2001-12-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALLAN BRYANT
PAUL HAYES
ROBERT MC NALLY
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN MC CALL D/B/A TIRE
WAREHOUSE PROPERTY OWNER: LOUISE SILVERTHORNE ZONE: HC-1A
PROPERTY LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 36 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 107-1-57 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-39 LOT SIZE: 0.58
ACRES SECTION 140
JOHN MC CALL, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Would you read the tabling motion.
MR. MC NULTY-This is for Sign Variance No. 59-2001, on Thursday, November 15, 2001, “MOTION
TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TIRE WAREHOUSE - JOHN MC CALL, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
274 Quaker Road. For a period of no more than, until a meeting in December, either the first meeting or the
second meeting. At that time, the Board would expect to have an exact survey of the location of the sign,
visa vie the property lines, the right of way, the pavement, and anything else that a surveyor is going to look
at, so that we know, one, where the sign is, and so that we know what kind of relief we may or may not grant
for the current sign, or what kind of changes we can ask in the position of the sign, in order to grant approval
for a sign, for any sign that requires a variance. If the applicant does not return in time with the requested
material, for a scheduled meeting in December, then enforcement action will be asked to be taken by the
Board, as to removal of the sign.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant”
MR. STONE-Mr. McCall. Just for those in attendance, just so that you all understand where we’re coming
from, the applicant has erected this sign in an area that is in variance, if you will, with our current zoning, and
we have been asking the applicant to provide a survey exactly where the sign is, so if want to grant this
variance, we know exactly what we’re granting. So, Mr. McCall, do you want to add anything? Say anything?
MR. MC CALL-This is a survey map of Wayne Raymond, dated yesterday, showing exactly where the sign is,
as the Board has previously requested.
MR. STONE-So it is, this survey says it’s 13 and a half feet off of your property line.
MR. MC CALL-Exactly.
MR. STONE-In the right of way for Quaker Road.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. MC CALL-Right. It’s approximately 60 feet from the road, the asphalt to the road, and 13.5 feet on my
grass area, of the shrubbery area.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen, any questions for Mr. McCall?
MR. ABBATE-Not so much questions, Mr. McCall, but perhaps some perceptions here. I thought that the
last time, correct me if I’m wrong. I thought that the last time we met, this Board made it quite clear to you
that the sign, as it stands, is in violation of the Ordinance and you, sir, I believe, agreed with that assessment,
if I recall.
MR. MC CALL-Yes, I agreed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and this Board also requested that the sign be removed, prior to you appearing before
this Board again, and, according to the minutes, you, sir, agreed.
MR. MC CALL-No.
MR. ABBATE-You didn’t agree?
MR. MC CALL-No.
MR. ABBATE-You did not agree to remove the illegal sign?
MR. MC CALL-No, that wasn’t the conversation.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s interesting.
MR. MC CALL-If you had the minutes, we could go back at them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We have also requested that you submit an exact signed survey, which you did, this
evening, and I’m certain that must meet the requirements for, Bruce, that was submitted this evening?
MR. FRANK-I just briefly looked at it. I wasn’t given one. It does have the surveyor’s stamped seal on it.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. I guess the thing that concerns me is the fact that here we have an illegal sign, on a
property other than your own property. Would that be a correct assessment?
MR. MC CALL-I wouldn’t necessarily say not my own property. I think it kind of runs with the lay of the
land, with Minogue’s Beverage Center, to the south of me, whether it’s Lowe’s across the street, whether it’s
Cool Beans up the street. I think we all realize it’s part of my property. I have a creek that runs through
there. It’s dead land. That was part of the reason. If we go back, I was never told by the Board, take the sign
down.
MR. ABBATE-Which Board?
MR. MC CALL-This Board here. All right. If you check your notes on it, the agreement was that if I go to
the County, I could go to the County for a right of way, and I showed that to Craig Brown, he’d allow me to
keep my sign. We had conversations about taking it down, covering it up and everything else. It was never
agreed by the Board, if you check your minutes, to remove that sign.
MR. ABBATE-You say, is your sign in the right of way of the County?
MR. MC CALL-It’s in the County right of way.
MR. ABBATE-County right of way.
MR. MC CALL-Balancing Cool Beans.
MR. ABBATE-We’re not talking about Cool Beans.
MR. MC CALL-That was last year when you approved them for the same area and everything.
MR. ABBATE-Just please help me out here, because I’m a little confused.
MR. MC CALL-We’ve hashed this out about, this is my fourth time here, for a three foot sign, a 36 square
foot sign, my fourth time here doing this.
MR. ABBATE-And when did that sign go up, sir, initially?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. MC CALL-If you check your notes, the conversation we had previously, I’d say probably
September/October.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So the sign has been up since September.
MR. MC CALL-October, I’m not quite sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. September/October. Without a permit.
MR. MC CALL-Without a permit, but also with Craig Brown’s allowing me to leave it up until determination
of the Board.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, thank you very much.
MR. MC CALL-You’re welcome.
MR. URRICO-Have you received an extension from the County, as far as?
MR. MC CALL-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Do we have a copy of that?
MR. MC CALL-You have it, yes.
MR. STONE-We have it through the 31 of December.
st
MR. MC CALL-No.
MR. URRICO-Beyond the 31?
st
MR. MC CALL-Conversations with Craig Brown, if you check your notes, from the County, I have until
December 31 of this year to erect the sign.
st
MR. URRICO-And that expires.
MR. MC CALL-There’s no expiration on the permit, if you read it. The permit lasts forever. The County
had problems a couple of years ago, it was explained to me, they’d come along and give somebody a permit to
put a sign up, there was no time factor on the permit when the project had to be completed. Well, somebody
comes along three years later and wants to do something, in the mean time, the County has structured the
changes and stuff they wanted to do. So the permit says I have until December 31 to put the sign up, but
st
the permit stays for eternity.
MR. ABBATE-One correction. Your sign was constructed prior to August 22, 2001, by the way.
MR. MC CALL-If you say that, I don’t know.
MR. ABBATE-No, I’m going to say it, because we have documentation here.
MR. MC CALL-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So your sign has been up prior to 22 August of this year.
MR. MC CALL-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Just want to clear the air, thank you.
MR. STONE-Just for the record, gentlemen, the County permit is a permit to work in the County right of
way, and it says he requests permission to erect a sign within the right of way on Quaker Road, now therefore
permission is granted to the applicant to do said work, subject to the following conditions, blah, blah, blah,
special conditions, the sign will be removed at any time upon written notice of the County Public Works
Superintendent. Other municipal variances must be obtained as necessary. So in a sense, if we give
permission for this sign in that area, the County is saying, in effect, okay, however, Mr. McCall, if for some
reason, a legitimate reason, they can tell him to take it down. It is on their property, but they have
permission, I think he is correct in his interpretation, as long as the sign is erected by the 31 of December,
st
which, of course, it is, as you clearly noted, that’s all they’re asking, and they say it’ll be up as long as we,
they’re happy with it, and we have to give permission because it is a municipal sign ordinance.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. HIMES-I have a question. Sir, in connection with your neighbors, I think in the minutes that we have
of our past discussions, probably the primary reason in my recollection that you wanted the sign where it was
is because of snow removal problems.
MR. MC CALL-Part of it, yes.
MR. HIMES-Yes. In my recollection that kept coming up.
MR. MC CALL-Yes.
MR. HIMES-The neighbors on either side of you, or both sides, I guess, have some amount of room in the
back where they can put their snow, and you don’t because you’re building this.
MR. MC CALL-Right. I don’t have any room at all.
MR. HIMES-There’s no room in the back. What would be, what do you think the neighbors would say if
they were approached to allow you to put what little snow you have, your area in front of your building isn’t
that big.
MR. MC CALL-Well, I wouldn’t say what little snow. It depends on how many storms we have, and I don’t
think they’d be happy. They have their own problems. In other words, they have much larger lots, I’m
saying from their building. They set back farther. They have more snow to deal with. Then with the
combination of Cool Beans there, I don’t know where they’re going to put their snow at all, but that’s
immaterial for them. To put the snow, it just doesn’t work that way. You hire drivers, four o’clock in the
morning, I’m going to be directing them left and right, who knows when it’s going to snow. I mean, the sign
itself, aesthetically, I think everybody’s seen it and everything. It fits the neighborhood, the neighborhood as
it’s trying to be changed, and compared to what was there, I mean, I had a 32 squarer foot illuminated sign,
with neon on it. I could have went, not even come to this Board, increased the sign by almost 55%, and put a
bigger sign. I could have raised the sign another eight feet, and increased the sign by at least 50%,
illuminated. Instead I go with a wooden sign with some spotlights spraying on it. So it’s getting a little
frustrating, overall, as far as where it should be, where it shouldn’t be. It’s there. The County has no
problem. As you people say, it’s their land, it’s not the Town’s land. They can tell me to take the sign down
whenever they want me to, and I just don’t see where there’s a big problem with this, because actually I’ve
scaled down, as far as size and appearance, of what’s been on the property. I mean, that was a revolving sign
that was on that property. Like an old gas station sign. I mean, what was there previously to what’s here
now, and what I could go back and put up tomorrow, a 50% bigger sign than what’s there right now.
MR. HIMES-Well, that would be your choice.
MR. MC CALL-Right.
MR. HIMES-We wouldn’t have any qualms about that. We do kind of like the aspect of a monument type
sign, you know. The kind of sign you have, we’ve all agreed before looks kind of nice.
MR. MC CALL-I agree 100% with Quaker Road, as far as the four lane highway. There should be quite a bit
of scrutiny with what goes on there, but I think every individual business should be looked at, every site
individually, and everything. I have that creek in front of the building that runs year round. I can never
attempt to cross my property to get on to Quaker Road. Where other businesses could possibly go in the
future, change their curb cuts. It’s just the way the land lays.
MR. HIMES-So you’re saying that, in connection with the snow, I’m not sure I understood your answer.
That could be put in behind. Would one or other of the neighbors object if you pushed some of your snow
back?
MR. MC CALL-I think they might object, yes.
MR. HIMES-Did you ever ask them?
MR. MC CALL-Yes, I did.
MR. HIMES-And they did object?
MR. MC CALL-Yes. The way the property runs, is that roadway that runs behind the building, that roadway
is actually by the rear of part of my property, and it’s Minogue’s driveway, his rear entrance to his property.
He has no room for putting any snow behind his building. I did attempt to talk to him about it. He has no
room.
MR. HIMES-The sign you had before didn’t interfere with your snow, push it up around the bottom of it or?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. MC CALL-I think the reality is, we spent approximately $8,000 to $10,000, with shrubbery and the
County property, you people have all seen it and everything. I put that up two years ago. Nobody said a
word about it. Maybe there’s no ordinance that’s needed or anything. With the structure that we put out
front there, I basically eliminated, it was my own fault, being able to push snow out into the creek area, but I
think it’s a compromise, as far as what land I have left to put snow, compared to what the property looked in
the previous two years. The landscaping that was done, lighting, everything else.
MR. ABBATE-I’m still, accuracy is so important. I have a question for Bruce. Bruce, in your Staff notes it
states, prior to the 8/22/01 ZBA meeting, the applicant was informed that the sign, as it currently exists, is in
violation of the Ordinance and should be removed prior to the application for or the approval of a variance.
Is that an accurate statement? Because the applicant seems to disagree that that statement’s accurate.
MR. FRANK-Well, one issue is Mr. McCall and the Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, had numerous
discussions, I believe this past year, and I’m sure he would concur with that.
MR. MC CALL-Yes.
MR. FRANK-At the time that probably was correct. Did Mr. Brown say something after the fact? I think
what we, my consensus is, because Craig started this enforcement action when I wasn’t employed with the
Town. He was the Code Compliance Officer, this thing has been ongoing. I mean, we’re trying to get this
thing resolved. The timing has not been ideal. I think that was the major issue, the timing of getting this
resolved. Again, you know, the Town’s looking for compliance, and if the Board wants and agrees with what
they see, so be it, but I think the major issue that Craig had was the timing of getting information and getting
it before the Board. At one time I know that was the case, but because it was being reviewed, he was holding
off on enforcement action.
MR. STONE-That’s my understanding, Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you.
MR. STONE-In other words, this process has gone on awful long, no question about that, but that’s
something we have to contend with, but keep in mind, also, that Staff notes are Staff’s statement. It’s our job
to get down into the heart of the matter. It may or may not. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but it’s our job to
satisfy ourselves, as to what was going on. That’s what we’re doing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FRANK-I also believe that Mr. Brown was being somewhat lenient, I mean, considering the structure,
the sign and the surrounding stuff. I think he was pretty much waiting for the Board to make their decision,
before any enforcement action took place.
MR. STONE-That’s my understanding also. Bruce, while you have the floor, would you tell me what relief
you think is necessary, in terms of dimensions? I mean, it’s supposed to be 15 feet off the, inside the
property line. The closest point is 13.5, but the sign itself is also 10 foot 9 inches. So it would be to the
outside of the sign, would it not?
MR. FRANK-Well, I would imagine the relief being requested is for where the sign occupies space in the
right of way. So if you wanted to interpret it that way, I believe that would be accurate.
MR. STONE-And it’s just a matter of what number, if we grant the relief, what it is. I mean, I came out, this
guy’s in inches. I didn’t add them up in inches. I’m sorry.
MR. FRANK-The Ordinances says the closest point cannot be within 15 feet of the front property line.
That’s the setback.
