2002-03-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
ALAN BRYANT
PAUL HAYES
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES ABBATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2002 TYPE II BENJAMIN L. ARONSON, DOUBLE A
PROVISIONS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR,
ESQ. – LITTLE & O’CONNOR ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF IS
REQUESTED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE AND
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVED AREA
VARIANCE 83-1999. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 49-99 MOD., AV 83-1999 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134-6-2 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 309.10-1-10 LOT
SIZE: 1.27 ACRE SECTION: 179-24C
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT; BEN ARONSON, PRESENT
MR. STONE-I believe this was on the agenda last month, and was tabled. Would you read the tabling
motion.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. Area Variance 10-2002, Benjamin L. Aronson, Meeting Date Wednesday, February
20, 2002 “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2002 BENJAMIN L. ARONSON
DOUBLE A PROVISIONS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
64 Main Street. In lieu of the Board having the additional members from five to seven.
Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2002 Benjamin L. Aronson, Double A Provisions, Meeting Date:
March 20, 2002 “Project Location: 64 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed an additional parking area on the property, and a stockade fence on property owned by James
and Judith Fish. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability
requirement of the CR-15 zone. The applicant also requests to maintain the stockade fence on the Fish
property without the landscaping required as a condition of the approval of AV 83-1999. 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 additional parking area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include removing a section of the stone parking area in the southwest corner of the parcel
(Area E) and replacing it with permeable area, or returning the parking area (Area F), which was constructed
without approval, back to a permeable area. A feasible alternative for the fence concern would be to move
the stockade fence back to the property line to the point where it meets the fire lane and install adequate
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
landscaping as described in AV 83-1999. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6% of
relief from the 30% minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone may be interpreted as minimum to moderate.
Relief to keep the stockade fence on the Fish property without installing any landscaping may be interpreted
as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood
may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 10-2002: tabled
02/20/02 AV 83-99; res. 10/20/99; setback relief, relief from permeability requirements, and relief from
buffer zone requirements. SP 49-99: tabled 5/16/99; 3330 sq. ft. expansion, improvements to graveled
parking area, planters and green area. AV 19-1997: res. 7/30/97; setback relief and buffer zone relief. SP
22-1997 res. 7/30/97; warehouse addition & site improvements UV 18-1997: res. 7/16/97; expansion of a
non-conforming use (wholesale meat distribution). Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated
as a result of this action with regard to the permeable area issue. However, there appears to be enough
available area in “Area E” that could be converted to permeable ground to raise the percent permeable area
for the parcel to compliant levels. Also, the area converted to customer parking, without approval, (Area F)
contains 3401 sq. ft. According to the calculations of W.J. Rourke Associates, before conversion to parking,
this area comprised 6% of the 30% needed to meet the minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone. The
application suggests that the required emergency access road, which covers an area of 3151 sq. ft., might be
considered permeable area. According to Fire Marshal Chris Jones, emergency access roads need to be able
to support the weight of fire apparatus, which may weigh between 35,000 and 70,000 pounds (see attached
memo). If the emergency access road is indeed not compacted at this time, it appears as though it will
become so, as an access road must be maintained year round. Therefore, it is the staff position that the road
should not be considered in the calculations of permeable area. No supporting documentation has been
submitted on behalf of the applicants’ position. With regard to the fence and landscaping issue (AV 83-
1999), moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has submitted a
document signed by James and Judith Fish (August 23, 1999) granting him the right-of-way across a portion
of their property for a fire lane and fence. However, such an access road is not required around the rear of
the building. Elimination of this portion of the access drive would not create a violation of the Building
Code. Area Variance 83-99 granted the applicant setback relief from the buffer zone requirements, with the
condition that the applicant, on his property, create an area, fenced and landscaped, to effectively provide
some form of a buffer/separation between the applicant’s commercial use and the adjoining residential zone.
The current proposal, to further expand the site and provide a minimal buffer at the expense of the adjacent
property appears to be a substantial request. To allow the inclusion of adjacent lands, which are not under
the control of the applicant, is strongly discouraged. Staff recommends conformance to the approval granted
by Area Variance 83-99; no permeable relief and the construction of a buffer area on the subject property.
While there may have been some confusion with regards to the accuracy of previously submitted
information, the current request for relief appears to be strongly self-created. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Do you wish to start this off? I mean, I know I wasn’t here. I read the minutes. There was a
lot of discussion. So why don’t you give us your take.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm
of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, Benjamin Aronson, with a business on Corinth Road as
Double A Provisions. We were here last month, and we were asking at that time for a variance of six percent
on the permeability, and we were asking that the Board reconsider conditions that were placed upon an Area
Variance approval that was granted in 1999. Basically, my involvement in this project or application has been
as a person who has been trying to get together some information and clean up a record, if you will. I think I
will make my application tonight brief. We have modified our position from even last month. We still
request the variance for the six percent on the permeability. We have modified our request for the
reconsideration on the fencing condition and the landscaping condition that was attached to the approval of
1999. The application, for those of you that were not here for the permeability relief of six percent, was
based, in part, upon the argument that part of the area that requires the six percent is an emergency drive. It
is not compacted. We have talked to the engineer that is doing the stormwater management plan for the site
plan review, which will follow our application here. He tells us that it is not, the stone that’s on there does
not impact drainage. He also tells us, and there is a concerned raised by the Fire Marshal or the fire
inspector, as to whether or not it would support an emergency vehicle in its present condition, and tells us
that it would, but I’d take all that off the table and say that we are asking for the six percent variance. So we
won’t get into an issue of interpretation, if you have to, or try to avoid that. Basically, since we met the last
time, and there did appear to be solid consensus that there was no problem with the variance of six percent
on the permeability issue. Mr. Aronson met with Staff and changed his position as to the fencing. Before we
were asking that we be allowed to leave the fencing, which has been installed, in place, subject to a condition
that we would move it to the property line and landscape it on the property line, if the adjoining owner
withdrew his consent to have it where it is. We actually have a statement from him saying that the fence is
permissible where it is, and it could stay. So I don’t, we’ve just decided that we’ll choose our battles, if you
will. What I’ve given you tonight is what we will submit when we do the site plan review, and you will see the
notation thereon that we will move the stockade fence along the back of the property to the property line.
We have also itemized the landscaping that we will do along that back line, which is new. It’s not been
shown, I don’t think, on any other plan, and we’ve added landscaping that we will put on the easterly side of
the property, which was not a condition of the prior approval, and we also intend to improve the landscaping
at the northwest corner of the property, in the island that is there. All this is depicted upon what’s before
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
you. So, I would ask, if you have questions as to the permeability, we are doing a stormwater management
plan. I’ve been told by Tom Jarrett that what we propose here, and this goes to the ’97, ’98 addition. If you
take a look at the back of the building and the easterly side of the building, that addition is kind of like the
shape of a propeller. You’ve got the box at the top. You’ve got a long alleyway that was connected at the
side of the building, then you’ve got the propeller part on the bottom. The additional stormwater
management that’s required for that addition, and for that parking area that’s in the front of the property is
easily accommodated. In fact, we probably are decreasing what will be old stormwater, so that after you take
consideration of this parking area in the front and the addition that was made in ’98, ’97, or ’97, ’98, we will
have less stormwater leaving this site. Prior to that addition, and part of the calculations prior to that addition
in ’97, ’98, there was a single family dwelling on that end of the property which had a driveway that was
paved, with a garage, which was pitched into the road. I think a couple of the maps that you have, and some
of the old files, reflect that. There was the original application in ’97, ’98. There was at least one other
application in ’99, and now this present application. It’s our position that we do not increase, and I think the
site plan will require that we show that we accommodate stormwater. We do not have any increase of
stormwater from runoff from the site, based upon these additions that were made prior to those additions
being made. We had no impact on the neighborhood for that request, the request on the permeability. It
allows the applicant to go forward with the project. We do know that we need approval from the Planning
Board for that stone parking area that’s in the front of the property, and I’m not 100% clear as to what was
there before, on the prior site plan, and what’s, as opposed to what’s here. I know at one time it was closer to
the building, and then it was moved further back. So we would continue our request for the six percent relief
on the permeability on the site, and we would ask that you reconsider the conditions on the Area Variance
that was AV 83-1999, I guess reconsider them only in the sense that you find what has now been shown to be
acceptable. You condition was that we put a fence on the property line. We’re saying that we will do that.
