased the entire piece, and then they conveyed
off to the Ogdens, which are on the west side of them, two pieces behind their property, and the idea
was that everybody would gain some space that eventually, either for septic system replacement or
septic system construction, would be further away from the lake than the existing lot configuration
would allow. They did this, I’m told, I didn’t do this by boundary line agreements. They then
conveyed this piece off to the owners of I think this property here, the Johnsons, for the same
purpose. So that they also would have a better area to construct a septic system. Their whole
intention of buying this particular piece of property, and keeping this piece of property, was to
provide septic, and an area for septic that’s well removed from the lake so that there would be no
issues with anything, as far as pollution of the lake. If you take a look at that, and then you figure
that they own this piece here, with this piece remaining, that’s how you get to the configuration up
here. Now, they’re asking for three variances, and Staff, I believe, indicates that the side line setbacks
are not considered moderate, or less than moderate, and the height is moderate or less than
moderate. The sideline setback is probably the one I’d speak about first. If you notice, even the
footprint of the house, the only thing that they’ve made, the width that would require the setback
that they’re asking for, is the house portion itself. It’s a 42 foot portion of the structure. They
stepped back in the garage, trying to make that as compliant as you can. In our measurements on the
setback, and we go back and forth, and I’ve talked to Staff two or three times about this, our
measurements are from the eaves. They are not from, the request is from the eaves. It’s not from
the actual foundation, and we seem to vary whether we go from the eaves or we go from the
foundation. So we’ve asked for everything that we think that we need, so that we won’t come back
and tell you the eaves stick out beyond what your variance is or isn’t. If you take a look at the floor
plan, and again I don’t know if you have the floor plan.
MR. STONE-The floor plan we’ve got, I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-You have the floor plan?
MR. STONE-I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me share with you the floor plan, then.
MR. STONE-That’s the elevation. I’m sorry. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-The rooms in this house are modest homes. They’re not overly large. They’re
not, you know, some grandiose type presentation. I think the one bedroom is 12 foot wide, 12 by
10. Another bedroom is 14 by 11.7. If you take a look at the floor plan, if you cut two feet out of
that floor plan, which would probably be about what you need to make the house compliant, it
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
makes it an awful funny house, an awful awkward house to live in. We thought you had a letter. We
were told you had a letter, from the Ogdens, the people who live immediately to the west of it, that
they have no objection.
MR. STONE-We may.
MR. O'CONNOR-You do? When you said no comments.
MR. STONE-Yes, we do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The property to the east of it is actually owned by Mr. Jackoski, and he
obviously has no objection to his wife’s request here. There isn’t enough land to make some
adjustment there so that it could be more compliant. He has also talked to some of the other
owners, and he has not run into anybody, as far as having an objection. It’s something I think the
people expect that there’s going to be a house there, a reasonable size house. Really, it has very little
impact. This is a house that’s cut into the back, cut into the ground. It’s a fairly well treed lot in the
back. A good portion of this piece in the back here is treed. It’s not going to be something that’s
going to stick out. So, there really is minimal impact, and I think Staff noted that in their comments
on that. On the question of the height, we’re being conservative when we ask for a foot relief.
There are two portions of the house that are five inches or six inches in excess of 28 feet. At the
very front of the house, if you make a measurement from the slab up, and I don’t know, do you have
an elevation?
MR. STONE-We’ve got elevations.
MR. O'CONNOR-The actual measurement from that point, the ground up, is to the eaves, to the
top of the eaves, is 27 feet 8 inches, but when you move back, and the peak of the house starts to go
up, just by changing from the front eaves height, to this piece here, which is up a little bit, the pitch is
going up with the six on twelve pitch, that portion there becomes 28 feet 5 inches. When you get
back up in here, and the ground steps up on the side, that goes back to 27 feet 4 inches. It goes to 25
feet 5 inches, and it doesn’t get back out of compliance, noncompliance, to this small portion of the
roof at the very top, which is 28 feet 5 inches. So you’re talking about five inches noncompliance.
We put it in at a foot, because I couldn’t tell whether or not these are dimensional drawings, and
probably the three inches of roof vent that you might incur are in there or not in there. So we know
that we can do the roof vent, and we can do the building as it’s shown on a dimensional drawing, if
we have the one foot relief. In all honesty, probably we could avoid that, if somebody has a real
problem with it. All we need, this is about two feet of grade exposed here. We could bring the
finished grade up six inches. I don’t know. They’ve got two steps. It’s a nice showing. It’s
architectural pleasing. We could change it if we had to change that portion. This piece around here
would be difficult, and it’s probably a stretch of about five feet that’s six inches out of compliance.
MR. MC NALLY-Let me see that floor plan again.
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably, I think, from my point of view, the easiest thing to talk about, although
Staff says that it may have more impact, is the actual request for relief from the front shoreline
seatback. If you look at the adjoining properties, what has been done is reasonable, in trying to
preserve some view up or down the lake. This property is what I would call the south side of the
lake. I think, to give you an idea of the shore frontage along there, there’s a portion of the tax map.
The shoreline to the west, I think, juts out a little bit, but even before you get there, you’ve got the
Ogden camp, which is, and this doesn’t show a porch that is on the front of the Ogden camp. I
don’t know why it didn’t show it, but there is an enclosed porch on the front part of this. So the
deck was pretty much lined up, which is where we’re talking about the setback. The deck is lined up
with the front of the Ogden camp, and I should point out that we’re talking about the house actually
being in compliance. What we’re talking about not being in compliance is the front deck. The house
is 51.02 feet, and the front corner of the deck, I guess if you measured, 41.62, which is where you get
the eight foot of relief. It’s a level deck, one floor deck, probably not significantly noticeable in any
event. This property here doesn’t present a great deal of problem, but the property immediately next
to it is out considerably. So if you’re going to have any view down the lake, in the easterly direction,
you’d have to be out here. I mean, people don’t buy lake property, don’t try to build on the lake and
build up away from the lake. That’s the natural thing to do. So we don’t think that we’re creating
anything as far as a precedent. We’re probably even back further than the existing. The one that is
mostly affected, and I think you have a letter from them saying that they have no objection. So, in
all, we don’t think that we create any significant impact of a negative sense on any of the adjoining
properties. When we looked at this, one thing we did do, and I understand there’s a trade off and
always a balancing act in what we would propose, maybe as something that would bring you to our
side on this particular issue, is that the adjoining property has a septic system which is probably
many, many, many years old. It’s not a modern septic system, and it’s probably 30 to 40 feet off of
the lakeshore. Rather than build this septic system which would accommodate the three bedrooms
in this house, we would not have a problem if you conditioned that the septic system here be sized so
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
that it would accommodate this house and this house, and we would move this septic system back
from the lake to this property. I mean, we could try to hedge it, coach it and do all kinds of things.
There have been no problems with that septic system, but it’s an old septic system. We could put
probably a 2,000 gallon septic tank in instead of the 1,000 gallon septic tank, and indicate to you that
as soon as we saw a problem, we would put a pump station in, and hook into it, but we’re not trying
to short cut it. The applicants, in this instance, have tried very much to do everything that they can
in compliance, mindful of any impact that they might have on the lake or on their neighbors or on
the community.
MR. STONE-Did I hear you say, Mr. O’Connor, that you wouldn’t cut in that other house until
there was a problem?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. I said, to be cute, I could say that. Okay, but we’re not, we’re willing to do
that. There’s no problem that we know of. It’s a functioning system. It’s just a very old system. It
has very close proximity to the lake. There’s got to be a lot of presumptions with it that there just are
things unknown. So I think it would be an improvement to the community, and we offer that.
MR. STONE-Absolutely. It’s a very generous offer, at this point in time, I would think.
MR. O'CONNOR-It about triples the cost of the septic system, because of the difference in the size
and because of the pump station that will be required. This upper residence can exist by gravity flow,
but, and this property is a little higher than that property. This property will require a pump station.
MR. STONE-That is a feasible alternative, Craig, to put two houses owned by one owner on the
same system?
MR. BROWN-I think so.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I just would be a little cautious of imposing conditions on properties not part of this
variance, but it’s certainly a good idea to combine them and get the systems away from the lake, yes.
There’s no problem with it, building code wise, either.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Is that it?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s it, I think.
MR. HIMES-A couple of questions here. One really probably isn’t our business, in the zoning. The
notation up here, well to be used by proposed house in combination with existing camp. This is
probably the one you’re going to share the septic with and all?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HIMES-That’s not a zoning matter, but I am right in what I read, I guess.
MR. O'CONNOR-Because of separation requirements, it’s a common occurrence at lake properties.
MR. HIMES-Is it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Okay. The other thing, when I went out there, of course it’s been taken care of, I
guess, with construction, the utility lines seemed to go through pretty much the middle of this lot,
you know, going across it. There appears to be a driveway that runs from the property, east to west,
or which, one side of you, all the way across to the other, where there’s this big metal container, and
I don’t know, again, this is not.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s their container.
MR. HIMES-Yes. The big metal storage container. It looks like a cut out was used, once as a
driveway, maybe it has something to do with the utility line that goes right through there, and there’s
old blazes and paint that go through the property that may be ancient, that don’t seem to conform
with where the construction tape is or the surveyor’s tape and so on, and I’m just wondering whether
or not everything is exactly the way it should be. Again, these are probably building problems more
than ours. They’re the only two things I have questions on, or wanted to comment on, I should say.