MR. STONE-Right. So I’m going the other way.
MR. FRANK-This is reverse. So I think it’s only logical to consider the area that the sign occupies, and that
distance away.
MR. STONE-Right, and that comes out to be 39.4 feet, as I add it up, just so that when we.
MR. FRANK-I don’t concur with that.
MR. STONE-Well, the sign is 10 foot 9 inches, 10.9 feet.
MR. FRANK-It’s more like 24 and an inch. I’m sorry, 24 feet and two inches.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-No, it’s 15 feet outside the line. It’s 13 and a half feet from the line, the closest point, and the
sign itself is 10.9 feet. So, I added up and you get 39.4. That’s the relief that’s being sought.
MR. FRANK-The point furthest away from the front property line is approximately 24 feet.
MR. STONE-Yes, well you’ve got to add 15 feet to it.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, if you’re adding the relief.
MR. STONE-That’s where I get 39.4.
MR. FRANK-I see. That’s correct. I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-That’s the relief we’re granting, if we grant it. I mean, I don’t want to put words. Any other
questions?
MR. URRICO-I just want clarification. This has been going on for a while. I just want to refresh my
memory. How much of your parking lot, does your parking lot come up to the property line, or does it
extend into the County right of way as well?
MR. MC CALL-The asphalt?
MR. URRICO-The asphalt.
MR. MC CALL-Right to the property line.
MR. URRICO-Right to the property line, and the reason you don’t want it to come into the property line is
because you don’t want to disrupt the asphalt that’s been laid?
MR. MC CALL-Well, it isn’t the asphalt. It’s the traffic flow. I mean, since.
MR. URRICO-Okay. You understand, that’s what we’re debating here is, your 15 feet, you’re not even at the
property line. You’re beyond the property line.
MR. MC CALL-Thirteen feet, right.
MR. URRICO-But by regulation you should be 15 feet within the property line. So that’s what we’re, we’re
debating.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. MC CALL-Right. The present that’s there on the property is right on the property line.
MR. URRICO-Right.
MR. MC CALL-Whatever, the zoning was changed, to the sign that’s there, I took the down sign, rather, the
top mechanism of it is right on the property line itself. So I’m really going 13 feet out from the present sign
that’s already there.
MR. URRICO-Why didn’t you come right up to the property line?
MR. MC CALL-Because of the snow situation. Not just the snow situation, just the driving situation. I
mean, you’re taking an area which is Minogue’s, myself, Murray’s Liquor, the cigar shop, and now Cool
Beans, I think I explained this before. Whatever street I forget it is, running from next to Cool Beans,
anybody that wants to go to Minogue’s Beverage Center, they don’t go out to the road, take a left, cross two
lanes, head left, 500 feet, now cross two lanes, come in, (lost words) which cuts right in front of Cool Beans,
in front of Murray’s, in front of me. So traffic is increased in that area probably 100% in the past six months.
We’ve had two accidents so far, fender benders, people backing up or people going. They weren’t going to
my place. They’re going to Minogue’s, and two of them hit my customer’s cars. So I need a sign as far away
as I can, in the grass area, which basically is, like I said, it just runs parallel with the present Minogue’s sign,
and other signs going up the road. I mean, I agree with your looking at it 100%, but I mean, we’ve got to
look at each individual, what property they have, what they have, what they can utilize, and the dead area.
The problem with the property right here, whatever percentage is just asphalt and building. This building was
built 40 years ago, before it was a four lane highway. Things changed. I’m just trying to adapt to it.
MR. STONE-Anything else, gentlemen? All right. Let me open the public hearing, or if I left it open, I’ll
keep it open. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Come forward, please. State
your name.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ED MURRAY
MR. MURRAY-My name is Ed Murray. I own Murray’s Liquor Store, right next to John. I guess I have
trouble understanding what the problem is with this. It’s an attractive sign. It’s not protruding out any
further than anybody else’s sign. We’re all trying to work together here to succeed, to succeed and also to
generate some sales tax revenue, which comes back to the County. To have John move his sign back 39 feet,
I’m not sure, but it might put it inside his waiting room, but, I don’t know how far it is from the building. Up
until a couple of years ago, we had a nice split rail fence on the eastern side of our property, and Cool Beans
came in, and all of a sudden we had an access into their place off the property. I mean, we try to work
together with everybody. The approval of the Cool Beans thing still kind of baffles me because without my
permitting them to park, four, five, sometimes six cars, on my property, behind my building, there would be
no spots, no parking spaces for their customers. So, in order to try to work together, I allow them to park
back there. I don’t know what the criteria was to approve that, but that’s sort of a roundabout way to get at
the snow issue. I used to be able to plow the snow back somewhat behind my building, actually before Cool
Beans we just sort of plowed it right up alongside the split rail fence. Now, of course, they’ve got a driveway
there. So, I mean, I guess I could plow it up, but that’s their only way of customers getting in. So we really
just have to push the snow forward, and if you make John move his sign back, which, again, I have trouble
understanding what’s the problem, what’s the harm with it being where it is, but it really would compound
the snow problem.
MR. STONE-Anything else? Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anybody
opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-All right. Any further questions? Let me just make one statement. The reason that this has
taken as long as it has is the fact that the sign was put up in violation. I mean, that was clearly done. There
was no sign permit issued for this sign, and that’s what has caused this whole situation, and, I mean, I can’t
speak for the whole Board, but I know that I, for one, think that the process should be followed correctly.
You get a permit and then you build, and we, as a Board, haven’t particularly been happy with applicants who
have not followed that sequence. So that’s why it’s taken a while.
MR. MURRAY-You know what, I did the same thing maybe 15 or 16 years ago. The sign on my property
used to say Clements Wine and Liquor.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’re out of public hearing. I don’t want to get into.
MR. MURRAY-No, I’m just responding to your question. I took the name Clements off it and put Murrays,
in the same spot, and two days later somebody from the Zoning Board was in like I was John Dillinger,
changing the sign without permission.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I have a, I understood everything that both you gentlemen have said, and
I’m not so sure that I disagree with what you have said, but my problem, again, is after the fact. I take
exception to the fact that individuals, either construct a building, construct a dock, put up a sign, without first
checking with local ordinances. If you had checked with local ordinances first, these meetings would not be
necessary. That’s my opinion, and so I’m having a problem with an after the fact, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Going back to my notes from the first meeting, and at the time I noted that the sign is really
no closer than your sign or Minogue’s, and the only issue I really had at that time was that it was in the
County right of way. Given that the County has sort of signed off on it, with the caveat that if, in fact, there
is a problem, they can come along and ask you to take the sign down. Do you understand that?
MR. MC CALL-I understand that, yes.
MR. URRICO-So as far as I’m concerned, the County issue no longer exists, and, to me, it doesn’t matter
whether it’s zero feet from the property line or 15 feet or 29 feet. To me, it’s still zero in my mind. I don’t
know if that’s right, but that’s in my mind, and I don’t like the process we’ve gone through, but I think given
the circumstances, given the sign where it’s located, it fits in with the neighborhood. I think I would go along
with it where it is.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, as some of the other Board members have indicated, I also have a problem with the
process, and it’s a struggle for me with this. I, personally, don’t like what we’ve done to Quaker Road. I wish
that we had no signs up near. I wish we’d made everybody, from word one, put their signs back where they
belong, 15 feet behind the property line. They would have been 40 or 50 feet off the road, but everybody
would be playing the same game, and we’d have a lot nicer looking Quaker Road, but obviously there’s a lot
of signs up where yours is. I have a problem with the process. I understand why you wouldn’t want to pick
it up and move it until you got approval. It would cost you a chunk of money to put it there. It would be
virtually silly to spend that kind of money to pull it out and then put it back. On the other hand, I think it
could have been covered until you got permission, like one of the businesses down the road and across the
street did when they discovered they had a sign in violation. They covered it up until they got a variance. So
there are some things that could have been done to better cooperate. That all being said, I will have to agree
with the statement that I think if the sign were back in conformance, 15 feet behind the parking, behind the
property line, if it wouldn’t be in your waiting room, it certainly would be right out tight in front of the
building and in the traffic flow, very clearly, and it certainly is an attractive sign. It is approximately in line
with a lot of the other signs that are on Quaker Road. So while my initial reaction would be to oppose this, I
think, in this case, the benefit to the applicant is clear. The benefit, probably, to the public is clear, as a plus.
Feasible alternatives probably as a practical thing would be a sign on the building and that’s all, if you were
required to be in conformance, because you couldn’t put it in the traffic flow that you’ve got there. The relief
is substantial, but I think the benefits outweigh the detriments. So, on balance, I’m going to be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we have to look at whether there’s any real detriment to the
community. I never really had a problem with where you put the sign. I think it’s an attractive sign, and it’s
much nicer, as you suggested, than looking at something up in the air and gaudy and lit up. The only
problem I really had was whether we had permission from the County, and since the County’s given its
blessing to you, it’s fine with me. I have no problem with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I was also waiting to see, finally, what the County said, and I think the one
thing I feel good about is the sign itself is a nice sign. I’d like to see, if this would be approved, a condition
that the sign stays as is, and the matters of the snow, I think, are very important, in connection with this. So I
would tend to support the application. I would add that, excuse me, we get situations like this, and we think,
what would we do if you didn’t have the sign there yet, and in some cases, circumstances like this, people
have to take something apart. It might not be a sign. It could be part of their house or what not, because
they went ahead and did something and we didn’t approve it, but in this case, if your sign was not yet erected,
given the County’s agreement and all, I think I would vote in favor of it, for those conditions also. That’s all.
Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. I think that’s one of the tests that we have used. I don’t think any of us, as
obviously you’re listening to it, we’re not comfortable with after the fact. In fact, I could even say we hate it,
but in this particular case, if you had come to us for a sign variance, because obviously, any sign would require
a variance, any freestanding sign on that particular piece of property, as has been said. If you put it up
according to the Ordinance, you’d be in the building, so to speak. So anything would have required one, I
think you’re very fortunate in that the land that the County owns in front of you is more like an island than it
is a continuous piece of land that goes out to the road. You’ve got the brook in there. There’s probably no
way the County can ever make use of it, but forever is a long time, but they have certainly said, if we need it,
we’ll come and get it, no question about that. So, I think it’s a nice sign. I think it does the job for you. I
think it does the job within the framework of our Sign Ordinance. I think it’s an attractive sign. I think it’s in
a place that is out of harms way, both for the sign itself and for traffic, in effecting traffic who might be
driving by. Having said that, I think that the test definitely comes down in favor of letting the sign stay where
it is, and granting 39.4 feet of relief. I need a motion to that effect.
MR. HIMES-What is the amount of relief of the variance? Did we settle on that?
MR. STONE-Yes, 39.4. It’s 15 feet from the line plus the 13 and a half feet that the closest point to the
property, but the sign itself is 10.9. So, for the sake of argument, I would say it’s 39.4 feet of relief.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 JOHN MC CALL, Introduced by Norman
Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
274 Quaker Road. The applicant has constructed a 35 square foot freestanding sign. Relief required, the
applicant requests 39.4 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
per 140-6. It appears, from the plan submitted, that the sign has been constructed entirely within the right of
way for Quaker Road, the County right of way. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be
permitted to maintain the existing sign in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, well, the alternatives
are to put it somewhere else, but none of them would be of any benefit to the applicant. Really the existing
location is of no harm to the community or the neighbors. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Yes, I
think we can all agree that it is. Effects on the neighborhood or community, very little. Again, noting that
the County has agreed, until further notice, to allow the sign to be put where it is on their right of way. Was
the difficulty self-created? Well, in a way we could say yes, in that the sign was erected before the permit
process was undertaken. However, the new sign that is in the place of the old one is attractive. It kind of
meets the spirit of the sign law from that standpoint, it is, in some respects, a benefit to the area. I would like
to make a condition, that the sign not be modified in any way without coming to the Town first, to talk it
over, getting a permit if necessary.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. MC CALL-Thank you, gentlemen.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-2001 TYPE II RANDY BARRETT PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE PROPERTY LOCATION: 10 NEWCOMB STREET CR-15 APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. CROSS REF. AV 60-2000, BP 2001-397
OLD TAX MAP NO. 130-1-12 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-68 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES
SECTION 179-24
RANDY BARRETT & ELIZABETH WALWRATH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 102-2001, Randy Barrett, Meeting Date: December 13, 2001 “Project
Location: 10 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has placed a modular home
on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet 5 inches and 10 feet 1 inch of relief from the
20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to keep the modular home as constructed in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the home being placed on a block foundation basement. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11 feet 5 inches and 10 feet 1 inch of relief from the
20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, considering relief is being requested on
both sides. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may
be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created, a portion of the difficulty could be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Town Board Res. No. 198-2000: revocable
permit issued (Mobil Home Outside a Mobil Home Court). AV 60-2000; 9 feet of relief granted for both
side setbacks (same home in current application). Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as
a result of this action. The applicant applied for this variance due to the enforcement action resulting from a
formal complaint by Mr. Klein (neighboring parcel to the south). The applicant claims the foundation for the
modular home was constructed in the wrong location because of human error. A site investigation revealed a
9 by 3.5-foot porch/steps at the north entrance, which is located within 2 feet of a 20-foot spruce. It might
be interpreted that consideration to save the tree was a determining factor in the placement of the home.