Your condition was that we landscape in front of that fence, and we’ve done that. In making the calculations
for the permeability, I didn’t, this four foot by thirty-two foot planter, I didn’t try to calculate that into or out
of the six percent. I don’t think it’s significant enough to do it. It’s less than one percent. Any questions?
MR. STONE-Yes. Can you take us around the perimeter of the property, because you did talk about the
fence along Main Street, the split rail fence. Is that going to be extended and reduce the curb cut?
MR. O'CONNOR-That is part of the site plan. I received this late Friday, and I’ve just been trying to check.
I was not in the office yesterday. I spoke to somebody today. Based upon the site visit with Craig, there was
an issue as to how much access would be allowed along Corinth Road, and what was determined was that the
fence that’s presently along Corinth Road at the northeast corner would be extended in a westerly direction,
so that it would cut down access into that parking area and that is part of what would be presented as the site
plan.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the extension is probably about 30 feet. My problem with the extension is that
they show, by survey, that the actual original fence was placed in the County right of way. So I told them that
we’d either redraw it and put it on the property, or they’d put up at risk when they go through with the
improvements. So the entrance way will be, it’ll be one way. We will have people come in directly in front of
the new office area, and they will exit out on the very beginning of what was the emergency access.
MR. STONE-Okay. So part of that emergency access is going to be used?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-And you figured that as non-permeable?
MR. O'CONNOR-I figured it as non-permeable, the whole, in the request for relief for six percent, we
figured the whole access, or the whole emergency travel way as being non-permeable.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the six percent you’re talking about includes, even though the applicant said it would
not be used, and there is a chain across the thing right now to block normal?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-A plastic chain.
MR. STONE-It’s a plastic chain, yes, but you’re including that as non-permeable in your application?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I am.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The additional shrubbery that I talked about is up in that corner. It’s between the
Winslow property and the Aronson property, and I think if you look back in the very beginning of the
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
application, there used to be some objections by Winslow, and you have in your file a letter saying that
Winslow is now in support of the application, and thinks that what has been done has been an improvement
to the property, an improvement to the corner. Along the back of the property, we’ve extended the
landscaping, even in the back southeast corner. I don’t know how visible that’s going to be to anybody, but
that’s your requirement. We will do it. Along the southwest corner, we will also put landscaping as we’ve
shown it.
MR. STONE-And how far is that fence going to go? It’s going to go all the way?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s going to go all the way across, I think practically speaking, it will go to at least, we
ought to decide that, what is going to be satisfactory. My suggestion would be that it go to at least to the
westerly edge of the concrete path.
MR. STONE-To the westerly edge of. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And then begin, at the very southerly part, and maybe to the 19.6 feet and the 86.01 feet,
and leave the piece behind the building where there’s actually an exit (lost words). The fire lane that we
established, this is part of the history of this site, at one time Mr. Aronson was lead to believe that he had to
have access on all sides of the building, and that’s why he got into the arrangement with Fish, after Mr. Fish
refused to complete the sale that was initially going to take place. We still have that permission, he actually
installed it, but we’ve been told since then that you only need to have access on three sides of the building.
So we have it on the east, and we have it on the north and we have it on the west.
MR. STONE-So how far is the fence going to go from the easterly, the southeasterly point of the property?
How far is that fence going to go?
MR. O'CONNOR-Your condition said the back, to fence the line.
MR. STONE-Fence the line, so it would go across the extension of the fire lane.
MR. O'CONNOR-If that’s what you’re telling us. If that’s what you want us to do, that’s what we will do.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-From a practical point of view, that corner over there, I don’t know who, if you take a
look at the site, it’s not visible to anybody, and I don’t want to get into a real long discussion again about,
we’d like not to move it, but we will move it. We will go along the, there’s a dimension there, 86.01 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay, but it was, one of the reasons as I understand it, and you guys can fill in, was to protect it
from the residential property to the south. I mean, there is a required buffer between the two zones there.
MR. O'CONNOR-The property to the south is not residential use.
MR. STONE-But it’s residentially zoned.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s residentially zoned.
MR. HAYES-It could be residential, some time in the future, not likely, but could be.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not likely because of the investment that Jim has in their building there. They have Jim’s
Auto Glass or Jim’s Glass in there. It’s not likely to be a residential purpose, and some day we probably will
end up owning the property.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right now they’re not in the position, they’re not willing to sell it.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying the planted buffer on the southwest is going to be 32 feet long, it’s not
going to go the whole extent.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right. It’s pretty much parallel to (lost words) visibility from Corinth Road. The fencing
would go back to, I think reasonably back to the corner of the building, or, in all honesty, you may not want it
to go all the way back. You may want it just parallel to what would be a southerly extension of that 7.5 foot
concrete pad. You may want to be able to have people get around the back there. If we put up that six foot
fence, they aren’t going to have access.
MR. STONE-No. I understand, I was just asking what you.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. O'CONNOR-My proposal, we will fence the whole line, if you want us to. My suggestion is that you tell
us that you are satisfied if we go to what would be an extension of the westerly edge of that concrete, 7.5 foot
concrete pad. We would pick the fencing up again and run it along the dimension of 19.60, in total, and we’d
run it along the 86.01.
MR. STONE-Okay. What about the northwest planting area, which was, I know, stressed on previous site
plan reviews, I think, to make that very attractive.
MR. O'CONNOR-We hope to fortify what’s there by what’s shown as being additional plantings, and we’ve
shown, I think, it shows the bushes, it shows, it looks like we’re talking at least it’s six different additional
shrubs in that area.
MR. STONE-A burning bush?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Symbolic.
MR. STONE-Did we leave the public hearing open last time?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STONE-We did?
MR. HAYES-I believe so.
MR. STONE-Okay. Are there are any questions or any comments by Board members? Since most of you
were here last time. Hearing none, I will ask again, since the public hearing is open, is there anybody wishing
to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any further correspondence that
wasn’t read?
MR. MC NULTY-I couldn’t find anymore correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do we have any other questions?