I don’t know whether there’s any comment you can make now or at any other time. I’d like the idea
of the septic thing that you proposed, you know, the sharing and moving it out. So, that’s the only
comment that I had on it.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. STONE-A question and/or statement. Obviously, you recognize the history of this Board,
when it comes to distance from the lake. I mean, you’ve talked extensively about that, and we
appreciate your thoughts. The question is, if you moved it back, it’s being built into the hill, I gather,
is the way you’re talking about it. How difficult would it be to go back, well, let’s say the 8.38 feet, or
somewhat?
MR. O'CONNOR-The house itself is in compliance, right now, okay. To go back would be more of
a construction cost, and it would limit the view. I mean, there are two reasons that it’s out there.
One is the construction cost of going back into that. I don’t know the full depth of that. I presume
it’s a matter of excavation, but the more important thing is the view out to the lake, and being able to
sit on the deck and enjoy some of the traffic that comes up and down the lake, other than looking
out through a tunnel, and part of this is based upon the fact that the adjoining property is pre-
existing, and something that the adjoining property to the west, and something that the applicant has
no control over.
MR. STONE-I mean, keep in mind that the WR-1A zone, which is 50 feet or more. In this
particular case, you can’t go less, even though you’ve got houses that are closer to the lake than 50
feet, but if the houses on either side were 75 feet, this would have to be 75 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-If the houses on either side were 75 feet, you know, we could live with that, but, I
mean, that’s the whole problem. The lots are fairly well treed, not greatly treed, but I mean, they
have some substantial trees out near the lake, too.
MR. MC NALLY-Those trees were tagged for being cut, the blue tape?
STEVEN JACKOSKI
MR. JACKOSKI-No. Those trees were tagged so that the, well, some of them will have to be
moved because of the deck, but they were tagged so that the forester could come in and tell us which
trees would branch out, because some of them are just top growth, so he was looking at which ones
would be the best to keep.
MR. MC NALLY-How long have the applicants owned the property?
MR. O'CONNOR-Lisa’s owned, 1999.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, at this point in time? If we have no further questions, I’ll open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed to this application? Opposed to this application? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from Charles and Susan Ogden, “We are
longtime residents of Glen Lake and we own the cottage (parcel 45-3-33) adjacent to the subject’s
proposed new residence and our year-round home (parcel 45-3-34) and we have no objections to the
construction plans for their vacant lot, which you are reviewing at the hearing scheduled for April 18,
2001. We welcome our new neighbors. Regards, Charles Ogden Susan B. Ogden”
MR. STONE-Nothing else?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-On the lot plan, the two story frame camp with the brick patio out front. It says
lands now or formerly of Steven Jackoski.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m Steven Jackoski. I don’t know why it says that.
MR. MC NALLY-You don’t own the adjoining parcel?
MR. O'CONNOR-You own the adjoining parcel.
MR. STONE-No, he owns.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. JACKOSKI-I own the cottage, I’m sorry, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-With the brick patio?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I own the cottage with the brick patio.
MR. STONE-That’s the one that they’re talking about hooking the septic system up. I believe.
Okay. How long have you owned that property?
MR. JACKOSKI-’99.
MR. STONE-So you bought all of them at the same time, the back lot?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we bought some from Doc Barber, that’s that back. I don’t know the dates
of that.
MR. STONE-Okay, but I mean, short, not that long.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, we tried to buy it.
MR. STONE-Any other questions. All right. Let’s talk about it. Norman, let’s start with you.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I, too, am favorably inclined by the aspect of the septic going in the
direction it is, quite a long ways away from the lake. Maybe that helps offset a little bit the fact that it
might be a few feet closer to the shoreline than we might like to see. I guess the roof, the fact that
it’s being cut in and the roof shape the way they are, the runoff, I think, would be minimized, in
terms of, I guess there is a bit of a slope there, and I don’t see a regular waterfall washing stuff down
into the lake. So, as much as I hate to see a density magnified by the addition of something squeezed
in so tightly, I hate to penalize the applicants when they’ve done a lot of other things to try to meet
us halfway. So I tend to be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Certainly, the Jackoski’s would be able to have a home on the lake, which is a
dream of many people, and that would certainly be a benefit to them. In weighing the alternatives,
though, I’m impressed that this is new construction. So it’s not as if there’s an existing facility that
has to be updated or modernized. It’s basically a tabula rasa. You can build on a clean slate. So the
feasible alternatives would include downsizing the home to meet the Town zoning requirements. It’s
also possible that you relocate it to a compliant location on the back lot, but I think Mr. O’Connor’s
point that people don’t buy lakefront property in order to build a house somewhere in the woods is
well taken. So it may be that downsizing is a possibility, but I’d have to agree with him that it’s not
feasible to put it in the back lot. If it’s a new house, you think, well, why can’t you build it to comply
with the existing zoning code? It shouldn’t be that hard to get an architect or an engineer to put
together some kind of plan, but I’ll take it at face value that the 1.35 feet of relief from the 12 foot
setback requirements on either side is not too much, and the one foot of relief from the roof line
height isn’t that much either. I understand that they’d like a deck to overlook the lake, but I know
that at least I, personally, have been kind of strict when it comes to the setback requirements on
lakefront property, and anyone purchasing this property in 1999 or whenever, must have known that
there is a 50 foot setback, and in anticipating construction, I should think that they’d be required to
build within that 50 foot setback and no further. It might be a deck, but then there’s another deck
on top coming out of the master bedroom, the balcony you’ve got cutting into that area, also.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s in compliance.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s within the 50 foot?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in the setback of the house.
MR. STONE-On the right elevation, we’re talking the house as we see on the left side is beyond 50
feet, is that what we’re saying?
MR. MC NALLY-I see the bump out as just being 51 feet from the lake, then you’ve got a deck
extending out further another 10, 15 feet.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. JACKOSKI-That deck goes out.
MR. MC NALLY-The deck goes further out.
MR. JACKOSKI-No. The second story deck does not go out. I think it goes out three feet. So it’s
actually 53 feet off the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that dotted line on the proposed deck, the 50 foot setback line?
MR. O'CONNOR-The deck is five feet, when you look at in comparison, you can see it’s not the
same. It’s within.
MR. STONE-Which is the balcony here? I just don’t see the balcony.
MR. MC NALLY-If you look at the frontal elevation.
MR. STONE-All right. Where’s the frontal elevation?
MR. MC NALLY-It’s right there. Anyway, my point, though, is that it’s still within the 50 foot
setback, the proposed deck, as much as the house may be within that setback. It’s a raised deck.
There’s a floor below it with a lot of glass in the front of the house. I don’t think I’d be inclined
toward the setback with respect to the lake. It’s a minimal relief requested with respect to the other
aspects of it. I think that there would be an affect on the neighborhood, in terms of congestion,
generally, and I’m in favor of it in part, but I’m not in favor of it with respect to the lakeside setback.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s see where we go. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m basically going to agree with Bob. I don’t have any big problem with the side
setbacks. I can understand with the relative narrow lot and the requirements for room size in the
house. The side setbacks don’t bother me. Likewise, the height is not a big deal. You can, on the
one hand I can argue, okay, half a foot, change the pitch a little bit or do something to take care of it,
but that doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it’s going to bother anybody behind. The setback from the
lake does bother me, not just with reference to this particular house, but the people that set up the
zoning and set 50 foot setbacks did so knowing that there was a lot of other camps and houses on
that lake that were closer than 50 feet, and so when they set the 50 foot setback, it says to me that
they said this is what we want to see, and I don’t see any really unique circumstances with this
particular house, compared with what some other house might have of wanting to get in close to see
the lake and have the view as well, and it strikes me if we grant this relief to the setback, we’re going
to have to grant other reliefs to the setback, and that, in effect, negates the zoning. So, on that basis,
I’d be willing to go for the height relief. I’d be willing to go for the side setback, but I’m not willing
to go for the shoreline setback.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to disagree somewhat, as far as the height and the side
setback relief, I have no problem with that, and the front setback relief, I think that, given the fact
that the house is going to be within the required 50 feet, I’m not so concerned about the deck,
because I don’t really think that decks have that detrimental effect on encroaching on the lake, so to
speak, and I think that you have to keep in mind that the house to the south side there is, the wood
frame camp, is such that it is going to totally block your view. If you set the house back any further,
you’re not going to have any view up the lake, and I would have to agree that, you know, part of
living on a lake is being able to see up the lake, and the only thing I would add would be that if we
did grant this relief for the front, that I would like to see some of the trees preserved. Hopefully you
guys are going to have a little bit of a peek-a-boo look there. So it’s just not a complete clear cut. I’d
be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Well, I basically agree with the two gentlemen on either side of me. We, as a Board,
have been particularly tough on lake property, for a variety of reasons, one because it’s the newest
piece of zoning that we have, and it was, I think, well thought out. A great deal of discussion went
into it, as affects the distance from the lake. We have, on one occasion in the past year or so, granted
relief for a deck that was two feet off the ground, I think it was, and that’s about the only relief that
we’ve granted. I’m sure you can find that we’re wrong, but I don’t think we have very often granted
relief from lake setback. Fifty feet is a minimal number. The fact that this deck is so high, and it’s
compounded by the fact that there’s a balcony above it, which, while, as you point out, does not
extend beyond the front of the bay window type thing, still is, visually, I think, fairly intrusive. So, I
would agree with I’ll say the two people on my right and left, that I think the side setback, particularly
when you have taken into account the eaves, I think we’re talking minimal there, and that’s not an
issue. Height has been an issue for us, but I think in your candor, Mr. O’Connor, the Jackoski’s have
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
said it’s probably five inches, and I think that’s a reasonable expectation, but I do have a problem
with the setback.