Additionally, the northeast corner of the stairs appears to be 9 feet from the north side property line requiring
11 feet of relief compared with the 10 feet 1 inch of relief requested by the applicant (note: the amount of
relief requested is based on measurements taken by the applicant, not from a valid survey which has yet to be
received). SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Before we go to this thing, the Chairman made a mistake. It was an Unlisted Action, the one
before us. So, I’m going to make a motion.
MOTION, IN CONNECTION WITH SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 JOHN MC CALL, THAT
A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-I apologize. Mr. Barrett? I apologize taking your time here. Anything you want to add, sir?
Identify yourself.
MR. BARRETT-Randy Barrett.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to your application?
MR. BARRETT-Like I said, either the contractor didn’t know what he was doing, or something. I couldn’t
be there every minute, and it is off, and I don’t even like it because I can’t get back there very good. With the
11 foot I could get back there quite a bit, and I might, I think I’m going to see if I can do something about
that, but, or like you said, we’ve got the survey map, but 60 people tell us it’s this way, and 60 people tell us
it’s not rectangle, 60 people tell us it’s rectangle, 60 people tell us, from (lost words) that we’re losing land.
Some people say, well, we’ve gained land. What do you do?
MR. STONE-Okay, but the question before us is, assuming the property lines are as drawn on at least the
survey that was supplied, which is not your survey, but as supplied, at least the drawing of the thing, is that
you require some relief for where the current house is. You’re claiming, I gather, that this is because the
foundation was put in incorrectly, relative to the variance that was granted.
MR. BARRETT-And the code guy comes in every once in a while. He okayed the sewer, measured the
sewer. It was off, this and that, the guy had to re-do it and this and that. Even the D-box, they call it, a
quarter of an inch off. They had to raise it up a quarter of an inch over and everything else, a quarter of an
inch this way and that way for that little D-box. When he inspected the footings, even at that time, not even
why, but from there on, it should have been found out that it was a little off, not after we’re almost moved in
and the house is all on it. This is off, now we’ve got to come back and do all this stuff again. Because I was
there daily, weekly, everything else, contractor was there. They inspected it from bottom up, and after, not
then he didn’t say anything, then. After it’s all up, this is off.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I believe Mr. Barrett is referring to building inspectors.
MR. STONE-I believe.
MR. BARRETT-They started right from the bottom up.
MR. FRANK-And it’s not their responsibility to check on setbacks, and again, why, you’d have to ask the
Town Board when they drafted the positions, and what their responsibilities were, but it is the Code
Compliance Officer’s job to check for site plan review, as you know, and that’s when it was discovered.
MR. STONE-Yes, but there is no, nobody comes in after the foundation is done? We don’t have a survey at
that point? I know we don’t.
MR. FRANK-Well, we don’t have a survey now.
MR. STONE-We don’t request one, though, at that point.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and there is some debate over that, but that’s a different issue also.
MR. STONE-That’s a different issue. I understand. So, we’re saying that since nine feet of relief was granted
on both sides, that one of the sides of the building is two feet five inches closer to the line, and the other one
is one foot one inch, if your numbers are correct.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, according to what Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator, had worked out with
Mr. Barrett, but he did speak to me this afternoon, and I was under the impression that Mr. Barrett was going
to supply a survey to back up this information.
MR. STONE-Did you get a survey, an actual surveyor’s survey of the property?
MR. FRANK-The newest one we’ve got hasn’t come back yet.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-It hasn’t come back. So, in one sense we don’t have the actual numbers, if we wanted to grant
relief, but let’s go through it so we can get to that point. Any questions of Mr. Barrett, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-One question. Mr. Barrett, who did you request to do the survey? You said it hasn’t come
back. So apparently you’ve spoken to some accredited.
MS. WALWRATH-Conseco. It’s our bank. It was a bank survey. They came in the Friday they set the
house.
MR. ABBATE-So you requested the bank to do the survey?
MS. WALWRATH-The bank did theirs, and I called and asked for a copy.
MR. ABBATE-And they haven’t furnished you the copy?
MS. WALWRATH-Correct. I’ve called three times.
MR. STONE-Again, your name?
MS. WALWRATH-Elizabeth Walwrath.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Let me talk, and this is a little bit outside the realm, but it
bears to concern for the property. The property has a lot of, well, I’ll be kind and say a lot of miscellaneous
materials on the property, including a trailer that, an old travel trailer which looks as if, to me, can’t be used,
and you have a number of vehicles, and a lot of other stuff on the property.
MR. BARRETT-That travel trailer out front.
MR. STONE-Out front.
MR. BARRETT-I have no idea why it can’t be used. It’s got a couple of flat tires.
MR. STONE-Okay. You say it is usable. Okay.
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, maybe I could comment on that. Because I brought the matter up in the
original, when the application for the first variance was brought in, and Mr. Barrett and I discussed it a little
right here at the meeting, and I do have to say that the appearance now is better than it was.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-He’s got stuff organized, you know, the vehicles, one behind the other, and that little trailer, the
camper trailer is over in line with the others, and they were still there Monday when I visited it, and I could
see a couple of piles here and there of some other things. I didn’t know what it was, but I would give him
credit for, not that it’s a beautification edifice right now, but he did make some effort to improve it, and it
was visible to me.
MR. STONE-What’s the pile behind the house?
MR. BARRETT-Probably parts of the old trailer that I took down in sections.
MR. STONE-And you’re removing it?
MR. BARRETT-Yes. Unless I just throw it away the way it is, I’ve got to separate the metal and I put it in a
prospect pile down to Cohen’s junkyard and all this stuff.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you are in the process?
MR. BARRETT-Yes. Well, at the time I was told that we could take the old trailer and go right down the
road, but then two days later, you can’t do this. You can’t use my road. I don’t want a white truck on here. I
don’t want a black truck on this other road that’s supposed to be a fire lane for the cemetery out back, and
plus he (lost words) Queensbury used to plow the thing, but now it’s his road because he bought the land,
supposedly, but the one time there was no problem. So we put it out back and I had verbal okay, when
you’re ready, pull the trailer right down the road. Don’t try to go through Fish’s and this and that, but then
there’s some big problem, everything else, and this and that, so they’ve all fenced, but before the fence goes
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
up, don’t use my land, don’t put your shoe on my land and this and that and the other. So now the trailer’s
back there. No, I can’t turn it upside down and stick it between the house and the fence.
MR. STONE-We try very hard to stay out of debates between neighbors. That’s why it’s there, and you are
working at it. That’s the more important thing to me.
MR. BARRETT-That doesn’t matter, between starting at four o’clock in the morning and getting home at
sometimes six, seven, eight o’clock at night, and these are both jobs, three jobs all at once. I’m going to have
to take about three weeks vacation and just do something like this. I do not slow down when I’m home
either, but there’s only so much me and so much time, too.
MR. STONE-I think we all understand that. Any other questions of Mr. Barrett?
MR. HIMES-No. I just was thinking something I’d like to ask you, Mr. Chairman. The one, I’d like to have,
I think to go to conclusion on this thing, we need to have an accurate, reliable survey done.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. HIMES-And, two, the file, the original application file, I wonder how we, I seem to recall we had some
discussion about the size of the unit that he was going to move in, and just looking at the figures, the original
one was quite small, and very much in need of replacement. I think we unanimously felt that way, and
wanted him to have something new, and I think everyone that commented here felt the same way, but the
new trailer, according to what you’ve got on the application, is 28 by 60. Certainly a lot more livable, and in
looking at the size of the lot, 50 feet, I’m wondering how we came up with the variances that we did. If you
take 50, 28 feet, it only leaves you 22 feet, and then if you have a porch or something like that, I would like to
have the benefit of reviewing the original application before we go through on this, to see how we handled
the figures that we had at the time.
MR. ABBATE-Was that changed? Because the permit, building permit was granted for a 28 by 56.
MR. BARRETT-Well, with the tongues on it they call it 60, but it is 56.
MR. HIMES-I mean, the length wouldn’t hurt much. It’s the width, really, we’re dealing with. So we’re okay
on that, I guess.
MS. WALWRATH-The actual width of it is 27. That’s what the cellar is. They get 28 with the eaves, is what
they told us.
MR. HIMES-But then you have a porch, that I guess maybe we didn’t think of or what not at the time, and,
you know, I’m just wondering, for myself.
MR. STONE-Well, I think what’s going to happen, as far as I’m concerned, if you gentlemen want, I think
we will go through the public hearing, and I think we will table it until we get an accurate survey, so that we
know exactly where this foundation is. Otherwise, we cannot.
MR. HIMES-And the entire original application file, maybe.
MR. STONE-Yes, you could certainly review that. Absolutely, but, any other questions? If not, I will open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to
this application? Come forward. Would you vacate the table so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILFRED KLEIN
MR. KLEIN-I’d like to first of all give you some pictures that can be passed along. The pictures that I just
handed you.
MR. ABBATE-State your name, first.
MR. KLEIN-My name is Wilfred Klein. I own the property right next door. The pictures I just handed you,
two sets, one taken September 1. The other set taken yesterday. When I was here, when they originally
st
applied for the setback variance, I stood up at that time, I said it’s a great thing that they’re trying to upgrade
and clean up. However, I was concerned about the access to the back portion of their property, that the
building being 28 feet was fine, but once you started putting brush, bushes next to it, or plantings, you start
losing property line. Also, my other concern, at that time, was the fact that the old trailer was going to be
moved in back and left, and I was told emphatically by everybody that there would not be an old trailer on
the property. As you can see the pictures, that’s September 1 when I took those pictures. That trailer was
st
moved to that location somewhere either the end of July or beginning of August. At that time when they
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
were moving the trailer back I thought they were moving it around to jockey it off the property, and I went
over and said, why don’t you just, since you’re moving it, take it right up the driveway and get it out of here,
and he said, well, it’s only going to be here a week. That was in August. I have been staring at that. That’s a
picture directly off my front porch. I have been looking at that since then. The newer pictures from
yesterday show how much further he’s gotten along to cleaning up. He’s torn down half the trailer and piled
it on the ground. The reason the front yard looks cleaner is because he’s moved all the things that were in the
front yard, some of them in the basement, but many of them into the back yard, including two unregistered
vehicles, which are legal, but they’re no longer out front. They’re now out back. There’s also auto parts
strewn around the back yard, tires, old tires. There’s two old oil drums in the back yard. That all has to be
removed. We’ve had, at the time we had the meeting, the first meeting, I had stated that we’ve had property
line disputes in the past. I had a nylon string up on the property line for three years, and everything was fine.
When they began construction, the nylon string was taken down by accident, because they were so close to
the property line working, the nylon string was broken. At that point, all of a sudden building materials and
vehicles, everything all of a sudden started to creep over onto my property. They’re access was very limited.
I understand that. They asked me if they could bring a crane onto my property, to set the trailer in place. I
said yes. We had an argument. I revoked that, but then I double checked my thinking and said, well, I did
say yes, go ahead. I gave them permission to do that, and I gave them permission to dig across my property
to put their power in underground because it would look better. We continue to have property line
problems. In my notes, my memory is very short here, somewhere around the 29 of October, the reason
th
they gave Dave Hatin for having the trailer, the old trailer where it was was because they were storing stuff in
it. The new trailer was set somewhere, I believe, around the 7, the trailer was set on the foundation the 12
thth
of September, the new trailer. At that point, I didn’t think it was unreasonable for them to begin removal of
the old trailer, since they had now storage for their stuff. I didn’t, at that point I didn’t begin to have a
problem until the 29 of October. Around the 29, they moved in to their new trailer. I was under the
thth
impression that they had two weeks from that point to remove the old trailer from the site. I waited two
weeks. I called Dave Hatin. He informed me that, as soon as they moved in, he’d be after them to move the
trailer. I told him at that point that they moved in two weeks ago. He informed me that they didn’t have a
CO, and that they hadn’t finished all the inspections yet for the trailer. You can understand my frustration in
coming out my front door, every day, and seeing that trailer. I had his contractor arrested for physically
assaulting me. He threw two shovels full of sand at me, because I wouldn’t allow a cement truck on my
property to pour cement. At that point, I had said, I had written Randy a note and said, listen, you can bring
the crane on the property to set the trailers. You can put the power in across my property, but as soon as I
can, there will be a barrier put there. I waited as long as I thought was reasonable to put a fence up. As of
November 15, I put a fence up on my property line. If this had been any other year, there would have been
th
frost in the ground. I couldn’t wait much longer. Now I’ve been told by Dave Hatin that I restricted his
access to his property, at which point I had said, well, if the foundation was put where it was supposed to be,
he would have had the access next to my fence to remove the trailer, because he moved it that much closer.
He can’t move anything out of the north side of that house because there’s a tree in the way. The south side,
this is only access. So, again, the work that you see completed was completed over one weekend,
approximately the weekend of December 1. There had been no work on removal of that trailer up until that
st
point, there has been no work on that trailer since that point. Again, it’s pure frustration, walking out my
house, I built a brand new house seven years ago. I’m trying to clean up my property. I walk out, and
everything that was in his front yard is now in his back yard, and I stare at it. I have to admit that now that I
have a fence up, the demarcation point of what is his mess and what is my property is very stark, and it
actually makes my property look a little bit better because I don’t have to look over at the piles quite as much,
but it is only a four foot chain link fence. My reason in coming here was not necessarily to have you not
grant this setback variance, but merely have him adhere to the original variance, the points where he can, part
of which was removal of the trailer within two weeks after he moved in, and clean up of the debris that’s
there. He has enough legal clutter on his property that he doesn’t need the debris that falls under code
violations sitting there also. We’ve been round and round on other, and we don’t even have to go into this,
but on this point, I feel the pictures say it all. Every day I come out and that’s what I see.