MR. URRICO-That stone path, for all practical purposes, is not used at all, right? Or is it used for any
purposes?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. There apparently was an objection, at one time, to it being used, and so they put a
plastic thing across it.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s talk about it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Certainly. I was here for almost all the portions of Mr. Aronson’s application. I originally
voted for this application, for the expansion off the back of the building. I thought Mr. Aronson gave pretty
good business reasons why that was a necessity at that time, forklifts and other things that were important to
his business, and I thought that we had protected the neighborhood, through a little beefing up of the buffer
zone, to the extent that his expansion that close to the property line, or the buffer line, didn’t trouble me, and
I still feel that way. So, as I spoke out at the last meeting, I think the Planning Board, I don’t have any
trouble with the permeability variance as it sits, and my reservation the last time was with undoing some of
the complicated nuances of the relief that we gave for his addition, and I thought that would be a mistake for
subsequent Boards to remove conditions that were part of an overall variance request and grant. So I still feel
that way. Mr. Aronson has proposed now to put the fence on the line and to buffer it in a way that I think
makes sense, and I think he’s, to a large extent, done what the Board has asked him to do. I think the plan
now makes sense for him and for any potential residential use of the property behind. So, at this point, I’m in
favor of the application. I think the change that has been made since the last meeting is what I was looking
for, and on balance I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree with Jaime. As long as the applicant is willing to move the fence back to
the property line and do the landscaping, and considering that a portion of the emergency road, while it’s
included in the permeability calculations, probably is permeable. I don’t have a big problem with the
permeability. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. In short, Jaime speaks for my thinking also. I’m in favor of the application. Thank
you.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that this new plat better reflects what the intent of the original variance
was back in ’99. I think the fact that you’re going to do the plantings and move the fence back, I never had a
problem with the permeability issue. I think that if it needs to be addressed, that the Planning Board will take
care of that.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a problem with the permeability issue either, but the only problem I do have is
that it’s great that you brought this drawing tonight, and you discuss landscaping in the northeast corner.
When I viewed the property, I looked at the stockade fence, and the parking area, never taking that into
consideration. It would have been nice to have this drawing before I actually looked at the property, but I
really don’t have a problem with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m okay with the permeability and I’m satisfied with the modification.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I basically feel the same way. I do want to congratulate the applicant for listening
to the Board, the Board’s concerns about buffering and the position of the fence, the permeability issue,
particularly if the plastic chain stays up, and certainly that’s enough of a deterrent, and I would ask, in any
motion that we make, that that be stipulated that that be, the use of that particular property be avoided, from
where you have the chain now, to the back of the building, like you have it fenced off. Having said that,
Jaime, would you make a motion?
MR. O'CONNOR-Can you be specific, can we end the fence along that perimeter that it shown, 147.44 feet
for total?
MR. HAYES-I’m going to stipulate it as you had mentioned, to the pad and essentially the 86.01 feet of fence
more to the east, which will run it the whole line of the back property line prior to the break there, and you’re
going to also fence the 19.6 feet. I’m going to put that in the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2002 BENJAMIN L. ARONSON DOUBLE
A PROVISIONS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
64 Main Street. The applicant has constructed an additional parking area on the property, and proposes to
move a stockade fence on the property owned by James and Judith Fish. Specifically, the applicant requests
six percent of relief from the thirty percent minimum permeability requirement of the CR-15 zone. The
benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to maintain this parking area in excess of the
minimum permeability requirements, and he would move the fence into compliance with the Area Variance
83-1999. Feasible alternatives, I think feasible alternatives are limited. This is a site that has a long history. I
think that some of the applicants alternatives are limited, based on the fact that at that time the Town,
through emergency vehicle access, required a road that has now been deemed non-permeable that has, in a
sense, contributed to the deficit in the permeability requirements for the site. So I think, based on the
configuration of the building, and his need for trucking parking for an active distribution business, I think
feasible alternatives are limited in this particular case. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Six
percent of relief from the thirty foot requirement, I believe, is minimum to moderate. I don’t think it is
controlling in this particular circumstance, considering the nature of Corinth Road and the fact that there
seems to be an increased commercial usage down that strip. I don’t think the green space is as critical as it
might be in other circumstances. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe very little. We have a
letter of neighborhood support for this application. Mr. Aronson has also agreed to do some additional
plantings in the northwest corner of the building, which should contribute somewhat to overall
neighborhood aesthetics, in this particular circumstance. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that it is, but
on balance, I think that the test would fall in favor of the applicant in an overall sense. I would like to clarify
the motion to include a couple of items. The first one being that, as depicted in the survey for Mr. Aronson,
done by W.J. Rourke Associates, as modified 3/12/02, which notes change parking area and proposed
planting and fence line relocation, that this motion is contingent on that being the accurate depiction of what
the applicant intends to do. The fence line itself that we’re requiring, in this particular circumstance, to be
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
moved and placed, runs from the southwest corner of the property line up into a parallel point, for a 7.5 feet
concrete pad, which essentially does not take it quite to the edge of the building, but close. Additionally, the
applicant will be required to run the fence from the southeast corner of the property line 86.01 feet and then
inward for 19.60 feet, as depicted on the survey map. The approval is also contingent on the applicant
making the plantings that are depicted on the map, in the southeast corner along the fence line, and in the
southwest corner along that fence line, and the plantings in the northwest corner of the property in this
particular case. Additionally, the applicant will have to agree that the use of the Fish property in any capacity
will be avoided, including the maintenance of a plastic, chain link barrier of some sort to prevent the use of
that property. I’d like to have the chain on the north end of that emergency route be maintained to
discourage that use. We would also make the motion contingent on the applicant completing, entirely, the
plantings depicted by June 30, 2002, which provides for a reasonable amount of time for that to be
accomplished.
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES- Additionally, the applicant will have to agree that the use of the Fish property in any capacity
will be avoided, including the maintenance of a plastic, chain link barrier of some sort to prevent the use of
that property.
MR. STONE-At both ends of this, aren’t you talking, emergency?
MR. HAYES-Is he maintaining one out by the road, too? I don’t think so.
MR. STONE-There are two.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will fence the southerly end, will be fenced off, and we’ll have that chain on the north
end.
MR. HAYES-That’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-Could we have a completion date of June 30?
th
MR. HAYES-I think that’s reasonable, with the spring.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001 TYPE II DONALD AND LYNN KING PROPERTY OWNER:
DONALD AND LYNN KING AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, JIM MILLER ZONE: WR-
3A PROPERTY LOCATION: 23 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION
OF AN EXISTING 781 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND A 159 SQ. FT. CABIN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1121 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH 945 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE ABOVE THAT DOES NOT
INCLUDE A KITCHEN. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERSIZED GARAGE.
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY, LG PARK CEA WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001
OLD TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-12, 179-16, 179-7
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Do you want to read the tabling motion?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll read the tabling motion. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-
2001 DONALD AND LYNN KING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Allan Bryant:
23 Antigua Road. For up to 62 days, to allow the applicant to return with a modified application that reflects
the concerns of the Board, as expressed informally in a, not wanting to consider or grant a variance for a
second principal residence, and the possibility of being a large, oversized garage.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
NOES: NONE”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2001, Donald and Lynn King, Meeting Date: March 20, 2002
“Project Location: 23 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of
an existing 781 sq. ft. garage with 945 sq. ft. of living space above that does not include a kitchen. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 14.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and
7.6 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height restriction for a detached accessory structure per § 17916.
Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum for the construction of an oversized
garage (1121 sq. ft. ) per § 179-7. 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 structure
in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include replacing the old garage
with a new garage within the allowable 900 sq. ft. and 16-foot maximum height requirement. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 14.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot front setback requirement
could be considered moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 7.6 feet of relief from the 16-foot
maximum height requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 221 sq. ft. above the
900 sq. ft. allowed for a garage could be considered minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects 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 are
other feasible alternatives such as replacing the old garage with a new garage within the 900 sq. ft. maximum
allowed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 90-2001: tabled 11/15/01 Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could replace the
old garage with a newer compliant garage. Setback relief would be the same as the existing garage. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Since more than 62 days have elapsed since we tabled it, I am told by Staff, however, that this
was re-advertised, and there we’re alright in hearing it, even though it’s 120 days.
MR. LAPPER-I sent in a letter requesting an extension.