MR. O'CONNOR-My comment, I guess, would be that the 50 foot was put in when they re-did the
lakeshore setbacks. In fact, they changed it from 75 feet to 50 feet, recognizing the problem of pre-
existing camps, and I think they still left it to you to determine whether or not somebody’s view is
partially obstructed to the point that from a practical difficulty, it justifies a variance, and I think in
this particular instance, it does. There is no view to the, if you move that deck back the eight feet,
there is no view to the west. That’s the largest portion of the lake. To the east, there’s a smaller
portion of the lake, you’re down at the end of the lake, or close to the end of the lake. If you’ve got
kids out skiing or you’ve got anybody out in the boat, and you want to look up the lake to see what
they’re doing or coming back, you’re not going to see them, unless you get off the deck and go down,
out into your yard. That’s not a typical happening if you have people at your place at the lake. I
mean, if the camp next door wasn’t where it is, I’m sorry that the plot plans don’t actually show the
enclosed porch, and if you’re familiar with the Ogden camp, that has a enclosed porch that’s
probably 10 feet, sticks out beyond that camp, and you look out this way, you’re going to have an
obstructed view as it is. You’re not going to have a full 180 degree view, even if you’re standing on
the end of the deck. It’s going to be an obtuse angle out into the lake. What they were asking for, I
thought, was not overly greedy or trying to make the best advantage they could. They’re just trying
to get some view up the lake. Take a pen and put it at the corner of the thing, and expect that this is
out another 10 feet, and see where they are, and realize that the greater portion of the lake is up here,
and that’s where most of the view is. It’s a matter of circumstance. I don’t have on the map here,
but the Johnsons that’s below you on this side, is even further out than this place. I mean, they are
back in a hole.
MR. MC NALLY-But can I ask you a question? Isn’t this a self-created hardship, in the sense that
this is a 48 foot wide lot. It’s like a bowling alley, and there are camps that pre-exist on either side. If
you’re proposing new construction, there’s no way that you can meet the setback requirement
without having that problem of not an expansive view.
MR. O'CONNOR-I differ with the Chairman. (lost words) five, six different applications where
people bought lots, (lost words) tearing down places, and reasonably complied, and in most instances
obtained front setback relief because of the adjoining properties.
MR. STONE-You’re absolutely right. As I recall, there were a couple over on Cleverdale.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s a couple even on Glen Lake. Kellogg’s, Hughes. I’m sure if Mozal’s
garage.
MR. STONE-That did not.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s 75 feet over there.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I think you look at them one by one.
MR. STONE-I agree, we do.
MR. O'CONNOR-You come in with a flat surface, and you’ve got a great view of the lake, it’s a
wide portion of the lake. That’s a little different than if you come in here and you’re set back in,
behind the camp. Let me ask you this, Mr. Chairman. Can I have, do you want to go on with your
business and we’ll get back in after the next application?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-You made a comment about the height of the deck as being bothersome.
MR. STONE-Well, the fact that it is up high, plus you’ve got a balcony above it, which, I mean. One
of the things that I was thinking, as I was talking about it, was maybe conditioning it on not ever
covering this deck, because that’s one of the things that we have seen on occasion.
MR. O'CONNOR-They would have no objection to that.
MR. STONE-Well, we’ll have to keep that in mind, but if you want to go out and caucus, we can
adjourn this application until after the next one.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll adjourn this application until we finish the next one.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
USE VARIANCE NO. 23-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED VALENTE BUILDERS, INC. &
VALENTE HOMES, INC. AGENT: MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP
OWNER OF PROPERTY: VALENTE BUILDERS, INC. LOCATION: WEST OF BAY
ROAD, WALKER LANE TO BAYBRIDGE DRIVE TO GENTRY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN A MULTI-FAMILY ZONE AND
SEEKS APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A NONPERMITTED USE. CROSS REF. SUB.
NO. 15-86 ZONE: MR-5 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-2-58 THRU 101 AND 13 (COMMON
PROPERTY) NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.50-1, 6, 8, 10 296.58-1-1, 3, 5, 7, AND 34, 49 LOT
SIZE: 20 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-18
DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 23-2001, Valente Builders, Inc. & Valente Homes, Inc., Meeting
Date: April 18, 2001 “Proposed Location: Gentry Lane Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes single-family dwellings in a multi-family zone and seeks relief to establish a non-
permitted use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable use of the Multi-
Family, MR-5 zone, § 179-18, to allow single-family dwellings. Criteria for considering a Use
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable
return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial
evidence? The Affidavit of financial hardship for Valente Builders, Inc. does not appear to address
the financial differences between attached and multi-unit construction and detached single-family
construction or “each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular
district.” 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this
hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship does not
appear to be unique to this property. The previous two phases of this subdivision as well as the
development on the north side of Walker Lane consist of attached multi-unit buildings. (allowable
uses) 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the
neighborhood? The essential character of this neighborhood is residential. Specifically, attached
multi-unit buildings sharing common properties. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: While
the zoning changed, in 1988, from Urban Residential , UR-5, to Multi-Family Residential, MR-5 and
Single Family dwellings were no longer allowable uses, none of the approvals issued to this project
under the UR-5 zoning included single family dwellings as allowable uses in this subdivision. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/ variance, etc.): Phases I , II & III were approved in 1985, 1986
& 1987 under an Urban Residential (UR-5) zoning designation. The phases, as approved, consisted
of multi-unit attached townhouses. The UR-5 zoning allowed single-family dwellings as allowable
site plan review uses. Detached single-family dwellings were not considered in any of these
approvals. In 1994, the applicant appeared before the Planning Board and requested the Board to
“review the option” of single-family homes for the remainder of Phase III. Staff comments: In
1994, the Planning Board agreed that the concept of single-family homes was a sound one. In
response to the Planning Board decision, the applicants continued, in good faith, to apply for and be
issued building permits and certificates of occupancy, by the Town. However, the next step in the
process should have been the application for a Use Variance, as the 1994 zoning; Multi-Family (MR-
5), did not allow single family homes as allowable uses. No updated mapping was required in 1994.
Staff identified inconsistencies between the County tax mapping and a plot plan recently submitted
with building permit application and subsequently discovered the status of development in Phase III.
Response #9 in applicant’s affidavit asserts a loss of recreation fees. If requested, a refund may be
available. Is the purported loss (assumed $100,000 per unit) all profit? What are the construction
costs per unit? How much profit is realized per unit? Please see attached Zoning Administrator
correspondence. Perhaps a rezoning of the remainder of Phase III and future Phase IV might be the
appropriate mechanism to achieve the applicant’s desired construction styles. The construction and
dedication of Gentry Lane would be necessary regardless of the housing types constructed. What are
the specific (dollars and cents) reasons for the request to establish a non-permitted use? What was
the original purchase price of the property? What return has been realized by the property to date?
Is the property operating at a loss that can only be salvaged by allowing a non-permitted use? SEQR
Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-County?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think there’s a County.
MR. STONE-There isn’t? I thought there was. Okay. Gentlemen, and lady, before we start, I have
a statement to make, that bears on this particular thing, and in considering this Use Variance
application, we must be aware that the applicant did not, I repeat did not appeal the Zoning
Administrator’s decision that a Use Variance must be obtained for the building of the eight
remaining single family dwellings. That is something that could have been done. A decision was
made that a Use Variance was required. This was not appealed. By filing this Use Variance
application, the applicant, in fact, acquiesced to the ruling that a Use Variance is, in fact, required.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
Therefore, we are bound by the rules governing the granting of a Use Variance that indicate the
applicant must meet all five criteria. Having said that, you’re up.
MR. PHILLIPS-Perhaps I could begin by asking a question. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m
representing Valente Builders, Inc., and as far as this application is concerned, there are two aspects
of the application, and I’m looking for a clarification from the Planning Department as to what’s on
the table here. Valente Builders has received from the Building Department a letter that essentially
vests the subdivision through the end of Gentry Lane. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-That currently dedicated, the end that currently exists, yes.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. PHILLIPS-And then there is the part that goes beyond the end of Gentry Lane, and is kind of
like in new territory.
MR. BROWN-Where the cul de sac was at one point?
MR. PHILLIPS-Where the cul de sac was.
MR. BROWN-That’s what’s on the table right now, those last eight units.
MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. So that’s what’s on the table now. So, as far as the Building Department is
concerned, and this Board is concerned, these additional eight units are on the table at this point?
MR. BROWN-Right, up to the end of Gentry Lane as it’s been dedicated is all set.
MR. STONE-It’s done, and Mr. Round, by the way, that’s Mr. Round. The letter said Mr. Rounds. I
don’t know how Chris feels about that, but it bothers me. He has stated that, in one sense, that
mistake was made, to the benefit of the Valente’s, in granting the building permits for single family
units in this subdivision. That is now water under the bridge. He has acknowledged that. The point
is what’s being done up until the paved road is fine. It’s the eight additional units that we’re here
tonight to discuss, for which a Use Variance was determined to be necessary, by the Zoning
Administrator, and the note that I just read indicates that you had an opportunity, and it would have
been the same Board, but you could have appealed his ruling. That is part of the job of the Zoning
Board of Appeals, to appeal, to hear appeals from his determination. By giving us the application for
a Use Variance, we have gone beyond that step. Now, you have to meet these five criteria, which, as
you know as well as I do, if not better, are very stringent, particularly Number One, and that’s what
we’re going to be talking about now. So you’re on. Anything you want to add, talk about?
MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. We understand what, now we understand what you said when you read that
statement to us, just wanted to have an understanding of that, and I think the first thing that I would
ask for, of this Board, because we do have all of this information before the Board, is that, for the
record, I would ask, and based on the information in the record, which I think has been developed in
the application and through the history, as presented by the Building Department, the Planning
Department, I would ask for a resolution on the record that ratifies the action of the Planning Board
back in 1994, with respect to the part other than the eight new lots.
MR. STONE-You have that from the Zoning Administrator. We are not empowered to do such a
thing. The Zoning Administrator has ruled that everything built to date, and everything that is being
built to the end of the paved, dedicated Gentry Lane, is legal. That’s his statement. There’s no
question about that. I mean, it may have been a mistake, but he is saying it’s okay. We can’t put our
(lost word) on that, because we have no jurisdiction over that.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, in terms of the map that we have presented as part of this application, we
show the part before the end of the road and the part after the end of the road.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. PHILLIPS-And, for the record, it seems as though you would have the authority to ratify the
finding of the Zoning Administrator on that, and that may be a legal question.
MR. STONE-There’s no need for us to do that. Because he has made his statement, and you have
not appealed his decision. His decision was multi-fold. I mean, I haven’t read it in. We could read it
in. I’m just trying to save the audience from hearing an awful lot, but he says, this is dated March
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
23, Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, Department of Community Development, Town of
rd
Queensbury. “Dear Mr. Valente: We received and reviewed your proposed modification”.
MR. PHILLIPS-Excuse me. I think it’s the March 30 letter that is the letter where he vested up to
th
the end of the road. Is that correct, Mr. Brown?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, did I have? March 30?
th
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, here we go. He says in this letter, all right, March 30, he says, “As
th
indicated in our referenced correspondence no modified plat was filed and we feel the Planning
Board acted without authority to allow this modification. However, our office has issued building
permits for 12 single-family dwelling units to date within Phase 3 of the referenced project. We
understand there are 16 additional single family units proposed consistent with the proposal
presented on March 15, 1994. We further understand purchase contracts have been signed for three
(3) of the 16 units not yet constructed. Additionally, Gentry Lane was constructed by Valente
Builders and accepted by the Town as part of a routine highway dedication process. Based on our
communications during our conference March 27, 2001 we understand that you have made a series
of business decisions and acted in good faith on the basis of the Planning Board’s approval and the
Town’s continued issuance of building permits for the project. Therefore, we have decided to
entertain building permit applications for 8 additional units as identified on the attached plan.”
Those are the ones that are currently being built now as we speak on the paved part of Gentry Lane.
“Consistent with our March 27, 2001 discussion, however, we will not entertain/issue permits for the
last 8 units located at the west end of Gentry Lane (beyond the limits of the dedicated roadway) until
the project obtains a change of zone or use variance (for reasons indicated in our 3/23/01 letter) and
the plat is appropriately modified. The plan on file for Phase 3 does not depict single-family homes
nor does it propose development on this area of the site. If the change of zone or variance is issued
an application for modification and project plats should be submitted to the Planning Board for
review. Our apologies for any delays and inconveniences caused.” That’s the authority under which
Mr. Brown asked you, if you want to continue, you needed a Use Variance, and that’s why we’re
here, and that’s the only thing we’re here for, and the reason I read this statement is that when you
received this March 30 letter, you had two options, or three. One, you could have abandoned the
th
whole project. We won’t even talk about that. You could have appealed the decision that’s covered
in, what’s this, 179-90. I don’t know what it is. I mean, that’s one of the jobs that we do. I should
know it by heart, but I don’t. Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS-I think the point I was making is that the variance application was filed before the
issuance of that March 30 letter, because at the time of the filing of the variance application, the
th
outcome of that decision by the Zoning Administrator was not clear. It was not clear whether the
Zoning Administrator would basically vest a portion of the subdivision, but it was clear that there
were basically two parts that we were talking about with the Zoning Administrator. The part before
the end of the road, and the part after the end of the road. The reason we have continued with the
variance application is that we feel that, from a legal point of view, we wanted a ratification from the
Zoning Board of Appeals of, basically, the Use Variance, as to the first part of the part that he vested
to the end of the road, and the reason we wanted that was because title companies, on the sale of
these units, have wanted that as a matter of record. So, we’re looking for a ratification of that, so
that we could add that to our chain of title. Then as to the other part, as we came in here as to the
other part, that’s where we envisioned that we would be making a showing as required by Section
267 B of the Statute.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, you’ve got, I think basically, your ratification in so many words, with what
Mr. Stone has said, that what Mr. Round has given you, we don’t contest, we can’t contest. The only
way we could rule on that is if you appealed his ruling, or somebody else that felt they were affected
with it and didn’t like it appealed it. Lacking the appeal, we can’t rule on it, but that’s as it stands.
MR. PHILLIPS-We agree with the ruling, but.
MR. STONE-Well, you don’t have to agree with the ruling if you don’t want.
MR. PHILLIPS-We do agree with the ruling.
MR. STONE-So, therefore, we’re here for a Use Variance for eight additional units, with all the
encumbrances that are put on the granting of a Use Variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
That’s what we’re here for.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. PHILLIPS-I understand that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS-But I guess if we are agreeing with, see, in the letter, dated March 30, 2001, the first
paragraph, I mean, the letter basically says that, the letter questioned the Planning Board’s authority
to do what it did, by resolution, back in 1994, and the Zoning Administrator has said, despite the
opinion that they lacked authority, because it was an action by the Town of Queensbury, relied upon
by Valente Builders, and because all of these building permits were issued and all of these certificates
of occupancies were given, then it’s his opinion that, up to the end of the road, there was enough
evidence on which to vest it in his own right. However, I think that we’re faced with the same
problem that we had before, in terms of who has the authority to basically allow for that use to
change, and so that’s why, when we made this application to this Board, we were looking for, we’re
not looking really for ratification by this Board of what Mr. Round did as one part of our application,
and that’s why we continued here, and then as to the part that he did not vest, that would be stand
alone and that would require all of the proof that we are presenting, relative to a Use Variance.
MR. STONE-My ruling, and the only one that I can make, is that the only thing we have jurisdiction
over is the Use Variance for these eight additional single family dwellings. That’s the only thing
that’s on our table. Is that correct, Mr. Brown?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct, and I think, at some point, there’s going to be a resolution made, one
way or the other, and at that point I think you can address, you can separate it there, and we deny the
Use Variance, but we don’t object to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, or we approve the Use
Variance in concurrence with the previous, I think you can tie it all together in the resolution
somehow, and I think that’s what you’re looking for is a resolution that links the.
MR. STONE-I’m not even sure I’m comfortable doing that.
MR. BROWN-Well, that’s a possibility, I think, just to get into the meat of the application.
MR. STONE-I don’t want to get into a contest between the Planning Board and the Zoning
Administrator. I mean, we have a job to do, and that’s to determine whether or not a Use Variance
should be granted for these eight last units, if you will, in Phase III.
MR. PHILLIPS-And our application relates to all of Phase III, because we feel that from a legal
point of view, we need the blessing of the Zoning Board of Appeals, so as to eliminate all problems
forever, relative to what the Planning Board has done or what the Planning Department has done,
and so, as we proceed with our application, if you find, for example, that we do not meet our burden
of proof relative to the last eight, but you found that because of the position of the Planning
Department where we are vested as to the end of the road, we would ask for, as part of that
resolution, that a Use Variance be granted so as to cover up to the end of the road, just to clear up
this problem that we’ve had, relative to Phase III, and that’s all, our application is for the whole
thing.
MR. STONE-Okay. The problem with that, is, as you know, a Use Variance is a very restrictive, I
mean, it’s very complex, and requires a great deal of effort, dollars and cents, a great deal of
information, dollars and cents, from the applicant. If you choose to include all of Phase III in your
discussion, obviously, we’re going to listen to that, but that’s not the point, we have to find a way to
separate, to build these last eight units, you have to show that you cannot realize a reasonable return
as demonstrated by competent financial evidence, in a sense for those eight units.
MR. BROWN-For the property.
MR. STONE-For the property.
MR. BROWN-I think I would agree with Mr. Phillips to a certain point, that the variance really needs
to address the property. Can the property get a return, not just can he get a return on these eight
units, can the entire property realize a reasonable return if you construct an allowable use. I think
you have to include the entire property.
MR. STONE-I have no problem with doing that, but I don’t believe we, as a Board, and certainly we
can get legal interpretation. I don’t think we can make legal something that wasn’t, just because we
say so, since we weren’t involved.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think that, and I don’t want to argue for the applicant, but I think the
application, the Use Variance is for this parcel, for single family uses on this parcel, and if you want
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
to acknowledge a certain number or acknowledge certain portions of Phase III, you can do that, but
it is for the entire parcel.
MR. STONE-I’m going on the basis of what the Zoning Administrator said. He’s talking about
eight units that, in his judgement, are the ones that he will not issue a building permit for, and
therefore that’s the only eight units, as I see it, that we’re talking about.