MR. STONE-Let me make a couple of statements. One, we are not an enforcement agency. I mean, you
have, I won’t say valid, you have a complaint, and you have aired it, and we have given you the opportunity to
do that, and you also alluded to something I was going to ask you. If that property looked as good as your
property, would you object to the granting of the side setback variance?
MR. KLEIN-If he would have kept to his original variance, and part of the original variance was to remove
that trailer. If he would have kept to the original variance, I wouldn’t have had an objection.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KLEIN-However, he hasn’t even kept to the original variance. So, now he wants more concessions.
MR. STONE-Okay. We understand.
MR. KLEIN-And as far as, again, as far as you not being an enforcing body, I was told by this Board, when I
was at the last meeting, that, emphatically, that old trailer would be gone, and it’s still there.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-And that is probably what we said. Again, we passed a variance with that condition. It is now
up to the Town to enforce, and I’m not putting anybody on the spot, but we do not go out and enforce. We
don’t have the power of taking people to court or anything like that, and I appreciate your thoughts, and
obviously Staff will be informed of your position. I know you’ve informed them of your position. I
appreciate it.
MR. KLEIN-I’m thinking in terms of that his, the terms of his first variance haven’t been met, so granting a
second variance wouldn’t solve anything, all the problems.
MR. STONE-Okay. We thank you for your thoughts.
MR. KLEIN-Thanks.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I have record of one phone conversation. Occurred on Friday December 14, Denise
th
Cartier, 42 Luzerne Road, corner of Luzerne Road and Newcomb Street, has no objection to the variance
request by Randy Barrett before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, December 19.
th
MR. STONE-I thank you. I think I may leave the public hearing, because I am going to propose, since, you
can come forward again, Mr. Barrett. I’m going to propose that we table this, until such time as we have an
as built survey, because we cannot grant, and certain members of our Board, or all of us, are interested in
exactly what it is we said the last time, because I think Mr. Klein is probably close to being accurate, or at
least as much as I remember. We did make certain stipulations in that variance, in terms of cleaning up the
property, and we may have a difference of agreement whether it’s better than it was, but certainly the new
trailer is an added dimension. Any comment?
MR. BARRETT-Well, the trailer, from tearing it down before, it’s sitting there, it had all our belongings in it,
because we had no CO. We went in there and cleaned up and cleaned up the cellar and put a couple of
benches with cupboards and wood in the cellar and stuff and we were accused of living in there. Hatin even
came in and looked at it, there’s nobody living in here. It had saws and stuff in it. Had a coffee pot running,
of course, because I drink about 20 cups of coffee a day, maybe 40. Until then, we just got it cleaned out the
day before, and I started cutting it apart, and like I said, with time, and he doesn’t like looking at it. I don’t
like looking at those two barns he’s got across the road either, but has anybody ever said anything about
them? And I don’t like, he’s got a 20 by 20 shed out back.
MR. STONE-As I said, we’re not going to get into that. That’s beyond the purview of this Board.
MR. BARRETT-He’s in a Norman Rockwell world. He’s got to face reality. He’s only in Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Do you guys want to talk about it?
MR. ABBATE-No. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate, at this time, talking about it
really is not going to resolve anything. I would suggest that we table this until we receive a valid survey, so
that we all know what we’re talking about, and I suggest that we just table this.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, before you vote on the tabling motion, if you should have one,
our Director of Building and Codes, Mr. Hatin, does have pending enforcement action for the removal of
that trailer. That’s what I was told by Mr. Hatin. The status of it, I don’t know exactly. I know that he has
pending enforcement action.
MR. BARRETT-That was probably the paper I got today. Hatin couldn’t bring it up himself. He had to
have some old man bring it up.
MR. STONE-I’m going to, I’m looking at the variance motion, and I think we need to look at the minutes,
because this does not talk to any conditions we may have put on it. I thought we did.
MR. ABBATE-I thought we did, as well, Mr. Chairman, to be honest with you.
MR. STONE-So I would like to table this motion. I move that we table.
MR. HIMES-Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, could we get the information from the Building Department, but
get a little more detail, perhaps, on what went on with this foundation? Perhaps there’s some liability, how a
mistake was made where, you know, how did this thing go as far as it did, and whether someone might have
just, it might be seen that something was done in spite of advice to the contrary.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I’m going to put at least three things in this motion.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thanks.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-2001 RANDY BARRETT, Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
10 Newcomb Street. For up to 62 days, in order that the applicant has time to furnish an as built survey, so
that we know exactly what relief is being requested. I would also ask that we be provided with the
information about any compliance action which is currently underway, and further a statement from the
building inspector as to how this misconstruction can happen within the Code of Queensbury. We would
like to see a history of this project, from beginning to end.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you ought to explain what you mean by as built survey. Banks don’t do surveys.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a good point. An as built survey is done by a licensed surveyor, one of whom
sits behind you in the audience, not you, you do everything else but, that actually determines what is on the
land, where the property lines are, and the various dimensions and distances, as done by a person, a licensed
surveyor, who will put his name and seal on the survey, and it’s the only way we can find out exactly where
this building is, in relationship to the property lines.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, if I might add one thing here, just terminology, that’s all. I would like to see a
history of this project, from beginning until the end.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Because I don’t understand, quite frankly, what’s going on, to be very honest with you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Reasonable.
MR. HIMES-Contractor records and.
MR. ABBATE-Right, please.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Mr. Barrett, I would suggest that you discuss with Zoning Department exactly what we’re
asking, you’re only being asked for one thing. They’re being asked for two or three things, but we need from
you this as built survey as I described it, which is a drawing, a representation of what’s on the land, relative to
the property lines and all of the accoutrements that define your piece of property, like stakes and all that kind
of stuff. Do you understand that?
MR. BARRETT-Certainly.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let us move on.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, did you state the amount of time you were tabling it for?
MR. STONE-Sixty-two days.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2001 TYPE II DAVID C. MADDEN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A PROPERTY LOCATION: 152 NORTH SUNNYSIDE ROAD
ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,300 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 50-1-72 NEW TAX MAP NO. 290.05-1-33 LOT
SIZE: 0.11 ACRES SECTION 179-16
DAVID MADDEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 100-2001, David C. Madden, Meeting Date: December 19, 2001
“Project Location: 152 North Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
demolition of an existing camp and construction of a 2300 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 7 feet of relief on both sides from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirements 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: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the
preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include a narrower, compliant plan.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 20-foot side setback
requirements may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, considering relief is being requested on both
sides. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as
self-created as there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-373; issued 6/7/01; demolition of garage. Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, a site investigation
revealed the shoreline setback requirement for the applicant’s parcel is 67.5 feet (average of 85 feet for the
parcel to the north and 50 feet for the parcel to the south). Therefore, the applicant will also need 5.5 feet of
relief from the 67.5 feet minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Madden.
MR. MADDEN-Good evening. My name is David Madden.
MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add to your application?
MR. MADDEN-Well, there’s just a couple of things I’d like to point out to it and a couple of things that I’ve
indicated on the application that I might want to change or rephrase. The question, what effect would this
variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? If
you’ve had a chance to look over the documents that I’ve submitted with my application, included in there
was a blueprint of the two pieces of property that I’ve joined together. Also, a site plan of the property. If
you’ll notice on the blueprint, you’ll notice that a house on the south piece of property originally was within
three feet of the property line. That house has been removed as of, I believe, two years ago. The Bay Ridge
Fire Department burned that down for me, and if you check the site plan review that was prepared by Mr.
Hutchins, you’ll notice that the existing house is closer to the side setback than the proposed house. Also, it’s
closer to the lake than the proposed house. So I think that this application, or this project, would enhance
the character of the neighborhood by increasing setbacks from previously existing dwellings. There also
existed, on the northeast corner of the property, right exactly on the north property line, and on the right of
way, an old single car garage that I had demolished last summer. This was, like I say, met no setback
requirements. That has been removed. As to improving, also a health wise, you’ll see from the site plan that
Mr. Hutchins has designed a state of the art engineered wastewater removal system for that piece of property.
What exists there now for the house that remains on the property is just basically a hole in the ground in the
middle of the property down approximately I would say 40 or 50 feet from the lake. So this would greatly
increase the health aspect of that.
MR. STONE-All right. Just for the record, if you did anything to the property, you’d have to bring the septic
system up to code, and we appreciate the fact that it’s a costly process for you, but it would have to be done
no matter, if you did anything.
MR. MADDEN-I think that on the site plan review there you have his proposed wastewater management
system, which he feels is acceptable for that piece of property. It’s, I think it meets all the requirements for
the septic systems in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Well, the Building Department will determine that. We assume it will. Anything else?
MR. MADDEN-Just that the way the house, the proposed structure would be situated on the property far
exceeds any of the side setbacks that exist in that neighborhood. So it would be, like I said before, increasing
the side setback that exists in the house that’s surrounding that piece of property.
MR. STONE-You have combined two lots.
MR. MADDEN-Yes, I have, two individual 40 foot lots that I purchased and combined into one piece of
property.
MR. ABBATE-I have a question, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Madden, it’s a beautiful home. There’s no question about it. A question. Upstairs, there
are two rooms upstairs?
MR. MADDEN-There’s three bedrooms, a living room, bathroom, and a kitchen.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. ABBATE-And above that?
MR. MADDEN-Nothing.
MR. STONE-It’s a one story building.
MR. ABBATE-A one story building.
MR. STONE-It took me a while to realize that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I see that now, because I was going to, my question to you was going to be, if I can find
my notes here, is that I see a room, and I can’t figure out, I see two rooms, and no description of the rooms.
Here it is. I found it. There appears to be two rooms that are not really described.
MR. MADDEN-Could you hold that up so I know what you’re talking about?
MR. ABBATE-Right here.
MR. MADDEN-That’s the walk-out basement.
MR. ABBATE-Walk-out basement. Now, my question to you is this. In this walk-out basement, are there
windows?
MR. MADDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Is there a door?
MR. MADDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I’m curious here. Do we have a floor area ratio with that space?
MR. MADDEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-And it would be with the basement it would be 16?
MR. MADDEN-Yes. With the proposed, or the possible living area in the basement, it meets the criteria for
living space.
MR. ABBATE-That obviously was where I was going with it, because the window and door may constitute
another bedroom.
MR. MADDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MADDEN-Well, yes, it may. Like I say, when Mr. Brown asked me if the cellar could ever be used for a
living space, I said, of course it could. Someone could always put something down there. So I divided the
basement space up into an area with the lines of the building and had part of it used for utility, because
there’s no storage in that building, and there’s no garage on the property. So you need a place to keep your
lawnmowers and your chairs and all that kind of stuff. One area to keep the utility stuff and another area
where you may, at some time, put something in.
MR. STONE-So what is, I don’t see it here. What is the floor area ratio? Did we ever figure it out?
MR. MADDEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-The form is here, but I don’t see the numbers.
MR. MADDEN-There’s a floor area ratio worksheet that’s included in there.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MADDEN-And the proposed area of the construction would be in the large black box down in the
right hand column.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s just under 22. All right. Okay. You’re saying 11,000 times .22 is, all right. Okay.
That answers my question. Let me tell you one of my concerns, and I think it’s a very nice idea, and I think
you’ve got a very nice home here, as somebody said. My concern is your neighbor to the east, in that he’s got
a very similar piece of property. He’s got a very small house on it. He, therefore, has, if we follow the trend,
he has the ability to take that down.
MR. MADDEN-What house would this be?
MR. STONE-To the east.
MR. MADDEN-I have property north and south.
MR. STONE-Well, no, as I look at your drawing, at least this north arrow, as you face the lake to the left,
let’s do it that way.
MR. MADDEN-As I face the lake to the left, that lot is on the south, and that lot is vacant right now.
MR. STONE-But there is a building on it?
MR. MADDEN-No, it’s vacant.
MR. STONE-I thought I saw a little building there.
MR. FRANK-It’s a vacant lot.
MR. STONE-Is it? You mean there’s a third lot in there then? I mean, there’s these two lots and a third lot
before you get to that big tree?
MR. FRANK-Immediately to his south is a vacant lot.
MR. MADDEN-It’s owned by the Dunns.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-This floor area ratio works out to 21%.
MR. STONE-Yes. I see, the road does bend around. I’m looking at the road’s end, it does say north of,
okay, I meant as I looked at, but that’s a vacant lot. Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful.
MR. ABBATE-So it runs north and south, right?
MR. MADDEN-The road runs north and south.
MR. STONE-At that particular point.
MR. MADDEN-The house faces mainly directly west.
MR. STONE-I would have never thought that west, but you’re right. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. URRICO-Did you consider building it within the compliant area, and why wouldn’t you not be able to
do that?
MR. MADDEN-Well, the reason I didn’t do it because, I’m sure that if I wanted to put a 40 foot house on an
80 foot lot you could do it, but it wouldn’t be a house that would be feasible to my use. I have, my family
would require three bedrooms and two bathrooms and this is what I need to do, and, you know, as I said
before, the proposed location of the house now greatly exceeds the pre-existing setbacks, and also exceeds
any setbacks of any other houses in the neighborhood. I included in your packet some photographs of some
of the houses in the neighborhood and how much the setbacks were of them, and some of the houses are
built right on the property lines, with no setbacks at all.