MR. STONE-Okay, and it was re-advertised. That’s the important thing. Go ahead, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Jim Miller, and Don King. We were here in the fall, late fall, and
at that point, there were a number of more complicated legal issues we were talking about because this is a
separate lot, arguably because one’s in Queensbury and one’s in Lake George, but the long and the short of it
was that the Board asked us to go back to the drawing board, as the tabling motion reflected, and reduce the
size of the project, and we’ve reduced it by slightly more than 10%, from 1250 square feet to 1121 square feet
for the garage. This is not your typical looking garage. This is a replacement of an existing carriage house
with a new carriage house. Jim will go through the site plan, the architectural design, but we’re also arguing
that we should get credit for removing one of the existing outbuildings, a 159 square foot bunkhouse that is
pre-existing grandfathered and could stay there. So, as additional justification for making the garage a little
larger, we’re now proposing to remove that 159 square foot bunkhouse which also has a bathroom. After
hearing the comments of the Board, we also eliminated the kitchen. So that was just a carriage house with an
upstairs bedroom, but it’s not a separate residence. It seemed that those were the changes that the Board was
looking for at the last meeting, and we’re back hoping that that’s acceptable. Jim, why don’t you walk
through the (lost words).
MR. MILLER-Jim Miller. The existing carriage house that you see there in the photographs that Craig has is
located right in this area. That will be removed. That’s 781 square feet. The existing bunkhouse that Jon was
talking about was an additional 159 square feet in this area that would remain, there’s a second small shed
which would remain. The proposal is for, to reconstruct the carriage house, essentially in the same location,
which is approximately, a little over 15 feet from the front setback, and the reason for doing that, as you can
see from that photograph up there now, is the area along Antigua Road is fairly heavily treed, and the building
is substantially screened in that area. So rather than, we looked at some alternatives, and felt that, as far as the
impact to the neighborhood, to stay in that same location where we had the maximum buffering from the
road made the most sense, and also made the most sense from the point of view of the internal circulation of
the site. The building has been reduced in scale, as Jon said. The overall footprint was reduced by 80 square
feet. The garage was modified. The stairway to the upper level was closed off, so the garage space was
reduced down to approximately 1121 square feet. It goes to the upper living area of, the upper bedroom area
of 945 square feet. The height of the building, from finished floor to top of the roof is a little over 23 feet,
but the overall height is 25 feet from finished grade, the low point of finished grade toward the lake to the
peak, and you can see from the design of the building, they tried to use a very similar concept as the existing
carriage house, by bringing the roofline down to give the feeling of the siding only going up one story, and
creating the additional living space upstairs by using dormer windows and windows on the gable ends, it gives
the impression of a lower building than the 25 feet that it is, very similar to what’s there, and essentially that’s
the plan. There would be an additional on-site sewage disposal system constructed right next to the existing
system, to facilitate the building.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-That septic system is for the use of the main house.
MR. MILLER-No, it’s for the use of the carriage house. Rather than try to expand the existing system and
put a larger tank in, expand the field, there’d be a small system just for the use of the carriage house.
MR. STONE-Is there going to be a bathroom in there?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-We’re going to (lost words) bathroom from the existing bunkhouse.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-The living space is actually the same size as the, it’s 945 square feet on the second floor. That
hasn’t changed, and all you’re doing is just eliminating the kitchen. You’re just making the bedroom bigger?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. HIMES-How high is the existing garage that’s there now, the height? This one’s 28 that you’re
proposing.
MR. MILLER-It’s 25.
MR. HIMES-Twenty-five on the new one?
MR. MILLER-To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what the height of the existing one is.
DON KING
MR. KING-Approximately 21 or 22 feet. I know because I’ve got a ladder, and I can’t get all the way up.
MR. STONE-Where was, I’m looking at this thing, and it’s not clear to me. Where was the reduction of
approximately 80 feet, square feet?
MR. MILLER-The building was made two foot, it went from thirty feet to twenty-eight feet, over the forty
foot length.
MR. STONE-Explain that again, I’m sorry.
MR. MILLER-The original proposal, the carriage house was 30 feet deep and this proposal that’s been
reduced to 28 feet. So some feet has been taken off the (lost words).
MR. STONE-I see. You mean from along the road.
MR. KING-The back end of the garage.
MR. LAPPER-Along the long side.
MR. STONE-That’s not what these drawings say. Here’s 28, that’s the road.
MR. MILLER-Okay. Yes. That’s right. We were looking at it the other way. You’re right.
MR. STONE-Yes, a road is a road.
MR. MILLER-You’re correct.
MR. STONE-Here’s the 30. Here’s the 28. Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? So what you’ve done is you
basically took out the kitchen and reduced the square footage by 80 square feet, and it’s still very high. I’m
sorry, I shouldn’t be judgmental. It’s still higher than the Code.
MR. LAPPER-I think the height wasn’t an issue last time. It was (lost words), it only became an issue
because we took the bathroom out. We went from a principal building to an accessory building.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So that we weren’t even talking about a height issue last time. It really was the same height,
from the Staff’s point of view.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-As you know, as well as we, the complications of these lots because of the Lake George side
and the Queensbury side do compound the issue. Any questions before I open the public hearing? All right.
Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of?
Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-We do have two pieces of correspondence. I have a letter from the Lake George
Association, signed by Julie A. Martin, Water Quality Coordinator, and she says, “I am writing on behalf of
the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) to provide comments on the above referenced application. We also
commented on November 15, 2001, and our concerns are relatively the same, as the application has not
changed substantially. The LGA had the opportunity to review the application materials and this letter
outlines our concerns about the project. Please consider these items when making your decision on this
application. The applicant is proposing the demolition of an existing 781 square foot garage and a 159 square
foot cabin, and the construction of a 1,121 square foot garage with 945 square feet of living space above it.
Relief is requested from the front setback requirements, the height requirements, as well as relief for the
construction of an oversized garage. In the review of the application materials, there seems to be some
aspects of this project that should be more thoroughly investigated and reviewed: 1. The lot where the
project is proposed is substandard under Town of Queensbury’s current zoning. This lot is in the WR-3A
zone and that zone requires a lot area of 3 acres. The portion of the lot located in the Town of Queensbury
is approximately 0.37 acres. The LGA is concerned with the cumulative effects on the lake of such
development on such a small parcel of land so close to the lake. 2. The LGA questions how well the
applicant meets the area variance criteria. 3. The LGA suggests that the applicant replace the old garage with
a more compliant garage that is within the allowable 900 square feet and 16-foot maximum height
requirements. Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns in the interest of the
protection of the water quality of Lake George. Sincerely, Julie A. Martin Water Quality Coordinator” And
we have a letter from David and Claudia Montana, they say, “We are property owners just south of the
Donald and Lynn King property on Antigua Road. We had the opportunity to review the blue prints of the
new garage and we are completely in favor of it. We are very pleased with the proposal to demolish the
garage and cabin, which has been in need of repair for many years, although their plans were always to replace
both buildings. The new construction would greatly enhance their property as well as the entire
neighborhood. We look forward to the start of construction. Sincerely, David and Claudia Montana”
MR. STONE-Any others?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments in response?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. In response to the LGA letter, quoting from Section 179-76, General exception to
minimum lot requirements, “Any lot of record lawfully existing and complying with the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance on the day prior to the adoption of the October 1, 1988, amendment to the Town Zoning
Ordinance that does not conform to this chapter as it exists on and after October 1, 1988 (“nonconforming
lot of record”), will be deemed as conforming to required area and/or minimum lot width requirements of
this chapter.” So it’s a pre-existing lot. When the WR-3A zone was put into place requiring three acres for all
new lots or new subdivisions, this was an existing lot. So that’s why it doesn’t meet the three acre
requirement.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that, but we have expressed concern, in the past, over other substandard lots. I
mean, I hear you, and I thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Just taking a step back, in terms of what we’re asking for here, this is, the use that’s there now
is that carriage house with storage above. We’re proposing a carriage house with a bedroom, living space
above. We pointed out last time that although the main house is a very attractive house, it’s very small, 1850
square feet, and that’s the reason for the room upstairs, because that is such a small house, but in terms of
what is proposed now, it is trying to be in character with what was there. The location is very well buffered
from the neighbors because of the vegetation. So it’s really, it’s not any kind of a significant change from
what’s there now. It’s just a nicer looking, newer structure. The existing one has a wooden floor which isn’t
even, you couldn’t put a vehicle in there (lost words), and by taking out that other outbuilding, there’ll be two
buildings on this lot, accessory to the main house, rather than the three that you have now. So I hope that
you’ll see that the intention is not to make a significant change, just to have better usable space, and you can
see, from the picture that Craig had up before, that it is intended to look very similar to what’s there now,
only better, and by reducing the, the only reason it’s larger than 900 is so that there can be a boat as well as
two cars, and you can’t see it, it’s set back so far from the lake on this lot that that’s the most appropriate
place, so that it won’t be an impact to somebody on the lake.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-You just made the comment, Mr. Lapper, that you couldn’t put a car in the current building.