MR. MC NALLY-I think what Lew is saying, there is an application for the eight units, with respect
to a large piece of property, so the use that they’re seeking the variance for is for those eight units,
even though it affects the entire parcel.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-See, from my perspective, Mr. Phillips, the Town says, yes, you can have those
buildings you built already and we don’t care, even if it wasn’t pursuant to zoning. Everyone says it’s
fine, and he’s just asking for something with a little bit of authority behind it so he can take it back to
his title company. That doesn’t concern me as much, even if we don’t have the authority or it’s not
before us, it’s not going to kill anyone since everyone seems to be in agreement that that’s what is
okay.
MR. STONE-We can affirm his decision, if that’s what, I mean, we can pretend you appealed his
decision, and we can affirm his decision, I guess. I don’t like it.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t like the word “pretend”, but.
MR. STONE-I didn’t say pretend, well, it is. In a sense it is. It’s not on the table. We have limited
jurisdiction, and if we start going all over the place, then we’re not doing our job as Zoning Board of
Appeals.
MR. MC NULTY-The parcel that we’re talking about now, does that include the land that’s under
the units that are being built now?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. PHILLIPS-Maybe I should put this map up and show the whole story here.
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-Let me introduce myself. I’m Dan Valente, President of Valente Homes, Inc., for
the record. Obviously, we have a unique situation here.
MR. STONE-Yes, you do.
MR. HIMES-What would be wrong with, say they’re approaching it from the standpoint of getting
the zone changed?
MR. STONE-That goes to the Town Board. That is another, separate application.
MR. HIMES-Yes, but that would.
MR. STONE-They could do that.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s an alternative.
MR. STONE-That’s an alternative.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s an alternative, even if we turn them down.
MR. PHILLIPS-Maybe I could show by pictures what has happened over a period of time here, and
I’ll start with the first map, which is the Phase III map. Back in the spring of 1988, Phase III of
Baybridge was approved by the Planning Board, and at that time, this was a UR-5 zone, which
allowed both single family homes and multi-family homes. When this Phase III was approved by
the Planning Board, the structures in Phase III were all attached townhouse structures. They were
either fourplexes or sixplexes, and there were nine basic attached structures, and of those nine, there
were 44 units all together. Once that was approved, Building Number 14 was constructed, as shown
on this map. Building Number 17 was also constructed, as shown on this map. Under the
townhouse concept, these units are not fixed on the ground until they are built and until an as built
map is filed in the County Clerk’s Office. So in a sense these units float around until actual
construction takes place because this is kind of in the nature of a conceptual approval. Between 1988
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
and 1990, these two, Building 14 and Building 17, were constructed, and some sales were made with
the last sale taking place as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Valente, I believe in 1990 at some point, and
then between 1990 and 1994, there was no activity whatsoever in this area, and the cost of
construction that had been put into this, of course over the passage of time eroded, and actually
money was being lost on the construction of this project. At that time, in March of 1994 I think it
was, Valente Builders, Dan Valente, came before the Planning Board and said the Planning Board
that the concept as approved back in 1988 was not working, and that they were losing money and no
units were being sold in this area. So, at that time, Valente Builders asked for a modification of the
plan. By the resolution that was read by Mr. Stone, the Planning Board authorized a plan
modification, with the idea that these conceptual structures were floating, and also with the idea that
there was going to be a downsizing of the density in this phase, from 44 units down to 36 units, and
so that was looked at as being a positive value, that there was a downsizing, so as to reduce density in
this area, and this never was a full density project, but I guess the theory at the time was that less is
better. So, pursuant to that authority, Valente Builders went and obtained building permits,
constructed townhouse units. They were detached now, instead of attached, constructed these
townhouse units, and between then and the present date, constructed the ones that are solely in
yellow, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and other construction with building
permits issued are eleven, twelve, thirteen, and number fourteen is under contract. So, this was all
done pursuant to the authority of the Planning Board, the resolution of the Planning Board. Last
December, when I was assisting in the closing on one of these units, I said to Valente Builders, you
know, we need to modify this map, because this map is beginning to deviate from the previous map
that we showed you, and from a title company’s point of view, and from a legal point of view, we’d
like to match up the reality on the ground, with a map that should be filed in the Clerk’s Office. So,
being relatively naïve about having any issue whatsoever, in February of this year, we filed a map with
the Planning Board, and we said to the Planning Board that we would like to modify the subdivision
to reflect what’s on the ground and to reflect our build out of Phase III. It was only then, for the
first time, that we learned that there was some question about the authority of the Planning Board in
passing that resolution back in 1994, and quite candidly, it was when we learned for the first time that
the zoning in this area had been changed from UR-5 to MR-5, and really the only difference in the
two zones is that the MR-5 does not allow for a single family dwelling unit, whereas a UR-5, under
which this was approved, that was allowed, and it was always the idea of Valente that that was a fall
back position relative to Phase III. So, with that in mind, we began discussing the history of this
project with the Building Department, and we basically had to extract the history from the minutes
of the Planning Board, from the resolution, from the recollection of Dan Valente, and fortunately we
were able to do that, and for the most part, I think that has been put into the record by the Planning
Department. Based on that history, that March 30 letter that was read by Mr. Stone, as the position
th
of the Planning Department, Queensbury, this, the single family detached unit aspect of this project,
to the end of Gentry Lane, and the reason for that is that Gentry Lane was not constructed until
1998 and 1999, and it was dedicated to the Town of Queensbury at that time. It was constructed
after the resolution granted by the Planning Board back in 1994. As the affidavit of Dan Valente
points out, it was constructed at a cost greater than $150,000, and it was constructed in reliance on
the 1994 resolution of the Planning Board, and all of the construction costs and all of the effort that
went into that development after 1994, and culminating in this dedication of the road, was based on,
relying on that Planning Board resolution, and so it really was quite a surprise, when we came to the
Planning Board, and found that there was some question about the authority of the Board at that
time. With that in mind, we asked for a ruling from the Planning Department, and the ruling that
was issued was the March 30 letter, which basically says, we will vest this Phase III with single
th
family detached units, up until the end of Gentry Lane, because clearly we could establish detrimental
reliance, and clearly we could establish that we paid a lot of money in order to get that far. What the
Planning Board also said is that beyond Gentry Lane, as to.
MR. STONE-Planning Department, you mean?
MR. PHILLIPS-Planning Department. Beyond Gentry Lane, there was nothing, you don’t have any
money beyond Gentry Lane, in the ground, that we can see, and so, in order to do something relative
to those units, you’ll have to get either a variance, a Use Variance, or a rezoning at some point in
time. So, prior to receiving that letter, we had the zoning request before, we had a zoning
application, which you just read, that related to the whole thing, because we didn’t know what the
Planning Department was going to do. So, as we are here tonight, I think that, whatever we call it,
whether it’s affirming the opinion of Mr. Round, or whether it’s agreeing with Mr. Round and saying,
yes, based on all of the evidence and his opinion letter, we will grant you a variance to the end of
Gentry Lane. We would ask for some official action on that, because that’s important to us, not only
as we complete the sale of units to the end of Gentry Lane, but I think that, after the fact, it’s
probably important to the people who already have purchased these properties in detrimental
reliance on everyything that’s taken place so far. So, that is a technical correction, a clean up if you
will, that we would like to have from this Board, and if we could separate those two issues, and get an
affirmation first, and then proceed to the next eight lots, I think that’s what we would like to do, if
that’s possible procedurally, before this Board.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. STONE-I’m not comfortable with it, but I certainly can ask the Board how they feel.
MR. MC NULTY-One thing, I’m still back to, on the application here it says the tax map ID is 61-2-
58 through 101. I’d like to know, specifically, what pieces of property we’re really talking about.
Now, each of these separate units, I gather, is a separate tax map parcel?
MR. PHILLIPS-That’s correct, yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Because it strikes me that the only thing we can really rule on is what’s before us
on the variance request.
MR. STONE-The other thing, as you were identifying those pieces of property, the buildings, you
were using numbers that do not seem to reflect the piece of property that I have in front of me. You
said 14 was there, and I’ve got 14 here, and you said 17 was on the other side, and I, it was not very
clear to me which ones you were talking about.
MR. PHILLIPS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is that a later map than this or is that the same map, same survey or whatever this is,
survey? I mean, see, 17 looked like it was, 14 I thought we, he was talking about up here.
MR. PHILLIPS-It was this one right here, 14 is this one.
MR. STONE-This says 14.
MR. PHILLIPS-No, that says unit 14. See, in this, this is the revised map, and this was the original
building 14, and this was the original building 17.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s why I was confused, because you were rattling off numbers and I
don’t have.
MR. PHILLIPS-Right. So I was looking at the original map that has been filed in the Clerk’s Office
that designates that as building 14, and that as building 17.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. PHILLIPS-Once this downsized to the single family detached, we abandoned the building
numbers. So now they’re individual unit numbers after the building 14 and 17.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your obfuscation or whatever, your clarity, I’m sorry.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, on the original map that was filed, here is Building 14 and here is Building 17.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s what you were pointing at.
MR. PHILLIPS-Right, but that’s not the map you have in front of you.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. PHILLIPS-You have a different map, and I believe when we made application to address the
tax map numbers, when we made application, we made application not knowing what the Building
Department was going to do, beginning with all of these units that were already constructed, in order
to clean up the record. Because we thought it important to clean up the record for what was already
on the ground.