MR. STONE-We are well aware of that. We’ve seen a number of them, and you are to be commended for
buying two lots and minimizing the setback requirement.
MR. MADDEN-Well, if I read the Code correctly, I could put a house on a 40 foot lot with, I believe, 12
foot setbacks under those circumstances.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. MADDEN-Which would end up with a 16 foot house, which wouldn’t be that usable.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-It’s all railroad flat, as they used to call them in the old days. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-You did mention, Mr. Chairman, I thought, that, and we may want to include this in any
decision we make, that the septic system must meet required codes, etc., etc.
MR. STONE-That’s a given.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a given. Okay.
MR. STONE-Anytime you modify a structure, and it’s on a septic system, it must be brought up to code.
Am I correct in that statement?
MR. FRANK-I believe so.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. STONE-If I don’t hear anymore questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in
favor of the application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARTIN SEELYE
MR. SEELYE-Martin Seelye, 148 Sunnyside North. As you may remember, we were in front of this Board
last summer, early last summer. In as much as our camp is on the south side, the property on our south side
is the property on his north side, in as much as we are less than two feet from our property line, and his north
side neighbor, which is our south side neighbor, is also less than two feet from the property line, I think I
speak for the families. It’s a family camp. We have no problem with his side setback variance. In as much as
you were so kind as to grant us some six and a half feet of relief from the shore side, so that we could put on
a deck, enclosed porch that we could use, I have no problem with his lakeside relief and setback from the
lake, especially because it actually places his new home back further from the lake than the existing, to be
kind, call it a camp. So the new camp, the old camp will be gone and new house will be there. I don’t see any
problem whatsoever, would be very much in favor of it. As a point of reference, that said, and I don’t know
if this Board can do anything. I don’t know if it can be, because I’ve never checked into it, but I was working
on the construction of our new deck and enclosed porch this past summer when a professional tree crew
showed up and for unknown reason to me cut down some unbelievably beautiful shade trees on that
property. I have no idea how close the Ordinance says trees can be cut to the lake, but it was done closer
than you would ever allow any building to be placed next to any lake. A couple of great big beautiful pine,
and one 20 to 25, 26 inch soft maple were removed, among other trees. I just didn’t understand, and that’s
one of the reasons I’m here tonight was to see if a variance was going to be sought to build a house that close
to the lake, in as much as those trees were removed. I couldn’t understand why those trees would be
removed, and that’s about all I have to say. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. Mr. Seelye, let me just say to you, I don’t understand it
either, but there is, you can cut down individual trees right next to the lake, if you want a view, and there is,
certainly looking where I live on the lake, there are big differences of opinion. Some people want totally
unobscured views. Come back up, Mr. Madden. Any other questions before we talk about it? Hearing none,
I’ll start with Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, a couple of comments first. As happens a lot of time, this applicant has
offered partly in defense of his variance the fact that there are other homes closer to the lot line, and my
comment on that is, yes, but the zoning was set up, and to me, the zoning calls for a gradual improving of the
situation, and I think a bad situation that exists does not necessarily justify continuing a bad situation. I can
understand the benefit to the applicant, certainly being able to build a home of the type that he wants, in the
location that he wants, but I think I’m going to be opposed because it strikes me that with new construction,
here’s an opportunity to build in compliance. If the current lots are not sufficient for the size family someone
has, then perhaps they need to find another piece of property, but I can see, I don’t see that the benefit to the
applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood and the community, allowing new construction to
violate the setbacks, so I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m a little bit, I don’t know, I think it’s good that you’ve combined the two lots
together to try and gain a sense of what a lot size should be. It’s hard to quantify that over on Sunnyside
where the lots are so tiny and the setbacks can’t be met on most of those lots, but I think you are building
quite a large structure on there, and those, you know, at the same time I’m looking at the size of the house
and it’s about 1300 square feet on one floor, which isn’t a whole lot, either. It’s not a huge place, which I
think that we have to think about that a little bit, but I think I’ll wait and hear what everybody else has to say.
I’m kind of sitting on the fence on it. It’s awful hard to build a place that’s going to be reasonable in size to
allow you to do what you want to do inside your home, you know, on lots that are only 50 feet wide, or, you
know, even smaller in a lot of cases over on the lake there, but I’m interested in Mr. Seelye’s comments, also,
regarding the vegetation. Did you have the trees taken down?
MR. MADDEN-Yes, I did.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Were they in front of the property, on the lakefront?
MR. MADDEN-A couple of them were.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Because one of the things I would consider is that, you know, as a waterfront
property owner, it’s imperative that you have some kind of vegetation down there, and that doesn’t mean,
you know, a golf green going down to the lake or anything like that. I know the people that live over on
Sunnyside went to a lot of trouble to deal with the milfoil problem, and the milfoil is a reflection of nutrient
loading in that lake over there, and I think that’s something that you should consider also, that maybe you
would want to plant a few trees out front. I assume you’re going to landscape it if you do get the variance, it’s
granted.
MR. MADDEN-That can be addressed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’m going to wait and listen.
MR. MADDEN-The reason those two trees by the lake were taken down, they were taken down under the
recommendation of the tree service.
MR. STONE-It was pointed out to me by Staff that I may have misspoken, and again, we’re going to have to
look into 179-60 under “B”, which talks about within 35 feet extending inland from all points along the mean
high water mark no vegetation may be removed. So I may have misspoken.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, also, you are allowed to cut a strip, a buffer strip, of that vegetation for access
to the water, but it’s not more than 20%. If there was just a couple of trees left, I don’t think that would have
been allowed, unless they were diseased, dead, a danger. I don’t believe that anybody ever reported any trees
being cut down, not to my knowledge.
MR. STONE-I’ll say this for the record, it is fairly extensive, and I was in error, but fairly extensive rules and
regulations, that dead trees, diseased trees, trees that are determined to present safety or health hazards can be
taken down, but I think as Bruce points out, the Town has to be notified of that. They don’t? Well, how else
are they going to know you’re going to take it down, Mr. O’Connor?
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-You don’t have to tell them.
MR. STONE-So you don’t have to tell them, all right, but you’re supposed to not take them down, but
anyway, let’s go on. You’re on.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. I think that it’s a nice undertaking. Something that we haven’t talked about
that did come up in the part of the Staff notes is also the waterfront setback, 5.5 feet is a matter that, I’m
wondering, since you’re so close to the floor area ratio, there’s not much you can do, I suppose, to raise the
height of the thing to cut down on the setback needs, and I don’t know how much you might be able to
move it back. There’s some space between what I think I see on your plan, being your septic system and
your property line. I don’t know how close the property line is to the road. It’s probably right on it. They’re
probably almost one in the same, but I’d like to see some effort made to say do away with the lakefront
setback that’s needed. The other side things, I think that everyone feels that it’s not that bad, and certainly
when compared to when you drive along that Sunnyside North, and you can’t even see the lake, in parts of
the area structures are so close together. So I don’t want to make a bad thing worse, but on the other hand,
so I think I would tend to, I’d like to see something done by the applicant, in terms of seeing if he can move
it back even a little further from the water and in that case I would be supportive, as submitted, I think that I
find some fault with it. I might not go for it.
MR. MADDEN-Could I respond to that, at this time?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. MADDEN-I think that what the Code says is that the house has to sit on an average between the two
adjoining houses on either side, the average of their setbacks.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. MADDEN-And on one side I have no house, on a vacant lot, which means that it becomes 50 feet or
the required setback. On the other side, we have a house that’s built extremely close to the road and much
further away from the lake than most other structures on the lake in that area. As a matter of fact, the next
house up to it, I believe, is approximately 35 feet closer to the lake than the one next to me. So I don’t know
if that’s a true indication of what the distances of the houses are from the lake to the houses. I don’t know if
you’re just taking the one next to me or taking an average of a couple that are on the north side of me
because the rest of them are much closer to the lake than the one next to me.
MR. STONE-Well, the Ordinance is very specific. It’s the average of the two on either side, and the Code
Enforcement Officer has determined, as you said, that one is at 50, even though it’s not there, that is the
requirement, and the other one is at 85, and that’s where the 67 and a half comes from. So, I mean, it’s
something that we have to consider. You may think, we certainly value your thoughts, but we have to grant
that relief, if you want to place the house where you want to place it.
MR. MADDEN-And this is also, the 5.5 feet, or whatever you say that’s too close to the lake, might be
something that when Mr. Hutchins looks over the wastewater management plan again, he might be able to
move the house another five feet closer to the road, but as I understand now, the house has to be 10 feet
from the drywell and then the leach field has to be 20 feet from the house, and then that has to be 10 feet
from the road. So it’s pretty tight right in there.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what you’re asking, for that relief, that’s what we’re talking about. Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Madden, you have submitted some very detailed information here,
and I appreciate that, and it looks like a beautiful project. My question to you doesn’t necessarily have any
bearing on how I’m either going to vote or not vote for your supporting application. Trees, you cut down
those two trees, and from what the Chairman has indicated to me, that there are some extensive rules and
regulations dealing with cutting down trees. Were you aware of those rules and regulations?
MR. MADDEN-I wasn’t aware of them, and I guess neither was the person that did my tree cutting for me
either.
MR. ABBATE-See, once a question is raised, then it moves on to credibility, and when it moves on to
credibility, I get a little hyper. The project is a great project, and it will certainly add to the area. Your
motivation, you purchased two lots. I don’t have a problem with that. I think that shows acting in good
faith. I’m going to hold off, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to wait and see what the other Board members have to
say.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s three holding off.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to take a stab at the five criteria. The benefit to the applicant, you would be
permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. That’s obvious that that would be a
benefit to you. Feasible alternatives might include a narrower, compliant plan, or one that’s further back
from the lake. Whether this relief is relative to the Ordinance. Seven feet of relief from twenty feet, and the
5.5 feet of relief from the lake setback might be considered moderate. Staff calls it moderate to substantial. I
don’t consider it substantial, but I light of what we’re trying to do there, in terms of the Town Code, it can be
considered substantial or moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or the community, we heard one of your
neighbors speak out in favor of it. I have no doubt that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood,
and then, is this difficulty self created? Yes, I think it’s self created, but I think you’ve also created a positive
situation out of two lots that were noncompliant, and I think what I’d like to see is either you comply to the
side setback or comply to the lake setback, one of the two, but not, I would not be in favor of granting relief
on both of them. So if you can move the house back the five and a half feet, I would be in favor of the seven
feet of relief from the side setback.
MR. MADDEN-Well, I think maybe the five and a half feet could be addressed through the reduction in the
size of the deck. The actual footprint of the house is more than the distance that you’re requiring. I think
there’s an eight foot or a six foot deck on the lake side of that house that might be altered to meet your
requirements.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Are you saying you would take off five and a half feet of the deck?
MR. MADDEN-I’m saying I’ll do whatever I have to do.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MADDEN-My other alternative is to talk to the engineer again about the wastewater management
system and find out if he can move the house five and a half feet further from the lake.
MR. URRICO-If you can satisfy that, I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Madden, lakes are of particular interest in the Town of Queensbury, lakes and
rivers. I never forget the Hudson River, but sometimes we forget that that’s also covered by our waterfront
zoning. We’re a very fortunate Town in that we have three inhabited lake areas, and I think we have been
fairly diligent. Sometimes we have not been as diligent as I would like us to be, personally, but I think we
have been very diligent in trying to protect our waterfront property. As I said earlier, you’re to be
commended for putting the two lots together, but nevertheless they are two, still two substandard lots, and
the fact that you are taking down a building which is nonconforming, now we get into, obviously, a
conforming situation. Very often, we have said as a Board, we’ll allow one piece of variance, we’ll allow two
pieces of variance, but I think as Mr. Urrico said, three starts to get to a point where we don’t like to go that
far. I certainly would be willing to agree to the side setbacks, because I think you have made a much more
desirable lot there. I do wish, however, that you could find a way, and I would ask you to find a way, to get it
back of the 67 and a half feet the Code calls for. I don’t know what that does to the other undecideds that
we have in the thing, but I would put myself probably in the no category if you insisted on all three. If you
can find some way to take one of those out, then I could go along with the two side setbacks.
MR. MADDEN-I can do that.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you would stipulate that the front of the house, the deck would be 67 and a half feet
from the lake?
MR. MADDEN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now let me just go back over the people. Does that help?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m convinced. I re-thought what I said, Mr. Madden. I’m convinced that you acted in
good faith. There’s no question in my mind, and you show further good faith by your willingness to
compromise with the stipulation that you’re willing to reduce your deck five and a half feet, 67 and a half feet
from the lake, and based upon that, you have my support, sir.
MR. STONE-Okay. How about the other gentlemen? Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Would you still consider adding some trees out front?
MR. MADDEN-Certainly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That would be a, and I would assume if you looked across the lake you’re going to see
that the lake is surrounded by beautiful white pines. So white pines might be something like.
MR. MADDEN-I always planned to do landscaping there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think a lot of people, when they plan to do landscaping, that usually
involves a bunch of shrubs and things like that, but trees really do take up the nutrients that are trying to
work their way into the lake, and I think that, you know, if you added say seven white pine trees down the
front, maybe a couple of birch trees. That’s not a whole lot. It’s going to be a long time before they grow up.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm, does that help you?