Does that imply that these cars will be put in this building and won’t be parked outside, from a visual
standpoint?
MR. KING-Yes. I’ve been parking outside with pine pitch all over my vehicles. If you know how difficult it
is to get that stuff off, it’s almost impossible. It would be just nice to be able to drive in and park in the
garage.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. KING-If you’ll notice the way the building is jogged, that’s to accommodate, you know, a boat and
trailer, get it in, you know, be able to work on it. I have an antique boat. You need a certain amount of
depth.
MR. STONE-What I was looking for, if we allow this building to be oversized, then it might be compensated
by the fact that, a good deal of the time, the cars will not be sitting out, and the property will look more
cleaned up, if you will.
MR. KING-It’s nice to walk to a car that’s not below zero and covered with snow, particularly when you
leave at five o’clock in the morning.
MR. STONE-Any other comments, gentlemen? Any questions? We’re all satisfied? Let’s talk about it. Go
ahead, Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-I still have a problem with the proposal. I appreciate the compromises that the applicant
has made. I’m a bit torn on the height, but I think I could go along with that, because as they say, it’s where
it’s going to be shielded from the lake. At least at present there’s nobody across the road to have a view
blocked, although it’s possible to guarantee that there’ll never be somebody there, but I have a basic problem,
I guess, with oversized garages, which I’ve had before in other locations. I know we’ve entertained a number
of requests for larger than allowed garages, and there’s always been good reason, somebody’s had too many
snowmobiles or motorcycles or boats or something else they want to get in, and it certainly improves the look
of the neighborhood if those things are in the garage rather than outside, but it still strikes me that we’re
changing the zoning law. If the Town of Queensbury should have larger garages allowed, then the place to
make that change is in the zoning law, and I don’t think it’s in the variance. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. LAPPER-If I could just respond to that.
MR. STONE-No. I’ve decided not to, changing my, these guys don’t need to be attacked by comments.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve never attacked.
MR. STONE-No, I didn’t say you did, but I think that we have had, and I don’t mean to be nasty, but
sometimes the guys get, they make a statement, and that’s how they feel, and they have to defend it, and I’m
not sure it’s totally necessary all the time. We’ll get done and we’ll see where we go. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I would have liked to have had the minutes from the first meeting. I think
that I discarded them after some period of time, but in spite of that, I remember some things that were said,
and I do not recall a lot about the height thing, and I think that, to make it short, that I kind of agree with
what Chuck has said. Pretty much it is, in its entirety, the additional size for the garage itself, you know, is
one thing, but then to compound it with living space, well, that’s something else, too, and then when you add
in the height, I guess it’s just getting to be a little difficult for me to go along with it. That’s about it. Thank
you.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying you’re against?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I got distracted. Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess, too, that I would have to be against this application. I think that, you know, if
we’re really going to be truthful and really be moving this in a direction that’s going to be in the best interest
of the lake up there, the entire site, you know, including both Towns, is .77 acres, and as they pointed out in
the letter from the LGA, this parcel sits on a .37 acre lot, and I have no problem with the garage, but by
having an oversized garage, I think that, you know, we have granted oversized garage variances before, but
oftentimes those are on lots that are three acres or two acres in size, and I think that the fact that, you know,
you’re including living space upstairs here is also a bit of a stretch, because, you know, irregardless of the fact,
I mean, you want to say that you have a small residence down on the lake of 1850 square feet, but by adding a
second residence up above here, I think that you’re intensifying the use on the property, and I’m sure there
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
are plenty of people on the lake who would enjoy having an extra guest house, and we have to keep in mind
what the regulations are, and if we relax those regulations, I think that the lake goes to hell in a hand basket.
Irregardless of how far you are set back from the lake, I don’t think it’s a problem here. So I’m going to be
against this.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I kind of agree with what’s been said so far. I was like Mr. Stone. I really had to look at both
sets of drawings to find the difference. I mean, there wasn’t even a 10% reduction in the size of the building.
The living space is identical in size. Granted you’re eliminating the kitchen, the living space hasn’t really
changed in size. It’s still the same. In essence, even without the kitchen, in the present size and context, you
know, you could always put a kitchen in later on. You have the space. So I would be against the application
as it stands.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board, for the same reasons given, the height of the
garage, the total living space, the size of the garage. I think it’s just over the top. I just can’t see going along
with it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. Examining the test, I don’t think the changes that have been have changed the balance
of the test, in this particular circumstance. So I would be in agreement with my fellow Board members and
oppose this application.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m certainly not going to be different than the rest of the Board. I think the argument, I
think I could live with the height in this particular case. I wouldn’t want to do it very often, but the area, 900
square foot, is a reasonable sized garage for the Town of Queensbury. That’s what everybody else has to live
up to, and I see no reason, if this building is going to be torn down, and new construction take place, that this
thing be any bigger than nine. Having said that, I’m looking at the vote, unless you have something you can
markedly offer, I’m going to ask for a motion to deny the application.
MR. LAPPER-I do have something else that I’d like to say.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the math, you’re talking about 1121, I think we should get credit for the 159,
because that’s coming off, in terms of the building that exists now, that we’re reducing it. The difference is
roughly 75, if I did that right, 1121 minus 159, we took another two feet off the back of the building. Two
times forty would be eighty square feet.
MR. BRYANT-My personal view, I mean, this is not Let’s Make A Deal. The reality is, if you built a 900
square foot garage, and you put a bedroom over the, I don’t have a problem with the height. If you put a
bedroom and a bathroom over the 900 square foot garage, you know, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
MR. LAPPER-Well, what I’m saying is it’s only, if we took off another two feet, it would be 900 plus the 159,
it would take you down to the bunkhouse. That bunkhouse has a bathroom also. So that the net difference,
in terms of precedent, which this Board is always concerned with, would be the 900 square foot or less, plus
the 159 that’s coming off. So the net increase on the lot would still be 900 square feet.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure, you’ve got 1176, minus 159, is 1,017.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not 1176. It’s 1121. The garage is 1121.
MR. STONE-The building is listed on your survey as 1176.
MR. HAYES-That’s because the stairwell is.
MR. LAPPER-The stairway is living space.
MR. STONE-Your survey says.
MR. HAYES-They encompassed the stairwell.
MR. LAPPER-Turn to the next page.