MR. STONE-Let me just state why I’m uncomfortable. We have an appeal process which involves
advertising, making sure that the public is totally aware of what we’re talking about on this particular
evening. You did not choose to appeal his decision, because you’re saying you’re not uncomfortable
with it. I’m not sure I understand why, since it makes you go through the need for a Use Variance,
which is very difficult for us to grant, but you didn’t. So since we didn’t advertise an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator’s letter of March 30, then it’s not on the table, and I’m not comfortable.
th
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, except that if, included in these tax numbers that he’s listed here on this
variance request, he’s included the pre-existing, single freestanding places, then it worries me, what
happens if we consider this and decide, no, we’re not going to grant a Use Variance because we don’t
feel you’ve met all the criteria. What’s the impact going to be on the pre-existing houses at that
point?
MR. STONE-That’s a good point, too.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. MC NULTY-That leaves the Zoning Administrator’s decision in conflict with what we’ve said.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we, procedurally, everything is before you, understanding that everything was
before you before we received that ruling from Mr. Round, and so at the time we made this
application, we did not know what Mr. Round’s decision would be. So with everything before you, it
seems that, to me, procedurally, that you could take Mr. Round’s decision, and say, as to that, we
affirm that decision. That would then give us the legality that we would like to have, relative to
what’s already in the ground, to the end of the road, and that’s why I’m trying to, it seems to me as
though it would not be improper to, now that we have Mr. Round’s decision after the fact, after we
made this application. It would not be improper to say, upon our consent, that you affirm his
decision as to the end of Gentry Lane, and then it’s a horse of a different color after that.
MR. STONE-I understand what you’re asking, but it may be, because we didn’t advertise this, that
there are people in the Queensbury community who would come out and say, I don’t want you to do
that. I disagree with that.
MR. PHILLIPS-What does the advertising say, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I think we were consistent with the tax map number s that the applicant included in
the application, 58 through 101.
MR. STONE-What did it say, a Use Variance?
MR. BROWN-Yes, and we actually threw in the common property, too, in the advertising. So,
basically all of Phase III, all the parcels, all the proposed house sites and the common area were
included in the advertising.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we can ask, if that is the case, and I’m just supposing, we could ask for
detailed financial records on the total Phase III, every nickel and dime and every possible alternative,
every permutation of any permitted uses, we need financial statements about. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. PHILLIPS-Except that because the Planning Department issued that ruling, after we filed the
application, we also could ask you, based on that opinion, to affirm that opinion.
MR. STONE-We’re getting into circular reasoning, it seems to me. Either the matter before us is all
of Phase III, or it’s only that part that the Zoning Administrator has said requires a Use Variance.
We can’t combine these two and say, well, we’ll do one, because we’re not going to do the other. I
don’t know. It just seems to me that we’re in a muddle, if you will, and either you have to show to us
that a Use Variance should be granted for the whole thing, or just the eight units, without reaffirming
what Mr. Round did. That’s what I think.
MR. MC NULTY-I agree with what you’re saying. I think, you know, if we’re talking about the
whole Phase III, we’ve got to look at the whole Phase III, and it puts, I think they’re existing single
units at risk, then, if they are unable to convince us that they can’t get a reasonable return.
MR. STONE-You have to show, for example, or you’d have to show now, that putting in multi
family units where these eight units are is not going to provide a reasonable return.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that as to the entire lot, though?
MR. STONE-That’s what they’re asking us to do. I think we do, if he wants this affirmation. The
only way we can affirm what the Zoning Administrator’s doing is to consider a Use Variance for the
whole thing, because we have no information on it, except that he’s saying, we goofed. I’m going to
say it’s okay and you haven’t challenged it.
MR. VALENTE-Well, again, going back, we have a unique situation here, and giving you a little
more history of what we’ve been dealing with the past couple of months with Chris, and he didn’t
want to go ahead and allow to continue to release building permits to the end of this road, but when
we found out that this was an issue with the Town, this zoning, we were already under contract for a
number of homes that would become naturally legal issues from my purchaser to me, and then from
me to the Town, based on their decision, back in ’94.
MR. PHILLIPS-Dan is saying that we detrimentally are relied on the Town of Queensbury, based on
the 1994 zoning of the Planning Board decision.
MR. STONE-I understand.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. PHILLIPS-So we have followed a program of reliance on that, and it’s because of that reliance
that fortunately Chris, in his letter to us, dated March 30, said we are going to honor that
th
detrimental reliance, from the point of view of the Planning Board, I mean, the Planning
Department.
MR. STONE-We have until April 30 for someone to appeal Mr. Round’s ruling. Is that correct, 30
th
days? So, after 30 days, assuming nobody comes out, then that ruling stands, and if we were to say
we agree, we can be appealed in an Article 78. So I don’t know what you need for these title
companies. I mean why, if we say something, it’s going to be anymore strength than if he says
something, because we’re subject to the courts also.
MR. VALENTE-We don’t want to be back in this poisiton that we’re in.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I think that what we would like to do, we would like to follow Mr. O’Connor’s
precedent, and caucus, while he can then step back to the table, and discuss this among ourselves.
MR. MC NALLY-We have a lot of people here, too, though.
MR. STONE-We have people who want to talk. Does everybody want to talk, that’s here, or do
they just want to listen? All right. We’ve got two people who want to talk. I would much rather
have you caucus and see where you come out, because, to me, if April 30 comes. Correct me if I’m
th
wrong.
MR. BROWN-Sixty days.
MR. STONE-I thought it said 30.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s 30 days to appeal a Zoning Board action, but it’s 60 days to appeal a
Zoning Administrator’s.
MR. STONE-Okay. I stand corrected. After that, there is no appeal to his decision, and it is, it
stands, and it should be perfectly fine for the title company to say, nobody has challenged this
particular ruling. So, I just can’t see what our imprint is going to do. I really don’t see it. Because
the matter is open until May 30, then, approximately.
th
MR. HIMES-Sixty days, is that procedural, or a legal?
MR. STONE-It’s legal.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s a legal thing in the resolution.
MR. HIMES-You mean no crusader can come along and say, wait a minute, here, this whole thing is
flawed?
MR. STONE-Well, they’ve got to have standing. They have to have some kind of standing.
MR. MC NULTY-They’d have to be affected or something like that, but I think you’re right. I think
even if we were to affirm his decision now, that has no holding if somebody came along, 45 days
from now, and wanted to appeal it.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HIMES-Either appeal process, or why don’t we consider the rezoning? If, and I don’t know,
from a legal standpoint, if it went back to what it was zoned originally, whether that would take care
of what you need or what’s already done, as well as what’s coming down the road for the whole area.
MR. STONE-Bob, do you have any, from your background, any?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have any experience along these lines, in this particular circumstances.
MR. STONE-You haven’t?
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. STONE-Neither have we.
MR. MC NALLY-It does seem to me that, again, I’m just repeating what I said earlier. Mr. Phillips is
looking for some kind of certainty for a title company, if he can show, in black and white, that Chris
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
Round has approved this and that people who have purchased those existing homes are not going to
have a problem. I’m sure we can accommodate him somehow, some way, in some shape or form,
whether it’s an official letter from the Town Board or some silly thing, I’m sure we can do that, but
your point is well taken that it’s not really before us, the use of the entire lot, or maybe it is. I have
no idea. I’d have to think about it for a while.
MR. STONE-This letter is on Town of Queensbury letterhead. It is signed by the Executive
Director/Zoning Administrator. I don’t know what more we can do to give this to a title company.
MR. MC NALLY-In some sense what they’ve done is they’ve filed an application for a Use Variance
as to everything, and that was pending, and that’s in front of us, and then after that fact, Mr. Round
says, all right, we screwed up as to two-thirds of this development. We’ll concede your points as to
them. Is the issue still in front of us or is it not still in front of us? I mean, literally, the application’s
still pending, I think.
MR. STONE-It’s pending, but, as Mr. McNulty says, as Chuck says, are we going to go in and talk
about a Use Variance, after the fact? And that scares me. If they cannot meet their burden of proof.
MR. MC NALLY-But that’s a different issue. I mean, they have to meet that Use Variance
application standard.
MR. STONE-But if they can’t, then they have to know that risk.
MR. MC NULTY-And right now, the way it’s presented, it’s an inclusive range of tax map lots,
which we can treat as one unit, which would be Phase III. If we deny it, it gives them a problem
with their existing units. The alternative is for them to isolate those that are built.
MR. MC NALLY-And that seems to go against Chris Round’s decision. On one hand his letter
decision, yet, we’ve got a formal decision saying you don’t have a Use Variance. That would be real
fancy.
MR. PHILLIPS-Could we possibly resolve this issue by withdrawing our variance application with
respect to the last eight lots, and then, in light of the Building Department’s letter, after we file this
variance application, could we basically ask for a resolution by this Board affirming that resolution,
on the grounds that we agree with it? Excuse me, affirming that opinion of the Building
Department, on the grounds that we agree with it?
MR. STONE-Well, the easiest way to do that is to appeal it.
MR. MC NULTY-That probably would be the proper way.
MR. STONE-If you appealed it, then we would either say yes or no, as far as the Zoning
Administrator is concerned. That’s our job.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we agree with it.
MR. MC NALLY-He would appeal a favorable decision?
MR. MC NULTY-He can’t.
MR. PHILLIPS-We agree with it. It’s favorable to us, and we agree with the vesting to the end of
Gentry Lane, and that opinion came after we filed this variance application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then get somebody to appeal it. How about that?