MR. HIMES-I was agreed to that in the beginning, yes. I’m for it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I would call for a motion to approve this with two conditions. One, the
recognition that the applicant will reduce the need for a variance for the front setback, and that a planting
plan, including trees, I’m not putting the language in because, Jim, you’re going to do it., but that’s the other
stipulation, I think. So why don’t you try to do a motion with those.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2001 DAVID C. MADDEN, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
152 North Sunnyside Road. I move that we approve this for the following reasons. The benefit to the
applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. He
requests seven feet of relief on both sides from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirements of the
WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Although feasible alternatives are available with a smaller house being built on
this plot plan, the combination of the two lots being joined together gives some relief from that aspect, I
think. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Seven feet of relief from the twenty foot side
setback requirements may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, considering the relief that’s being
requested on both sides, but if you compare that to the rest of the neighborhood, it’s still quite a bit less than
what is normally requested on Sunnyside. Effects on the neighborhood, the effect of building this new home
will be probably a positive one on the neighborhood, as opposed to a negative one. As far as the difficulty, it
is self-created, but it is also created by the fact that he would have to meet the setbacks from the water based
upon the average of the two houses on both sides of him, so I think that’s 67 and a half feet is what we’re
going to require on that one. So you’re going to have to work that out with your decks or by rearranging the
septic system behind. The second thing that we would add is that we would expect that the trees that were
cut down on the waterfront were cut down in violation of what the Town Code requires. You’re not allowed
to cut within 35 feet of the water, and so, prior to the issuance of a CO for the new home, an inspection will
be done to see whether or not seven white pine trees have been planted, in any arrangement you require, and
two white birch trees down there. Any other vegetation you do can be up to you, but you will include those
as part of it.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-An inspection will be done to see whether or not seven white pine trees have been
planted, in any arrangement you require, and two white birch trees down there. Any other vegetation you do
can be up to you, but you will include those as part of it.
MR. STONE-Is that something you’re willing to do?
MR. MADDEN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MADDEN-Now, are you stipulating, by white pine, what do you mean?
MR. UNDERWOOD-White Pine, Pinus Strobus, that’s those big things that grow all around the pond there,
you’ll see them. You can ask an arborist or you can dig them yourself, but they grow very fast, and they’re
the natural vegetation that used to be on that lake.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go. Thank you for your cooperation.
MR. MADDEN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 69A-2001 TYPE II FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND MIKE
GARGIULO AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: FIVE OAKS
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONE: WR-1A PROPERTY LOCATION: LOT 12 GUNN LANE
HOUSE NO. 24 GUNN LANE CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF
EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,104 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-22 NEW
TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-20 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
JON LAPPER & MICHAEL GARGIULO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-For the edification of the Board, you will remember that we denied this application the first
time. We then agreed that the changes made were sufficient to allow us to reconsider with no commitment
on our part to approve.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69A-2001, Five Oaks Development, LLC and Mike Gargiulo, Meeting
Date: December 13, 2001 “Project Location: Lot 12 Gunn Lane Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes removal of existing camp and construction of a 3104 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 3 and 4 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirements of
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
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 configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a narrower,
compliant plan. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 3 and 4 feet of relief from the 20-
foot side setback requirements may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as
there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): AV 69-2001: denied 9/26/01; same application as current application, but requesting
4 and 5 feet of side setback relief. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a
result of this action. While this proposal calls for a home to be constructed with a 60-foot shoreline setback,
the existing home is some 140 feet from the shore. Last year, the adjoining property to the North applied for
and received an Area Variance; (81-2000, Domers Golden Properties, res. 9/20/2000) for side yard setback
relief on both sides of the home. Staff understands that the applicant has interest in both properties, as Mr.
Gargiulo was the applicant for Domers Golden. Consideration should be given to the potential outcome of
this variance when coupled the variance granted last year to the adjoining property. Domers Golden was
granted a 13 foot 6 inch side setback on both sides of the home. The current Five Oaks proposal calls for a
16-foot side setback on the Domers Golden side. Approval of this variance would, effectively, alter the
required minimum building separation distance of 40 and allow a 29.5-foot separation and allow a new home
to be constructed 80 feet closer to Lake George than currently exists. It does not appear as though a strict
application of the requirements would limit the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Mike Gargiulo. I know that you’ve heard a
very similar application twice, and so there’s not too much that we want to add, but when we made this
change and had the plans redrawn so that it would be four feet and three feet of relief instead of four feet and
five feet of relief, percentage wise it’s a substantial change and we’re certainly trying to ask for the minimum
relief necessary. I know that this Board is always very sensitive to the distance from the lake, and that’s why
when Mike came in with a house design and said this is what he thinks would be appropriate for the lot, it
was mostly because of the topography that this is sunk into the property, which helps in terms of the mass of
the house in the neighborhood. I knew that we would have to give something up, if you will, in order to
justify the relief, and Mike was agreeable to moving the house 10 feet back from the 50 foot setback. He’s
pointed out to me that really the 10 feet back is to the deck, and the foundation of the house is really 20 feet
back from the shoreline, beyond the 50 feet. So it’s really 70 feet back to the house. When you look from
the lake, you’re going to see 60 feet, and that’s still 10 feet, which is more than most people would do, but the
house itself is even farther back, for what that’s worth. I’m pleased to see that the Staff comments have
changed. Last time it was moderate to substantial, and now it’s minimal to moderate, and that was, of course,
what we were attempting to achieve, but the last comment, the Staff notes talk about comparing this to the
existing building, rather than, as we think is appropriate, comparing it to what the zoning would allow, to go
to 50 feet, and I know that you all would have seen the property at least once, and probably more than once,
and Mike has a digital photo of the existing structure, just in terms of, sometimes you talk about whether
something really needs to be taken down and replaced, because everybody wants to replace everything on the
lake, but this is certainly something that’s a real camp, and not something that anybody these days would want
to live in. Beyond that, you can see from the photo that this is so close to the road, the 80 feet back, it’s not
realistic to think that anybody would do anything with this location. When you buy a lakefront lot, this isn’t
the reason why you buy it. So we hope that you see that that is something that Mike has given up as a way to
justify the setback relief, and that the seven feet of relief total, out of 40 feet required, is, hopefully, minimal,
and most importantly both of his neighbors support this, but for the sake of the public, in terms of the
benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, most of the neighborhood would be the
people behind them that are looking at this now and their view will improve by having it set closer to the lake,
they’ll be able to see more of the lake, and most of the public would see it from a boat, and from a boat,
moving it back the 10 feet, I would argue, is better than if it were closer to the lake. It would be less intrusive.
Most importantly, the last time, and I know the Chairman wasn’t here, but I think most of you, including the
alternates, were here, if I recall, Mr. Faulkner, the adjacent land owner, came and gave an impassioned speech
at that time that he would be much more impacted if the building were moved 10 feet closer, because, of
course his home is not conforming, and he’s very close to the lake, and he would be looking right at this, it
would block a substantial view if the house were built 10 feet closer to the lake. So he was very appreciative.
It’s my understanding, although I haven’t seen it, that he sent a letter in this time, because they couldn’t be
here, again asking the Board to approve it because it helps them as the adjacent landowners. In terms of the
other Staff comment about, that there would be 30 feet between this and the house next door, Mike has gone
and measured between the houses, just in the general area, to show that what we’re proposing is still, not that
it complies, but that we are asking for seven feet total relief, but that it is more than what many of the homes
right there on Gunn Lane, on Cleverdale have, so that it’s certainly, it’s more and it therefore doesn’t hurt
what’s there. Of course you’re looking at zoning and what’s required, but it’s not only typical of what’s
existing, but it’s better than what’s existing in certain cases.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. GARGIULO-Michael Gargiulo. I prepared these four pictures of the houses that are existing on Gunn
Lane, and I’ve got a copy of the survey map I’ll bring up to you, tax map, and what I did is I put down the
name of the two adjacent property owners, we went and measured off the distance that exists now between
the houses to kind of address Staff’s comment of there being, effectively, a 29 and a half foot separation
between the proposed Five Oaks house and the existing Nonni home on Gunn Lane.
MR. LAPPER-And finally, while you’re looking at that, I’d just like Mike to show you how we had the house
designed to be sensitive to the lot, to minimize the visual impact.
MR. GARGIULO-When we went and designed the lot, we took advantage of the fact that at about 70 feet
from the lake, the lot tapers off and drops down substantially. I’m just finishing building the house on 22
Gunn Lane, and, you know, being in strict compliance with the 28 foot height would still look too big, to me,
and I wanted to make this one look a little smaller. I think that’s best illustrated by looking at the roadside
elevation whether, rather than seeing a massive 28 foot high structure, the whole way across the property,
we’ve buried it down, so that from the roadside, if you will, the people can see it actually from Cleverdale
Road as well as from Gunn Lane. They’re only looking at a one story house. The only thing that’s even close
to 28 feet is the cupola that sits up at the very top of the house, and that whole structure is only eight by
eight, I think, and the rest of house, we went with a full hip roof that kind of brings the whole entire height of
it down, rather than running a gable line the whole way across the top of the property. Moving back on to
the front page, what Jon was referring to in the beginning, the actual house will set 70 feet from the lake, if
we’re granted our application. The deck actually comes out 10 feet, and so all it’s really going to be
obstructing is the four posts that are supporting the deck. Thanks.
MR. STONE-Just a question, only because of the last application, where are the adjacent homes? Is the 50
foot still the applicable rule? Faulkner’s very close to the lake.
MR. GARGIULO-The Nonni home, 22 Gunn Lane, is 50 feet, 51 feet off of the lake, and Faulkner’s are
about 18 feet.
MR. STONE-So it’s the 50 foot that applies. Okay, and just so that, I don’t want anybody in the room to be
confused, the deck is what counts.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-We’ve had people take decks back, not just tonight, an as built deck. So I don’t want anybody
to think that it’s just a deck.
MR. LAPPER-I’m only pointing it out because the mass of the house is a little farther back, but absolutely
the rule.
MR. STONE-I understand. I appreciate that. Are you done, gentlemen?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Any questions of the Board?
MR. ABBATE-As I recall last time we had a lot of conversation concerning this, I mean really a lengthy
conversation, and I believe that the applicant and his attorney agreed to make some concessions, and the
concessions were three and four feet of relief rather than the initial four and five feet of setback relief, if I’m
not mistaken, and again, we’re talking about standards of fairness. We’re talking about individuals willing to
cooperate, willing to concede certain dreams, if you will, and it would appear that, based upon the recent
request for Area Variance, that it falls well within the discussion that we had at our last meeting. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else, comments, questions? My only concern, and I’ll raise it because I wrote it down
when I looked at the property again today, are we creating another Rockhurst? My answer is probably no,
but anytime you start to come in, I mean, if we assume that the 20 feet is a reasoned number, and since it’s
the number that we have to live with, it’s a reasoned number, should we go less? I mean, we’ll leave it at that
for the moment, but that was my concern. I was also concerned that the rear house has to go, and is going,
and I knew that when I wrote it down, but I wanted to.
MR. LAPPER-We can stipulate to that as a condition.
MR. STONE-Yes, well, I think it says proposes removal of existing camp.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Any other comments before I open the public hearing? Well, let me open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I believe there’s three pieces of correspondence. One is a quick note from Merle N.
Fogg, Jr., he gives his home as Ballston Lake, and I don’t see an indication of exactly where he is on the lake
here. Anyway, his note says, “The setback requirements are a valid shorefront preservation action. Why
should this be waived or abrogated? Is it a public benefit? If not, maintain the status quo!” And we have a
letter from Roland and Rosemary Faulkner, “Please be advised that my wife Rosemary and I are the owners
of the property immediately abutting the subject premises on the south side. Please be further advised that
we favor the granting of the variance requested. We understand that the side-line setback requested will be
16 or 17 feet from the property line. We further understand that the proposed front setback is 50 feet. We
spoke in favor of the request as it was previously presented to the Board. Both my wife and I stated our
reasons quite firmly, especially noting that the siting would most favorably preserve our view of the Lake and
not infringe on our privacy. There was no opposition voiced to the application, yet the Board rejected the
application. We fervently hope that will not be the case tonight! In order to attend the last presentation of
this application, we drove from our home in Glenville and did not return home until well after midnight. Not
wishing to do so again, we ask the Board to accept this letter as if we were present tonight to state our views
in person. Respectfully, Roland and Rosemary Faulkner” And we have a letter from Robert G. Nonni, he
says “I am the owner of a new house at 22 Gunn Lane in Cleverdale, NY tax map #227.17-1-21. I purchased
this property from Domers Golden Properties, LLC in September of this year. I know that Michael
Gargiulo, the President of Domer’s, owns the lot to the south of my property, and is seeking approval to
build a new home on that property. I understand that the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury will
hear Mr. Gargiulo’s request at a meeting tomorrow evening, December 19. I am unable to attend the
th
meeting, but I would like to offer comments for inclusion in the file. Michael indicates that his is willing to
build the proposed house on a 60 foot setback from the shoreline, rather than the minimum of 50 feet, if the
Zoning Board approves the sideline setback relief of 3 and 4 feet from the required 20 foot minimum. I
believe that this would be a positive trade for the neighborhood, because with the greater setback from the
lake, the new building will less encumber views from my property and the property to the south. Please do
not hesitate to contact me to discuss this matter. I am reachable at 908-534-6039, both daytime and evening.
I will contact you by telephone later in the week to learn what action was taken by the Zoning Board. Thank
you, Robert G. Nonni” That’s it.