MR. HAYES-Which by Code changes what it’s included into, basically.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re taking that off. So you’re saying it’s 21. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-1121 minus 159, and if we take off another two feet, another 80.
MR. STONE-You’re suggesting taking off another two feet.
MR. LAPPER-Another two feet off the back, which would be 80 square feet, two times 40.
MR. STONE-So you’re making that 26?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, which is less than what the applicant was hoping for.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just doing the math. 1121 you said that is?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And 159. Well, let’s just take off another 80 square feet. We’re talking 1,040. We’re still 10%
over, more than 10% over what a garage is. You have made it a garage, by doing what you’ve done.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-And therefore you come in the requirement that it has to be 900 square feet. You want an
overage of 12, 13%. I don’t have a calculator here, but it’s 140 square feet over. Thank you, now you’re
going to force me to do the math. So we said we’re talking 1041, right?
MR. LAPPER-1121.
MR. STONE-Yes, less 80 is 1041.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-So I’m saying.
MR. LAPPER-And then I’m asking for credit for the 159.
MR. STONE-Well we haven’t got there yet. We haven’t got there yet.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about this number, first. That number is 11 and a half percent over what is allowed.
I don’t know how I interpret taking out the other thing, in terms of making this building bigger, but if you’re
willing to modify, I would be willing to run through this exercise again, if you’re, and ask everybody, I can’t
promise anything obviously, that if you’re talking a garage which is now 26 feet along Antigua Road.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-Everything else being the same.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just survey my Board again. Chuck, let’s start with you. Just yes or no.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. STONE-No. Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I think I would still be a no, for other reasons.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still a no, because I still think, you know, you’re not counting the four feet on the
front where the boat part’s going to be, and that’s going to still bump it up over 30 feet by 40 feet, the
building size, which is incredibly big, as far as I’m concerned, for a lot this small.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m still a no.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. URRICO-I’m still a no, also.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I’m still a no.
MR. STONE-Haven’t done anything. So I will call for a motion to deny this application.
MR. LAPPER-Before you do that, I just want to run through the standards that I know that you’re all very
familiar with for an Area Variance under Town Law, because I’m not sure that you’ve articulated a burden on
the neighborhood. We know what the benefit to the applicant is. I think we’re talking about a very small
square foot, something that is really not visible from the neighbor, not visible from the lake, and I just, I’m
hard pressed to see what the burden.
MR. STONE-We will be certainly willing, when we make this motion to deny, to talk about the five criteria,
but keep in mind that Number Four is effects on the neighborhood or community, and most of the things I
have heard tonight deal with the community. The Town of Queensbury is the community, where we have a
900 square foot requirement for garages. So we’re talking, at least what I heard is that we’re afraid that if we
make this garage so oversized that we open the door to a lot more applications in the community, not
necessarily in the neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think another thing to reflect on is the leach fields. The present leach field is based
upon a building that’s in the Town of Lake George. The leach field is located in the Town of Queensbury.
Now you’re proposing a second leach field, which I’m sure is not going to meet the distance requirements for
setbacks from a leach field that’s already there, or else it’s really close anyway.
MR. MILLER-The system was designed by Tom Nace.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, at the same time, I think we’re in a position up on the lake where we’re
supposed to give, have room for a replacement of a septic field, which you would not have if you put a
second one, you know, on the site in that same immediate area. So I don’t know if that’s something to
consider also, as far as the lake goes.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we could argue that the other way, Jim, though that we’ve had a system in the
bunkhouse now that’s on the existing system, and we’re proposing a brand new system. So that’s an upgrade.
MR. KING-That’s a long term look at the property, of saying I don’t ever want to have any of these
problems with the leach field. So we’re going to take the one bathroom that’s part of the bunkhouse out and
put another system out in there, you know, granted the quarters in the garage would be nicer and probably
utilized more during the summer season. So instead of loading up that one thing that was just a, it’s almost a
backup, you know, but that was the idea to expand it out there, and then trying to expand the existing field.
MR. STONE-I think, in my mind, we have exhausted the comments. I’m going to call for a motion to deny.
The applicant will still have an opportunity to come back and ask us, is this different enough, and we can
consider a new application, but right now on the basis of the consensus that I see, which is actually
unanimity, I will ask for a motion to deny, and I would ask the person who gives the motion to go through
the five criteria very specifically.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001 DONALD & LYNN KING, Introduced by
Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
23 Antigua Road. The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing 781 square foot garage, and a 159
square foot cabin and construction of an 1121 square foot garage with 945 square foot of living space above
that that does not include a kitchen. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 14.75 feet of relief from the 30
foot minimum front setback requirement and 7.6 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction
for a detached accessory structure per Section 179-16. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 900
square foot maximum for the construction of an oversized garage per Section 179-7. In considering this
application, we’ve considered the benefit to the applicant. Obviously the applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired structure in the preferred location.. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives include
replacing the old garage with a new garage within the allowable 900 square feet and the 16 foot maximum
height requirement. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 14.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot
front setback requirement could be considered moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 7.6 feet of
relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance
as well, and 221 square feet above the 900 square foot allowed for a garage can be considered minimal to
moderate relative to the Ordinance, I’d say more moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community,
I think, in total, there will be moderate effects on the neighborhood and community. While the structure is
fairly well screened from the lake at present, and while there are no neighbors across the road whose view
would be blocked, there’s no guarantee that there won’t be neighbors across the road at some point in the
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
future, and in that case their view would be blocked by the extra height on this structure, and also, as we have
discussed, there’s a concern with allowing oversized garages in the Town. The Zoning Ordinance calls for
900 square feet, and it is our feeling, I believe, that there should be an extraordinary reason to allow garages
beyond the 900 foot size. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be considered self-created as there
are feasible alternatives, such as replacing the old garage with a new garage that’s within the 900 square foot
maximum allowed. For those reasons, I move that we deny this application.
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-Sorry, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2001 TYPE II WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK AGENT:
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: COTTAGE #25 ONEIDA
DRIVE, TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 768 SQ. FT.
ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AS WELLAS
FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 91-2000, SP 41-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.27 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.05
ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
JON LAPPER & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-There was a tabling motion.
MR. MC NULTY-There was a tabling motion. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-
2001 WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Charles Abbate:
Cottage #25, Oneida Drive, Takundewide. Tabled to allow the applicant to work with Staff and
Homeowners Association to derive or find a direction for an overall plan or master plan or something that’s
going to change somebody’s vote on this matter to the extent that satisfies this Board to re-hear the case.
Tabled for 61 days, and then if something happens in the interim, we may re-table it.
Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE”
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Hello. Bill Mason is with me. I think we have a detailed response from the Planning Board
after we went through.
MR. STONE-Would you like us to read that in?
MR. LAPPER-If you think that’s appropriate.
MR. STONE-I think it might be. Would you read it.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. This is a letter addressed to Mr. Michael Dennis, President, Takundewide
Homeowners Association, and it is from Craig MacEwan, Chairman of the Planning Board, dated January 31,
2002. “I am writing on behalf of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to offer more precise guidance
for you concerning a master plan for the Takundewide community, as requested. This guidance is provided
to you based on our recent series of discussions. As you know, the Planning Board has concerns related to
the full build-out of the Takundewide community. These concerns have been precipitated by the recent
request for 100% Floor Area Variance (FAV) to increase the size of one of the residences, and for its
conversion to a year-round use. Since Takundewide represents a unique situation of individually owned
dwellings with common land for services and infrastructure, the Planning Board has a duty to consider the
environmental impacts on that common land. While the impacts of the change in a single property to a more
intensive use may not appear to have adverse consequences, the cumulative impacts of a similar increase in
intensity of use for the next individual application or all of the remaining properties could result in
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
unfavorable conditions for the natural environment and the general public as well as the individual property
owner. There are also advantages to the Homeowner’s Association using a Master Plan approach. A system-
wide analysis is efficient, permit conditions could be uniform, the need for supplemental information may be
limited, and the saturation point for any necessary services/infrastructure would be known. A Master Plan is
more fair to all of the homeowners in the Association, so that all would have an equal opportunity to increase
dwelling size. An alternative scenario might require the HOA (involving all property owners) to pay for
services/infrastructure that would benefit only those who had changes approved up to the saturation point.