MR. PHILLIPS-No. We’re not looking for trouble.
MR. STONE-I know that.
MR. PHILLIPS-We’re just trying to resolve this issue with some official action by the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
MR. MC NULTY-I think you’re on the right track, for me, at least. I would like to see the units that
are affected by Chris Round’s decision off the table.
MR. STONE-Off the table, I agree.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. MC NULTY-Or in a separate thing, and the new ones in a separate one, and that protects you a
little bit more, too, because, should you fail to prove to us that you can’t get a reasonable return, then
if we deny, all we’re denying is the unbuilt units.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-And I’d sure hate to see us deny the built units, some of which have been there
for a couple, three years.
MR. STONE-If you want to withdraw it, let us get it straightened out so we can put it back on the
agenda for next month, in some kind of better fashion, because I think right now, we can’t do what
you want, particularly, and I think you run a great risk of, looking the kind of information you have
supplied so far, you need a lot more than that information, as far as I’m concerted, to prove Number
One.
MR. MC NALLY-A lot of these things, I mean, what you’ve done is reduce the density of the homes
in Phase III.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So, theoretically, that’s a good thing, in that there’s not as many houses, not as
many people, but to get a Use Variance, Mr. Phillips, you know, there are four conditions, and you’d
have to meet all four of them, and that’s a tough, tough thing to do, not so much that you can’t, but
one of the things we’ve always looked for is bottom line, financial figures, accountant figures. I
mean, I looked over the affidavit that’s been supplied, and that’s anecdotal. We don’t have cost of
construction, we don’t have profits. We have costs per unit. You don’t build eight units, you lose
$800,000 is kind of not a very good argument, because, you know, you don’t have the costs
associated with it, either. You actually need accountants figures, and they’re not there.
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, we’re getting ahead of ourselves, but that’s one aspect of that four part
test that we have to have, and our hands our bound. Personally, I’d say, fine. I think this is a nice
thing that you’re doing, but we’re restricted by what the law says regarding Use Variances.
MR. STONE-I mean, the law is very specific, Mr. Phillips knows that, on Use Variances. It is sound
financial data, and according to information that I’ve been reading, zero profit is not an unreasonable
rate of return, if, in fact, that’s what the law says. I hope that’s not going to happen. So we need to
know what it cost you to build these things, what you’re not going to make if you have to build
multi-family versus single family, and I agree with Mr. McNally, the affidavit, while we appreciate it,
does not, in my judgement, having read it, does not, would not satisfy me tonight, at this table. So I
think you need to give us, it says, sound, financial, competent financial evidence.
MR. VALENTE-Part of the reason why we had, my father, at the time, had requested and got the
approval to go to these individual ones was because of the market, and without these, to hit a market
so they would sell again.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. VALENTE-The late 80’s, nothing. Couldn’t give them away. So, we actually did take a loss on
some of these units that were already constructed. So when you try to hit the market, that’s (lost
words). So, if I build attached ones and I can’t sell them, that’s a clear indication that no dollars and
cents.
MR. STONE-Yes, but keep in mind that if it costs you $100,000 to build the unit, and you sold it for
$90,000, you only lost $10,000.
MR. VALENTE-Only.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t mean to belittle that number, but you didn’t lose $100,000. Your affidavit
suggests you lost $100,000.
MR. VALENTE-The affidavit is actually from my father.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. It’s not that we don’t believe what you’re telling us, but you’ve got to prove
what you’re telling us. So, you know, all those other houses that sold on that lot, what did you sell
them for? What did they cost? What’s your net profit? How much did the road cost? Do you have
proof of that? You say $150,000. Where do you get $150,000? Let me see where that came in.
What’s the market like for multi-family residential houses now? I mean, 10 years ago, this real estate
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
market was dead in the water. There was nothing moving at that time. I have no idea what it is
today, but today is the application. It’s a tough burden to meet, but as much as it makes sense what
you’re telling us, we’re kind of constricted by what our legal requirements are.
MR. STONE-I would like to see, if you would withdraw the application, and let’s reconstruct it to
get what you need at the minimum risk to you. Because I think as we’ve said, certainly Mr. McNulty
has said it very clearly, if we’re not happy with the financial data you gave us on the whole Phase III,
we could say, no, and that would fly in the face of what Mr. Round said, because we have now been
asked to grant a variance and we’d maybe not grant it. So I think you’re running a risk that I don’t
think you want to run. I think you really want to build eight more units, single family units, at the
end of, beyond the constructed road. That’s what I think you want. I think that’s what you ought to
be asking for.
MR. PHILLIPS-We do want that, and we are listening very carefully to what you’re saying, and I
think that if we could just caucus for a minute, probably in the time that it takes Mr. O’Connor to
present, and without a lot of discomfort for the people who are otherwise here, I think we’d like to
make a decision on that, after visiting for a second.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll adjourn your hearing, and re-sit on Mr. O’Connor’s.
MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. Is that satisfactory?
MR. STONE-That’s satisfactory.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2001 TYPE II LISA M. JACKOSKI AGENT: VAN DUSEN
AND STEVES LAND SURVEYORS, LLC OWNER OF PROPERTY: LISA M.
JACKOSKI LOCATION: BARBER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1880 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: RR-3A AND
WR-1A SPLIT ZONING CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR IN WR-1A ZONE OLD TAX
MAP NO. 45-3-32.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.31 LOT SIZE: 1.05 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-15
MR. STONE-Okay. Now that you’ve caucused and we’re back in session on Area Variance No. 22-
2001.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to discuss this among ourselves. As
we’ve often acknowledged, Area Variances are a matter of balancing pluses and minuses. What
we’ve looked at and tried to pick up on was perhaps changing the height of this deck. In doing that,
though, some information came to my attention maybe that I hadn’t stressed to the Board. Part of
the reason that the deck is this height is so that it won’t obstruct any view from the Ogden’s
property, which is immediately adjacent to it. The Ogdens, basically, can look underneath this deck,
and also, which wasn’t necessarily focused on, is the topographical features in front of the house, as
it’s being constructed. If you take a look at the site plan map, at the lake, it’s approximately 400 feet
in elevation, and you get back to the camp itself, it’s about 411, 412 feet. There really isn’t a flat area,
in front of that residence, or won’t be a flat area in front of that residence, where you’d have the
typical standing area, whatever, that you might have on a nice, level lake lot. They could excavate in
there. I think if they excavated in there and tried to get a deck, you’d have to go through the site plan
review for hard fill, if you’re going to put a surface on it maybe within 50 feet of the lake, but I would
probably be more scarring than what they actually propose. So they’ve tried to, and they talked about
this with the Ogdens. They also probably could gain a little bit in dimension if they flip flopped the
house, if they put the jut out on the west side instead of on the east side, but again, in talking with the
Ogdens they said we’ll put this toward our property, on the other side, not have obstructed to you,
and try to be as neighborly as we can. So what they’ve done is really tried to accommodate the
people that are next door to them, and at the same time get some type of view, and the other thing,
which I didn’t really focus on either, if you take a look at the tax map, this lot actually angles away
from the better part of the view of the lake. You can catch that a little bit where you see where
they’ve drawn what would be the permitted setbacks. The setbacks are actually a little further out on
the easterly side of it. The other thing, there is no deck planned immediately below this deck. That
is going to be left in its natural state and simply be a lawn headed down toward the lake, on the same
angle of repose that’s there now.
MR. STONE-It looks like it’s paved, on the front elevation.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t.
MR. STONE-Well, at least there’s a pathway, and it doesn’t look like it’s grass.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There’s a path to the lake, I think. There’d be a path to the lake.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. JACKOSKI-We are not going to put any hardsurfacing. We want to keep it in as natural a state
as possible.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s going to be grass all the way across that front elevation?
MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and if you looked at that, you would think that that was completely flat.
It’s not flat.
MR. STONE-No, I understand that part.
MR. O'CONNOR-Given all that, is there some room for compromise? We’re showing, on the
westerly side, a depth of the deck of 12 feet, which requires the variance that we’ve asked for. If that
was to change to 10 feet, would that make it less intrusive? Probably, and if you take a look at that
measurement, there’s an angle line there, and Matt Steves, unfortunately, is not here, but if you draw
that line parallel, further down, and I’ll address it to you folks. You seem to have the greatest
difficulty. See the little beginning of the angle point on this line? This is parallel to that part of the
shore. You run that down further, you can see there’s a natural void that’s created in there, and I
don’t know, mathematically, what type of effect it has, but it has, by appearance, it has that probably
this is the point that we’re talking about the greatest variance, and what I’m suggesting is that we
come back to 10 feet on this, and then come across. I talked about whether or not we could dig
down, have a step as you come out of the house down to a lower area, and then maybe bring the
patio down a step, if the height was the big thing, but it throws everything out of synch, and it also
throws the deck probably more noticeable to the Ogdens than what it presently is. Because they can
look through right here. They have a door here. There’s a small window on this side of the chimney.
MR. STONE-So you’re proposing, instead of being 41.68 feet, it would be 39 feet, no 43 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Forty-three feet at that point, and the result up here would be the deck would be
10 feet, which would allow you a table, if you’re going to have an outside deck. You just don’t have,
if you take a look at the elevation from 400 feet here at this line, back to this line here, which I picked
up over here, 410 comes across right here, so that’s 411, 412 actually as you come out underneath
there. That’s 12 feet, and the 50 feet we’re talking about. That’s a pretty sharp drop off. So the idea
is to try and have some level area, to make it usable.