MR. STONE-That’s it. Just a quick question. He obviously is the house to the north, this last letter?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Who was the first gentlemen, do you know?
MR. GARGIULO-I believe, because he wrote last year also. When you first turn onto Gunn Lane, the
trailer, that’s right off to the right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. GARGIULO-I believe, because you have the tax map that I provided to you. It has a bunch of the
names on it, and Fogg wasn’t on the, this one here I just gave you. I don’t see Fogg on any of the ones that
we gave you tonight. So I’m pretty sure that’s who it is.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-It looks like maybe he’s 6 Gunn Lane. He’s listed twice on the notification sheet
MR. GARGIULO-Yes, okay, then that’s who it is.
MR. MC NULTY-First as six, and then there’s another one that doesn’t give a number.
MR. GARGIULO-Right, because he owns that little strip of land that runs, he owns a dock on the lake, so he
owns that little strip of land, right next to Hans’ property.
MR. STONE-Okay, but he was one of the ones that was notified. I mean, okay. Thank you. Okay. I’ll
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other comments, questions by the Board? Well, hearing none, let’s start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we have to look at this somewhat in relation to what you propose for the
Domer’s, you know, on Domer’s it was quite a bit of relief that you requested, and this one’s substantially
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
lowered down, with three and four feet on the two sides. I think also the fact that it’s going to be that far
back from the lake setback is a plus, and I think you’re also going to keep at peace who live next door there
and not block their view as they requested. I think those are all important things to consider. So I wouldn’t
have any problem with this at all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel favorably towards the application, and the structure may seem large and
yet still okay from the floor area ratio calculations, we seem to be negatively impacted, thinking back to the
other large place which we also approved not long ago, but in any event, we really shouldn’t be holding,
putting the squeeze on this particular application because of a neighboring circumstance, I don’t believe, so I
think the setbacks, and in view of the neighbors feeling the way they do, and the fact they’re so far from the
lake, comparatively speaking, that I’d be in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I would agree, too, that this proposal, in my opinion, would be a
positive impact on the area. We have discussed at our last meeting, last time we discussed this issue, in detail.
The applicant has come back and has been willing to compromise, to three and four feet of relief from the 20
foot minimum side. The home is certainly a lovely home and will add considerably to the area I do believe,
and in view of that, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with everything that’s been said up to now. The willingness to compromise, the
upgrade in the neighborhood I think it would be a positive addition. I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess I’m feeling negative tonight. A couple of things bother me. One is, it strikes
me that one set of relief is a variance. When we get to the second set of relief, especially for basically the
same owner on the next lot over, I think we’re starting to infringe a little bit and getting away from variance
and getting to zone changes. The zoning was set up for a purpose. Once in a while we can make an
exception when there’s justification, but I think in this case where it’s new construction, I can see no good
reason not to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-As many of you know, I’m particularly tough on lake properties, and with the concern that I
had earlier about creating another Rockhurst, I guess, on reflection, I don’t think this is. I think there’s plenty
of room. I have seen homes in other places that are five feet apart from each other and not even five feet off
the line, and I think it’s a reasonable compromise. I would argue that maybe you could take it from one side
rather than the other, and certainly take it, you know, make it wider next to the existing home, but I think it’s
a reasonable compromise. When you split a seven foot request in three and four foot increments, I think it’s
reasonable. I think, certainly, the benefit to the applicant is very clear. I think this will be an improvement.
If we look at detriment to the neighborhood, this is certainly going to be an improvement to the
neighborhood. Is it going to be as good an improvement as it could be? No, but that’s why we’re here.
That’s why we sit. I think the fact that the applicant is willing to put the house 60 feet from the lake when
this is not necessary, visa vie any other Code requirements, I think is commendable, and on balance I think it
works out that this is a reasonable application, and having said that, I would call for a motion. One thing,
before we do, I’m looking at your numbers here, on your floor area ratio, don’t make a mistake. You’re very
close. You’re 18 feet, 18 square feet, from 22%, if your numbers are correct. That’s a caution.
MR. GARGIULO-I won’t make any mistakes.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Roy.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO 69A-2001 FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT,
LLC. – MICHAEL GARGIULO, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles Abbate:
Lot 12 Gunn Lane, House No. 24 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. The applicant proposes a removal of an existing
camp and the construction of a 3,104 square foot single family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant
requests three and four feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A
zone, 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home
in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives may include a narrower compliant plan, but the notation
should be made that the applicant has made an effort to comply with the Town Code on this. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? Three and four feet of relief from the twenty foot side setback
requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community,
minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and the letters
to the Staff reflect that as well. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created,
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
as there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction, but again, the applicant has made
an effort to compromise with the Zoning Board here, and has constructed the home further back from the
lakeside setback than is required, as a result, through compromise.
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much.
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
(Robert McNally showed up for last agenda item only)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
OWNER: AGENT: PROPERTY LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE ROAD IN BURNT RIDGE
SUBD. ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 5 DUPLEX
DWELLINGS. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEXES ON
LOTS LESS THAN TWO ACRES. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 11-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 121-10-
999 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.08-1-21 LOT SIZE: 11.33 ACRES SECTION 179-19
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 98-2001, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: December 19, 2001
“Project Location: Smoke Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction
of 5 duplex dwellings on 5 lots totaling 6.196 acres. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the
density requirements (duplexes require one acre of land per dwelling unit) of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired project. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include constructing single-family dwellings, or a request for a zoning district
change. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Construction of five duplexes on five lots
totaling 6.196 acres may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action
considering the Burnt Ridge Subdivision is primarily composed of duplexes. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 11-2001: resolved 9/25/01; subdivide an 11.33-acre parcel into 6 lots (5
lots totaling 6.196-acres for residential construction). AV 74-2001; withdrawn 9/19/01; proposed 6-lot
subdivision. Subdivision 7-85: resolved 4/28/86; create 19-lot subdivision. Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The existing duplexes in the Burnt Ridge
Subdivision were built back when the zoning was SR-20, which allowed for 15,000 sq. ft. of land per dwelling
unit. The current application is requesting for 26,992 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. However, with the
current zoning, which requires 1-acre of land per dwelling unit, a request for a zoning district change might
be considered rather than a request to close to double the allowable density. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-Gentlemen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor, for the purpose of your
record, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent John Cifone of Cifone Construction Company.
With me at the table is also John Cifone who’s the principal of Cifone Construction Company, and Matt
Steves, who is from Van Dusen and Steves, who are the surveyors for the project. Basically what we’ve got is
Phase II of a 1985 duplex subdivision, and I’ll try to explain it to you in that manner. If you take a look at the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was done in 1985, this was recognized. This was in Neighborhood 12,
and it says that the property on the south side of Sherman Avenue are single family and duplex housing,
Niagara Mohawk substation associated power lines. There have been difficulties associated with trying to
utilize parcels which are split-zoned. This parcel was partially split-zoned, although we’ve kind of taken care
of that issue by not including the split-zone or this back piece in this application. This is Light Industrial and
it will not be part of the residential subdivision, but if you take a look at the fact that this piece, back to the
power line, was all part of one parcel, because we had zoning prior to 1990, in 1988, with one density, and
now we have another density, you’ve actually created a split zone in one parcel, for argument purposes. The
Comprehensive Land Use Plan says, the issue, on Issues, and it’s on Page 3108, there has been no impact on
areas that are already developed, and that’s when they talk about the change of the, in 1998 both areas were
rezoned to one acre densities, but means that undeveloped land in the same vicinity is required to provide
densities that are not in character with the surrounding development and not economically feasible. So the
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
Master Plan of the Town itself recognized that there’s an inequity in the pockets that are created, that were
within parcels that were partially developed under the prior zoning by imposing a new zoning restriction on
them. The recommendation of the Master Plan was to consider existing zoning choices, the suburban
residential 20 would be more appropriate than the one acre designation. I’m not 100% sure if this is the final
version of the Master Plan or not, but it’s one of the copies that I got when they were putting it out. I don’t
think they changed it substantially different. We’ve talked to a couple of realtors. I tried to get a letter, just in
the last day, tried to get a letter this afternoon to come in, and I don’t have a letter to give you but I can tell
you in good faith that the property that we have here is not salable as a single family residential
neighborhood. The character of this neighborhood has already been established by the pre-existing
condition. I think that’s the first test that you look at when you look at your zoning variance, will an
undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.
All of the properties, and this I gave you just to give you an idea, and this is an old tax map that I had, I’m
sure that some of these other parcels have filled in. I’ll call your attention, the lots that are shown on here are
all much smaller than those lots that we actually (lost words). This is Burnt Ridge, or this is the front part of
this development. All these properties here are duplexes. They’re on 30,000, 31,000 square foot lots, 30,537,
30,374, 30,632, 30,750, 30,750, 32,408. That’s immediately across the street from what we’re talking about.
They’re already set up as duplexes, and I don’t think there’s any way that you can establish anything but a
duplex neighborhood character, if you will. We can’t, if you go back to this map, come in from another area,
where we create our own little road, our own little loop, where we have our own little pocket and say, okay,
this portion, even though it wasn’t developed in 1985, is going to be single family. If you’re talking about
building something that is usable, that’s salable, you’re talking about building duplexes. Each of the lots that
we propose are much larger than the lots that are across the street, and all the lots across the street have
duplexes on them. This one is 1.59, 1.24, 1.08, 1.13, 1.15. The smallest lot is 46,000 square feet. If you went
back to the zoning before 1985, you actually have a tri-plex on there, 15,000 square feet per unit, and what we
are asking this time for is a variance so that we can do duplexes. I did one of these applications once before,
for Lake Sunnyside Estates, when the zoning change first came into place in 1988, and we had a bunch of the
lots in the middle cul de sac that by configuration were already established, but weren’t in compliance with
the new one acre zoning over there, and I say that because I know that I’m asking about new construction,
and I’m asking about a blanket variance for five lots so that we can do five duplexes in there, but I don’t
think we’re going to change the character of the neighborhood. I think it’s already established. I don’t think
it’s going to be detrimental to the neighborhood. This is going to be new construction. If anything, we have
to go through site plan for the duplexes. I don’t know if we went through site plan for the duplexes back in
the 1980’s. We can maybe make up for some of the amends, and I think the new construction in the
neighborhood might improve some of the other properties as well, or the attitude of the other properties.
Can the benefit be achieved by some other feasible means, or is there an alternative? And I don’t think we’re
talking about shifting the location, moving it back or moving it to the side or something like that. This
project just doesn’t go if we can’t build duplexes. You can’t sell single family homes in there. So we either
have a go or we don’t have a go. Is the request substantial? I think when you have something that is already
established with zoning and actual construction, whatever degree of change that we’re talking about is not
substantial. You have to look upon the request in the sense of how different is it from what’s there, as much
as how different it is from what’s in the particular Ordinance, and what we’re talking about is actually larger
lots than the existing duplex lots, and we’re talking about the same type of development, the same type of
construction. So, in my opinion is it not a substantial request, even though we’re asking for five variances, or
a variance on five lots. Adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood, our applications will be subject to site plan review. I think the only environmental thing that
you’re talking about possibly is drainage, and we will have to take care of drainage. I think when we went
through the Planning Board for the approval, they had no record of any prior stormwater management plan.
We gave them indications in calculations that on these five lots, we’re not talking about building new roads,
but we will take care of the stormwater and the management, and was this difficulty self-created, which I
think is the last test, it is my position that it isn’t, or wasn’t. This was created by the zoning change. This
configuration of land was created before this new requirement. I think Staff is correct in stating that under
the prior zoning, which is probably why you had 30,000 square foot lots, you could build duplexes with
15,000 per dwelling unit. I think even Staff recognized that in the notes they had for the final subdivision
approval, and there they referred to summarize that the Comprehensive Plan suggested rezoning this area to
be consistent with existing lot sizes, and I think that’s what I referred to where they were talking about C-20
zone, which we would comply with, if 20 was the individual unit footage that you needed, we’ve got 40,000
square feet in each of the five lots, better than 40,000 feet in each of the five lots. Rezoning, though, is not
always simple, and I notice that Staff in their comments here said feasible alternatives may include
constructing single family dwellings. Well, you can construct single family dwellings, but they’re not going to
be salable, and I don’t think anybody’s going to get into that type of project, or request for a zoning district
change. If we went in for a request for a zoning district change, I’d have more problems with that than
justifying the request that I’m asking you to make, because that’s a single owner. It’s a small parcel of land,
and that’s the definition of spot zoning. You don’t go in and ask for a zoning change for one particular
parcel. I know that people have talked about it from time, maybe you should go for rezoning. Rezoning
doesn’t give you controls. It doesn’t allow you to put conditions on it. It just is not a real feasible alternative.
Legally I think it’s very weak. I think it can be attacked. So I don’t think that is a feasible alternative,
although Staff has said that it is possible. Relief substantial, I think we’ve talked about that. Effects on the
neighborhood or community, we’ve talked about that, and self created. I just approached, I guess, the five
tests differently than they approached it. Do you have any questions of us?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple of questions, Mr. O’Connor. Is the other section across the street totally built
out?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, I couldn’t tell because where it bends, I wasn’t sure every lot was, every lot does have a
duplex on it. Okay. You make a statement, and obviously it’s to your client’s advantage to say this, but why
not single family? I mean, just because you say so, I’d like a little more. I mean, there are all kinds of single
family homes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there are other choices that people have, and if they’re going to go out and put
their investment into, the construction’s going to be the same cost on this site as it is on other site. The land
cost is probably going to be more, if you try and whack out a division of five for one acres. We haven’t had a
one acre subdivision that’s been successful in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-What would they have to sell them for, any idea, approximation?