It certainly benefits everyone to work with a known situation rather than a speculative one. Having a Master
Plan means that when an individual property owner comes forward to fulfill the Site Plan Review
requirements, the same submission can be used; that is, the Master Plan can be referred to provided there are
no changes. The process is thereby streamlined, and costs savings indicated over time. A Master Plan that
addresses the “worst case scenario” will address future applications for increases in intensity of use. We
believe that asking for a Master Plan is reasonable to facilitate environmental review. Based on our meetings,
we recommend that the Master Plan address the following: Existing Development/Conditions Show the
existing development and associated conditions on a survey map for the entire property size of 21 +/- acres.
Include the buildings, roads, utility lines, parking areas, docks, landscaping and green space. Indicate % of
permeable area. Indicate the number of dwelling rentals on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Outline any
restrictions on the number of people allowed in a rented unit (renters and guests). Indicate the number of
dock rentals on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, and associated traffic counts and trips. Also show parking
areas and public facilities available as applicable (public rest rooms, fuel, holding tank pumps, boat
washing/rinsing, etc.). Indicate whether or not watercraft rentals take place, and if so, numbers involved.
Provide the most recent water testing results of lake water and suitability for swimming. Provide information
on the capabilities of the water filtration/chlorination system. Build Out Development/Conditions Indicate
the sq. ft. of full build out of each dwelling unit, and main lodge, if applicable. Show any changes (deletions
or additions) to roads, utility line locations, parking areas, docks, landscaping and green space. Indicate % of
permeable area. Indicate sufficiency of amount of parking and its arrangement for circulation. Provide
information corresponding to increases that could be expected in numbers of renters and guests due to the
increases in number of bedrooms in dwelling units. Provide information indicating need, if any, for
corresponding increases in the water filtration/chlorination system. Provide information on increased water
use anticipated. Aesthetics/Noise A visual impact analysis should be considered for each possible building
build out, to ensure the protection of the quality of view as currently enjoyed by others. Provide information
on noise levels from all traffic. Indicate any hours of restriction for use of docks. Septic Systems/Common
Area All information pertaining to septic systems should go on a separate sheet of the survey plan. Describe
inventory, and document the location and size of current systems and line connections. Assess and note the
age and current condition of each. Inventory soil types, percolation rates and other conditions that would be
applicable to these septic systems. Show potential locations and sizes of systems if full build out and
maximum impact were to occur. Note the greatest amount of possible usage in gallons per day for each
system. Consider the number of bedrooms, year-round use, use of clothes washers and public laundry
facilities, and the use of rest room facilities by dock renters. Show this information on a separate survey plan
sheet if needed. Indicate the amount of fill that would be needed to be brought in for each system. Use a
qualified engineer to developer this information so that subsequent designs are approvable by the NYS Dept.
of Health. Restrict the use of common area above filtration beds. For example, no parking lots or driveways
would be allowed to locate here. Assure that areas for the future use of septic systems are free of potential
encumbrances, like parking, utilities, and other uses. Note this on the plans. Show alternate septic locations
for each unit (to allow for possible future septic failures). Provide a draft contractual guarantee document
that notes each dwelling unit has the right to locate a septic system in the above identified areas (also applies
to alternate septic site locations). Show a community septic system as a possible alternative, using all of the
same criteria listed above. Stormwater Provide a stormwater assessment for existing conditions and full
build out. Provide a stormwater management plan for full build out. Please note that providing a Master
Plan to the Planning Board does not absolve any individual property owner from the need to obtain FAR
variance for expansion of the building or for changed use from seasonal to year round from the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA). We would appreciate hearing from you in the near future so that we can work out
a plan of action beneficial to all. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Craig MacEwan, Chairman Planning Board”
MR. STONE-All right. Would you also read the County Planning Board.
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 13, 2002
Project Name: Nizolek, William and Linda Owner: William and Linda Nizolek ID Number: QBY-AV-64-
2001 County Project#: Mar02-40 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes the conversion of a seasonal camp to a year round dwelling with the
construction of a 768 sq. ft. second story addition. Site Location: 25 Oneida Drive, Cleverdale Tax Map
Number(s): 11-1-1.27 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing,
non-conforming structure. The addition will increase the number of bedrooms from 2 to 3 and bathrooms
from ¾ to 1 ¾. The home would have an unfinished basement. Staff recommends discussion. History: The
applicant had previously requested to demolish the 768 sq. ft. building to construct a 2,304 sq. ft. building,
this included a full basement and a second story, October 2000 QBY-AV-91-2000; County approved with a
condition that the septic system be brought into compliance. The Town zoning board denied the application.
Due to the ZBA denial the applicant then proposed the construction of 768 sq. ft. addition as a second story,
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
September 2001 QBY-AV-64-2001; County approved the application. The Town zoning board tabled the
application. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the septic system
comply with local ordinances.”
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. I’m contemplating something, but go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-As a result of all the discussions that we’ve had with this Board, we had an engineer do an
analysis of the septic systems and analysis of the site plan, and we had a two hour meeting with the Planning
Board. I know that the Chairman was there, I think that Mr. McNulty may have been there as well, and I
think that that facilitated the Board of Directors, which our current applicant, the Nizoleks, don’t control,
aren’t on the Board, but that the Board of Directors is now preparing this summer to do an analysis. With
that said, what the Planning Board, they didn’t feel that they needed, if I recall this, to make a resolution
about this project because they felt that they had already recommended to this Board that they had no
problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the comment I was going to make, Mr. Lapper. This letter from Mr. MacEwan
does draw a line in the sand for future considerations. However, it is not binding on us as to where this line
is, and that’s why you’re here, because we still can draw the line one project back.
MR. LAPPER-The reason we think that this project deserves the consideration is because the location of this
unit is all the way in the back away from the lake. The septic system would be upgraded as part of the
project, and I think that the exercise was very successful in showing the (lost words) impacts of this project,
but it also gave the Board of Directors focus that that they have to obtain an engineer and do a
comprehensive plan if anyone else wants to propose an addition. The Nizoleks are the only people that are
proposing an addition now, so it’s not (lost words) cumulative plan. What we have here is a picture of the
building, and right now this is the roof line, and the only thing that we’re talking about is just bumping out
the two dormers to add the bathroom and bedroom.
MR. MASON-Bill Mason. What happens to the roof is if we left the roofline the way it was and did not raise
the height of it, it would have a very flat roof, which wouldn’t shed snow. So we do have to raise (lost
words). I did it one other time where we didn’t do that, we’d end up with a about a one and a half twelve
pitch (lost words), which is a terrible thing, but by doing that, it’s well within the height restrictions. It
doesn’t affect the height restriction in the Town of Queensbury at all.
MR. LAPPER-This unit is less than 800 square feet, less than the minimum of what you could have now for
a single family residence. It’s a modest proposal to expand it, although it’s 100%, all you’re doing is adding a
second story (lost words) so that we’re accommodating the Nizolek’s family and kids. The footprint stays
exactly the same.