MR. STONE-Well, if you’re talking about this 10 feet, are you talking 10 feet to the southwest corner
of the deck? Is that what you’re talking about? What would the angle be from that point across?
MR. O'CONNOR-What I’m talking about is simply, make this side line, on the westerly part of the
deck, 10 feet in width, and move the back line back two feet all the way across.
MR. STONE-Okay. Move it two feet all the way across.
MR. O'CONNOR-Move the deck back two feet.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, cut off from that diagonal, shorten the diagonal two. I mean, it
would have to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it would. Practically speaking, it allows you an area on the deck of about 10
feet by 10 feet, if we calculated it right. That’s fairly square.
MR. STONE-And again, you would be willing to stipulate that it would never be covered?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we would. We think the deck is important to having some enjoyment there.
MR. STONE-Does that help you, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Sure it helps me.
MR. STONE-Enough?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Does it help .
MR. STONE-Does that help you, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Sure it helps me.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. STONE-Enough?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Does it help you enough?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess so, considering it’s a deck and not a house that’s in the.
MR. STONE-Okay. I feel the same way. If you’re willing to stipulate that it will not be covered, and
that you will bring it back two feet and run it across, on a similar angle, I guess is how to put it. Are
you comfortable with that, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I understand what he’s saying.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So the variance would go from 8.38 to 6.38.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-From the front setback.
MR. STONE-And that would be the furthest point out. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it would not be covered.
MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion, then.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2001 LISA M. JACKOSKI, Introduced
by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
Barber Road. The applicant proposes the construction of an 1880 square foot single family dwelling,
and seeks relief from the setback and height requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 1.35
feet of relief on both sides of the proposed home, as depicted in their drawings. The applicant also
seeks 8.38 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback, and 1 foot of relief from the 28
foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. After some discussion, the
applicant has modified their proposal so that the minimum shoreline setback that they’ve requested is
now 6.38 of relief, and otherwise their application is unchanged. Irrespective, it’s 1.35 feet on either
side to the foundation, and the eaves are being built beyond that, and they’re asking 2.5 feet of relief
on either side of the building with respect to the eaves. The reason for my application is that, first, it
would benefit the applicant in that they would be able to construct the home on the lake as they
desire. The feasible alternatives might include downsizing or relocating the home, but in perspective,
the relocation to the back lot is certainly not feasible, as they certainly would like to be on the lake.
The only reason they purchased this land is to be on the lake, and, second, downsizing would not
result in any great reduction in the size of the house, since the amount of relief they’ve requested,
with respect to the dimensional area of the house, is minimal, to say the least. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? No. The effects on the neighborhood are going to be insignificant, in
view of the fact of the houses on either side being as close or nearly as close to the side lines, and
also to the lake itself, and is the difficulty self-created? While it may be interpreted as self created, on
balance, the application certainly stands to be approved as we’ve indicated. So, for all these reasons,
I move the approval of the variance. As the Chairman has noted, this motion is conditioned upon
the applicant never enclosing the deck area on the lakeshore side of the house, or putting a roof on
that same area. The applicants have stipulated that they, whoever owns the property, whoever it goes
to, will not enclose that deck area, put a permanent roof over it. The conditions follow with the land.
By the end of the summer of 2002, the applicants will tie in the septic systems to the proposed house
and the camp, which is depicted on this map as to the north, but the one with the brick patio that’s
depicted there.
Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. McNally, I’m not sure, in the notes they’re talking about 1.35 feet. Our
actual application was to the eaves, and that requires 2.5 feet. I think that the 1.35 feet in Staff notes
was to the foundation.
MR. BROWN-Correct, and that’s always been my interpretation is the foundation and not to the
eaves, but if you want to request it and their comfortable with it, we can do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, Chris, okay, I went round and round with Chris, and Chris is the one that
said give your measurement.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. STONE-Well, I was sitting here thinking what we’ve done before, because sometimes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I just kept saying, which way, because I don’t want to come up here and do a
willy nilly, but our application says 9.5 to the eaves. So the relief should be 2.5 feet to the eaves.
MR. STONE-And mention the eaves. Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve stipulated that we would not enclose it. I get nervous if, in the winter, they
decide they’re going to put a canvas, they put all their lawn furniture and everything underneath it,
whatever, and they put a canvas on it.
MR. STONE-Permanent cover.
MR. O'CONNOR-Permanent cover I have no problem with. People put a boat underneath it, and
then enclose it. We’ve done that, or not enclose it, but I mean, put protection around it.
MR. HIMES-The common septic tank.
MR. STONE-The common septic, yes, let’s put that in there, too.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, all right, the camp that’s indicated as a two story, wood frame
camp with a brick patio, owned by Steven Jackoski, and the proposed home, will be tied into a
common septic system. Is that the proposal?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And do we have a timeframe for this, or is there any limitations that you’d like to
include?
MR. O'CONNOR-We have to put in the oversized septic tank immediately, because that’s
something you can’t change around, and we’ll put in the, I would think that we would like to be able
to complete that, say, by the end of the summer of 2002, by the end of 2002.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m satisfied with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we’re going to ask for a CO on this house sooner, and it’s probably going to
have to be done then.
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’ll probably be part of the building permit process for this house.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only question will be is when they put the pump station in, and they could
separate that from this house construction.
MR. STONE-And let me note that I applaud you for that, because as we all know, those of us who
are involved in lakes and septic systems, that if you didn’t put it in, you don’t know what’s there, even
if you did, you’re not sure what’s there sometimes.
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Thank you for your cooperation.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your patience. I’d recover any maps that you don’t think you
need.
USE VARIANCE NO. 23-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED VALENTE BUILDERS, INC. &
VALENTE HOMES, INC. AGENT: MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP
OWNER OF PROPERTY: VALENTE BUILDERS, INC. LOCATION: WEST OF BAY
ROAD, WALKER LANE TO BAYBRIDGE DRIVE TO GENTRY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN A MULTI-FAMILY ZONE AND
SEEKS APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A NONPERMITTED USE. CROSS REF. SUB.
NO. 15-86 ZONE: MR-5 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-2-58 THRU 101 AND 13 (COMMON
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
PROPERTY) NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.50-1, 6, 8, 10 296.58-1-1, 3, 5, 7, AND 34, 49 LOT
SIZE: 20 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-18
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, we will resume.
MR. PHILLIPS-We’ve had a chance to caucus, and we realize that the facts of this application are
complicated, and we realize, also, that after we filed the application, we received a favorable ruling
from the Building Department, with respect to vesting Phase III to the end of Gentry Lane, as it’s
currently constructed. That being the case, we are very happy with that decision, and we have
decided that we are going to heed some of the advice of this Board, with respect to that, those last
eight units, and at this point, we are going to withdraw the variance application that’s before this
Board, and based on the ruling of Mr. Round, I think that for the short run, we will be satisfied with
now taking his ruling to the Planning Board, modifying our map to reflect that ruling, and then being
satisfied, for the time being, with what we have, with the idea that, with respect to the last eight units,
that perhaps we will go to the Town Board for a zoning change, relative to that area of Phase III, and
other lands that adjoin that Phase III.
MR. STONE-The only thing I would ask Craig is, do we have a determination, I mean, somewhere
where Gentry Lane ends now?
MR. BROWN-Yes, there’s a filed legal description.
MR. STONE-There is a filed legal description? Okay. I just want to be sure that, because we say
today, on the record, but I want to know where it ends.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-I believe your map also has a dotted line through.
MR. STONE-I know. The dedication would say exactly where it goes. So, as long as we have that.
Okay. We appreciate your actions. I don’t apologize for our actions, but I wish we could have
satisfied you differently. I just don’t think, I wasn’t comfortable with it. So, we will probably not see
you for awhile, or you’ll go to the Town Board, you said.
MR. PHILLIPS-I don’t think you’ll see us for awhile, unless we decide to appeal that portion of Mr.
Round’s letter that relates to the last eight lots.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS-And, considering that we have time in which to do that, that very well could be the
procedure that we follow, because, perhaps by that procedure, we don’t have that dollars and cents
burden that we have with respect to a Use Variance. So, the jury is out on that one.
MR. STONE-Well, keep in mind, that if you appeal his ruling, you come here.
MR. PHILLIPS-We come here, yes.
MR. STONE-We either agree or we disagree. If we agree with him, then you still need a Use
Variance.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we would only appeal that portion of the ruling where we were denied. We
would not appeal that portion of the ruling where.
MR. STONE-I understand that. He denied to grant you building permits without a Use Variance.
MR. PHILLIPS-For the last eight lots.
MR. STONE-For the last eight, so if we agree with him, if you appeal it, and you go through the
appeal process and we agree with him, then you’re right back to, with respect to those eight units,
you need a Use Variance, or a zoning change.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, we understand.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we thank you very much.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we thank you very much.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/01)
MR. STONE-We thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We’re sorry we didn’t get to
hear anybody, but I don’t know if you’re happy or unhappy, but that’s the way it goes sometimes.
The only thing we have left on the agenda is we’ve got minutes from the March 28 meeting. Has
th
anybody read them?
MR. HIMES-No, we just got them tonight.
MR. STONE-Yes. Let’s hold them for next week. I move we adjourn.
MR. HIMES-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
32