MR. O'CONNOR-You mean just one single family?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Everybody tells you they’re going to build a $100,000 house, okay. My closings are
$140,000 to $175,000 for the $140,000 house, and I can give you 10 subdivisions. They’re really, unless
you’re going to build a 900 square foot house or a 1,000 square foot house, you’re not building in that area,
but I didn’t necessarily mean to get into that, but the cost of that land is not going to support that. Typically
you talk in a construction mode of 20% for your land is a reasonable part of the package, and if you take 20%
of this purchase, you divide this purchase price by five, and figure out what you’ve got, it’s not going to be
reasonable. People are going to go to The Grove. They’re going to buy, that’s the prices we’d be asking for.
I apologize that I don’t have a letter from a realtor here. I do a lot of real estate, though, and I feel very
comfortable saying, that would be the last place that a realtor would take somebody to buy a single family
house, if you’ve got 15 other developments going. Maybe if we get to a point where we don’t have an
inventory of lots, that might be feasible, but I don’t think it’s feasible right now.
MR. STONE-I also noticed today, in driving out there, snow makes it very easy to see the lay of the land
sometimes, and there’s a huge hill, a relatively huge hill behind this property. Is that in the right of way, in the
easement, in the NiMo area? I see the lines.
MR. STEVES-Okay, yes. The major hill you see is right on the southwest corner of the property. That’s
right on the knoll, which is right on the corner where the Niagara Mohawk takes the jog there. That’s the
very top of the hill. That’s correct, and with those lots, just as if you, Mr. O’Connor had the first phase, there
was grading done on those lots too to accomplish and accommodate the homes, and we looked at that, and
this is actually a little less severe of a grade than what was built on on the other side, and we would go
through a grading and drainage plan at the time of site plan review for each duplex.
MR. STONE-Are we going to, because this is an Unlisted Action. If we went down the list, just gut feeling,
which we don’t usually do, but if we went down the list of the Short Form, are we going to find some positive
impacts?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I’m aware of. The Planning Board didn’t when they went through their listing.
MR. STONE-They didn’t?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-They negative dec’d the Short Form on the subdivision approval of the six lots.
MR. STONE-They did. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HIMES-If you could, perhaps you touched on this when you were referring to the map earlier, in the
parcel history it speaks about subdivision 11-2001, subdivide an 11.33 acre parcel into six lots. Five lots
totaling 6.196 acres for residential construction.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Explain that. Is that what’s up on the hill there?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STEVES-Yes. The whole parcel is, one tax parcel is both sides of the Niagara Mohawk ownership
there. So there’s no way to physically get across that ownership. So one of the conditions of approval, which
that map shows right on it, from the Planning Board, and that is also filed at the Clerk’s Office, is that that
property on the south of the Niagara Mohawk easement must be conveyed to the adjoining property.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is 5.78 acres, and you add it to the 6., it comes up to your 11.
MR. STEVES-So it’s five lots we’re proposing to develop as.
MR. O'CONNOR-Based on us being able to get our approvals, we made an agreement with the owner down
here, and he will merge that land into that parcel there.
MR. STONE-To the south?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HIMES-So that’s a different owner?
MR. O'CONNOR-This down here? Yes.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I was worried, when you said that, that somehow they were going to have a tie line over to that
triangle.
MR. STEVES-No, I said it is now.
MR. STONE-It is now?
MR. STEVES-It is now. This one tax parcel consists of both properties on either side of the Niagara
Mohawk ownership. So to clean it up, because there’s no feasible way for the developer to use that property,
is it was requested of the Planning Board, and no problem with the applicant, to convey that to the property
owner to the south.
MR. O'CONNOR-Historically, there might be some easement or right of way across Niagara Mohawk that
could be established, but it’s also, that’s industrial zoning, there’s no way of mixing, there’s no purpose in
trying to mix.
MR. STONE-You’ve got a natural buffer zone there anyway.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-So it’s better to let it go to the person on the south and let them deal with it.
MR. STONE-For consideration, I assume.
MR. O'CONNOR-We hope. We certainly hope.
MR. ABBATE-The topography indicates, and the Chairman brought this up, indicates some severe slopes
because the contour lines are so close together it indicates the lines. Do you anticipate, I’m not even sure it’s
any of our concern, but do you anticipate any drainage problems and what have you?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t.
MR. STEVES-It’s all pure sand. We have a drainage system that currently is running on a diagonal across
one of the lots. We told the Planning Board that we’re going to propose it to go between two of the lots. We
really don’t have a problem where it drops down to that low area. You’re in beautiful sands. No problem
whatsoever.
MR. ABBATE-Now there are some facts here. An undeniable fact is that the profile of the current
developments are duplexes. There’s no question, no denying that, and also I would agree with you that there
appears that there may be inequity based on the various types of zoning that is there, and third I probably
would agree with you, and I’m not an expert in the area of real estate, but as a, if I were a potential single
home buyer, I suspect that I probably would not want to build there. So duplexes may very well be the
answer. So, on those three points, I guess I concur with your findings. Thank you.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. URRICO-I have a question. Did Mr. Cifone own the property when the zoning changed? Was he the
owner?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We do not own it yet. We have a contract that says that we will purchase it subject
to us getting our approvals.
MR. STONE-So the applicant has no financial interest at the moment?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Well, we are a contract vendee, and he has the cost, the expensive cost of the
applications to date.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So he has some financial interest in it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We hope he does.
MR. URRICO-Did he construct the original duplexes there? Was he involved with that?
MR. O'CONNOR-He constructed some of them.
MR. URRICO-Some of them. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And then they were sold. Some of them were sold.
MR. STONE-Now are they all rental properties, the duplexes?
JOHN CIFONE
MR. CIFONE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-My impression, John, maybe I’m wrong, my impression is that Lot 17 is owner occupied.
This lot here. Because, this one here?
MR. CIFONE-Yes.
MR. STONE-But single family dwellings.
MR. O'CONNOR-And these people agreed to sell us this. They carved out the straightening of the line,
which was approved. So I had the impression that that was there. Dr. Kerr and Beverly Kerr own one of the
duplexes down here. I think Jamie Hayes and his brother or one of his operations own a few of the duplexes.
They own three, or four.
MR. CIFONE-Yes, three or four.
MR. O'CONNOR-Three or four, and John owns eight of the duplexes that are there.
MR. STONE-Okay. Are the end lots there built? I mean, I just didn’t notice today, well, 18, 9, and 8, in that
area, are they built?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. CIFONE-Everything’s built.
MR. STONE-Everything’s built. Every lot in Burnt Ridge is built on? Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And it’s duplex with the exception of the one home.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STEVES-And that one home, when we went through the subdivision, as you can see here, what we did
is we conveyed about 9300 square feet to them to square up their lot, and give them a little bit more room for
their back yard.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
MR. STONE-Again, for the record, and to refresh my memory, you withdrew the application because you
wanted six lots and we were balking at six.
MR. O'CONNOR-We tried to have less than the average width, required width of the lots.
MR. STONE-That’s right.
MR. O'CONNOR-We had the square footage because we had six plus acres. You wanted to have the, you
did not seem to want to have less than the required width. So we withdrew the application.
MR. STEVES-Right. We had two lots at about 137 feet.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Any other questions? Then I’m going to do that wonderful thing I love to do.
I’m going to open the public hearing, as I look around the room. Anybody wish to speak in favor? Anybody
wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Then we’ll close the public hearing. Anything further, gentlemen? Guys, have anything? Well,
let’s talk about it. We’re going to have to do a SEQRA, but let’s talk about it first. See where we’re going to
come out. We’ll start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. In short, I am in favor of the application, and I like the matter of what a nice
compromise in what it was, the land area required for a structure some years ago, and what’s required now,
and this is pretty good, in terms of, I think, not falling too far out of line with what the Town has intended
for the future, and kind of gives the applicant a little bit of a break, in terms of what’s required now, versus
what it was years ago, so I think the thing is a good idea. I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with Norm. Again, I’ll reiterate the fact that, undeniably, this is, in
fact, a developed duplex area, with the exception of that one home. Two, I believe that the decision to make
these duplexes makes good business sense, and, Number Three, I think that perhaps in that area there are,
indeed, an argument can be made that there could be inequities involved in the zoning. So, based upon the
various things I mentioned and what I’ve heard from my fellow Board members, and also from the applicant,
I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going down the list that Mr. O’Connor so ably did, as well. In terms of the benefit
to the applicant, yes, he would be permitted to construct the desired project. The feasible alternatives may
include constructing single family dwellings or request for a zoning district change. Well, the key word being
there feasible. I don’t think that’s feasible. I don’t know many people that want a single family house would
want to put it in the middle of a duplex area. They don’t even want them in the neighborhoods when they’re
already established. So I don’t think that’s feasible. In terms of the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance, yes, it is, relative to the Ordinance. The Ordinance does not account for a duplex in that area.
The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood, I think,
because most of the neighborhood already is composed of duplexes, and is this difficulty self created? No, I
don’t think it is. I think it was a zoning change that did occur in the midst of this. It was probably forgotten
about, and should have been corrected a while back. So I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. As I mentioned earlier, I came in tonight feeling negative, and I was feeling negative
about this application as well. There are some alternatives, single family dwellings are one of them, but I will
agree that what would have to be would be something in the neighborhood of 900,000 square foot single
family dwellings to have a chance at selling them, and it’s very possible that that would not give the proper
return on your investment. Another alternative would be to combine lots until you had lots big enough and
build fewer duplexes, but again, that probably would not work out economically. As Mr. O’Connor kind of
alluded and caught my thoughts, I think is reading my mind, variance on five lots, one owner, it kind of
sounds like rezoning, but on the other hand, I think it’s a valid point that a rezoning application for five lots,
one owner in one spot is going to come out spot zoning, which also is not proper. So it’s kind of a no man’s
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
land. That all being said, I’m inclined to agree that duplexes there are appropriate. Certainly they’re going to
be larger lots than what exists in the rest of the development. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we’ve seen a major change from the original six that were proposed.
I think that the lot width, since we’ve increased the lot widths, it’s going to be a lot more reasonable. I think
that was my concern on, the ones that have been built on the other side of the road are kind of narrow and
crowded and with a bunch of cars out front it looks like a junkyard, but I’m sure you guys are going to build
something nice down there to finish it off the right way, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of it for the reasons the other Board members have stated. It’s always a
balancing test, and it may be feasible to have single family homes. I’m not sure if there’s one already there
you couldn’t do it somewhere else, but I do buy into the argument that this is effectively a two family
residential zone, and that these existing lots, proposed lots are certainly largely the ones that are there already.
It makes perfect sense. I don’t see any effect on the community.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree. This is obviously an enclave. I mean, it’s only accessible by the U road.
There’s not going to be anything behind it. It’s whatever it’s gong to be, and I’m certainly comfortable in
making this whole little area a duplex area. I don’t see any real problems. I prefer, certainly, as Mr. McNulty
said, to do it this way rather than rezone because you open all kinds of worms when you do that, and yet the
whole thing should be zoned duplex. Forget what the area is, it should be duplexes. I think the applicant has
listened to us in the sense that we’ve gone to five lots rather than six. Therefore the only thing they’re asking
for is the relief for the square footage of the land, and I have no problem with that. Having said that, Bob,
since you’ve got to earn your money here, go ahead and make a motion.
MR. FRANK-Before you do that.
MR. STONE-We’ve got to do the Unlisted. I’m sorry. Thank you very much. Well, let me try the motion.
You’re saying, hopefully, that the Planning Board neg dec’d it?
MR. STEVES-I know they did.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-2001 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Smoke Ridge Road. The applicant proposes the construction of five duplex dwellings on five lots totaling
6.196 acres. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the density requirements of the SR-1A zone,
Section 179-19. Duplexes usually require one acre of land per dwelling unit. I move the approval of this
variance for the following reasons. First, the benefit to the applicant would certainly weigh in their favor, that
they’d be entitled to construct what is essentially a second phase in order to complete the subdivision of what
are largely two family dwellings along the Burnt Ridge Subdivision area. Second, while there might be feasible
alternatives in the construction of a single family residence on these lots, as there are indeed at least one single
family residence in this development, in effect, the area is devoted to two family duplexes, and the effect on
the neighborhood or community would be minimal or non-existent. The proposed lots are larger than the
lots that are already in this development. I don’t think there’d be any impact to drainage, as I agree the area is
pure sand, and I’m sure that the Planning Board and the developer will do whatever is necessary to make the
appropriate drainage. I don’t see it as self-created, as there was a change in zoning, increasing the
requirements for lot size, and on balance then I would think that the factors would be in favor of Mr. Cifone,
and Cifone Construction, and I move the approval.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/01)
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing I would say, that just occurred to me when Bob McNally said something
in the end, that single family home was built by one of the original subdivision owners. It was not, and I
think it was actually built before the duplexes were built, and then he sold off the land to the duplexes and he
recently sold it, I don’t know how much of a sacrifice he had to make to sell it. I know they came around and
said they had to get a release from an option we had on that back yard, in order to make the sale go through.
So I think the argument that it’s just not a neighborhood that you’re going to sell single families in. It
couldn’t support it. I wish you all happy holidays.
MR. STONE-Happy holidays.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
35