MR. MASON-At the last meeting of this Board, you outlined a number of concerns that you had, which is
basically part of a master plan, although they weren’t this involved as the letter that has come out of the
Planning Board, in the way of guidance, and if you could tell from the way that was written, part of the reason
for that that I was confused, and I tried to get guidance for exactly what was wanted, and I produced this
document and submitted it to the Planning Board, which addressed the septic systems, hired an engineer to
come on site, did an engineering study of the soils and so on, we addressed all of the issues that had come
before this Board, and that Mr. Brown helped me with, to identify what the Boards were concerned with and
the Planning Board said this was a good start.
MR. STONE-What was the date of that?
MR. MASON-November 14.
th
MR. STONE-Did we get a copy of that?
MR. BRYANT-No, we didn’t.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We never saw it.
MR. MASON-I didn’t mean to go into all, but we went, you were there that night.
MR. STONE-I was there that night.
MR. MASON-We got into all of those issues that night.
MR. STONE-This is a Board of seven people who need as much information as there is available.
MR. MASON-So although we had the engineer come on site and certify exactly what was needed for the
Nizoleks and for any other building within the property, for a septic system, the Planning Board wants more
in the Master Plan type analysis, but that’s for the Planning Board and for the Board of Directors of the
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
Association to deal with, as they intend to, but as you can imagine, these are part-time, volunteer, unpaid guys
that don’t live in the area. So when I call them in December and January and say, come on, let’s meet, they’re
like, well, let’s wait until we’re all back around, you know, one’s in Vermont and two are south of here, if you
get my drift. They’re kind of hard to get them together this time of year.
MR. STONE-I’m looking at the letter that was sent to me, dated October 14, from your President, Vice
th
President and Director. They were happy with Nizolek. Is that the essence of this letter?
MR. LAPPER-Because the covenants and restrictions, which were amended in the summer to be very
restrictive on any additions/expansions of these units, they were very stringent on (lost words) and the Board
of Directors has to approve an expansion that has to look just like what’s there now (lost words) this was
submitted to the Board of Directors.
MR. STONE-I’m just reading. It says the Nizolek addition could be viewed as the maximum size allowable
because the Association and the Town would frown on additions expanding the footprint, and likewise on
additions higher than the addition of a second floor. So I guess they’re saying that, I don’t see the words in
here that we are happy with it, but they’re not saying they’re not unhappy with it. I don’t see it. Is that a
correct interpretation of this letter?
MR. MASON-I would (lost words) that they’re happy with it, or they’ve approved it.
MR. STONE-They’ve approved it?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, it doesn’t say that directly in this particular thing, in this letter. It says they’ve discussed
the issues, and they need to hire an engineer, and deeply concerned with the issues, and that’s all they say,
except for that kind of offhanded reference to the fact that it’s, they didn’t say, I’m only looking for
confirmation that the Board has approved what the Nizoleks want to do, as a precursor to this whole thing.
MR. MASON-I think somewhere in this file that we have that. I think so, because the Board approved it so
long ago. I mean, that’s the first place that we go to is to the Association Board.
MR. LAPPER-The other intent of that letter was to say that, without going to the Town for Master Plan
approval, that the Board, in and of itself, wouldn’t let people expand the footprint. That’s what they were
saying there, that any expansion would have to be very modest.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen, that you want to ask?
MR. URRICO-Originally in your application, original application, if I’m correct, took into account the
common area as consideration for the variance, floor area ratio. Is this still the case?
MR. LAPPER-No, because we’ve asked for the variance, for the Floor Area Ratio, but in terms of doing the
analysis, there are 18 acres of common property here, and the lots are the footprint plus the 12 feet, 10 feet
around them. So our argument was that if you’re going to look at the whole site, you’ve got to take into
account the 18 acres. We’re not just talking about a Floor Area variance because this is a community
association. It’s different than a single family lot.
MR. STONE-Since it was six months ago, do you want to just give a small summary of the relief you’re
talking about? I mean, we’ve got it written here, but is there any argument you’d like, just quickly, to make? I
don’t want to prolong this thing.
MR. LAPPER-This appears to be great relief if you consider that the lot is 10 feet around the unit, and we’re
asking the Board to look at the whole development of Takundewide where there are vast areas of green
space. It’s not a dense development, compared to neighboring single family properties, and the floor area
ratio, when you take into account the common area, which can’t be built on, so our argument is that you have
to look at that in the Association, that this is very modest, I think the number was five percent floor area
ratio.
MR. HAYES-For the whole project, for all the homes on the site?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MASON-And frankly, when we were dealing with these numbers, I thought we were going down the
path of trying to get this Board to agree that floor area ratio had to apply to this property, but we can’t do
that because the floor area ratio will not apply with the 18 acres as part of it. So we understand that, but from
a master plan type perspective, which is what this Board has asked us to do, and the Planning Board has, to
look at the whole property and start talking about the future of it, and the development of the entire property.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MASON-We would think you have to consider the whole property, and when you do that you’re
looking at about two-thirds of an acre per lot.
MR. STONE-Okay. Argue, if you will, why we should not wait for the master plan. I would appreciate that.
MR. LAPPER-Because this application stands on its own, because the Nizoleks own their footprint, own
their lot, and they’re the only people that are coming before you asking for a variance. The Board of
Directors is on notice that if anyone else wants to come forward, and now the homeowners have been put on
notice that the Town is going to be looking for a Master Plan, but if you look at the lots that could impact the
lake, for example, the lots that are visible from the lake, down by the lake, or have septic systems by the lake,
this is not one of those. This is all the way up in the back, and that’s why this stands on its own, because of
the location of this unit and because of the, all they’re doing is adding a second story, and a bathroom and
upgrade. So there is not a hazardous impact on the lake.
MR. STONE-But why is the next one going to have an adverse impact?
MR. MASON-Well, the other reason you would view this one differently, I would hope, is to look at the
Nizolek family, who are a one single family, (lost words) and they ran into what they didn’t ever see to
happen. This was brand new, because each one of the, I believe, I keep forgetting the numbers, but I believe
five of them that have been done before came in front of the Boards and were approved without a problem,
and they did the same exact plan that was done by the Forbes down at the water, and so their thought was,
and I think it was a logical thought, we’re away from the water. You can’t see our property. If they got it and
if the Hickey’s got it, and so on, then obviously ours is going to be approved. Okay. Now they’re two years
out and it’s costing them a lot of money.
MR. LAPPER-It’s also a fairness issue that going forward, the rest of the homeowners have now been put on
notice, based upon us working with the Planning Board and the letter going to the Board of Directors. So
everybody else knows.
MR. STONE-Okay. What would you argue, if the Nizolek’s property, with all of the other history, were on
the water?
MR. LAPPER-There may be other impacts that would have to be looked at, visual impact and septic system
impact, that (lost words) here.
MR. MASON-They might argue, prime argument, they’d have a tougher road a hoe with this Board, in that
situation.
MR. STONE-You’ve got a tough enough road a hoe. Okay. There was a comment over here.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to go back to the Chairman’s question. I think, looking at the tabling motion, I
think that was the intent of the Board, that something would be done with the Master Plan before we looked
at this, and I see the correspondence back and forth on the Master Plan.
MR. LAPPER-We did a Master Plan analysis, if you will.
MR. BRYANT-I haven’t seen it.
MR. LAPPER-(Lost words) meeting that the Chairman was present at with the Planning Board where we
analyzed the larger impacts of the project and the impacts of our specific proposal. The Planning Board was
satisfied with that, and then said they’d like the Board of Directors, if anyone else wants to expand, it’s a very
comprehensive analysis. We submitted an analysis which the Planning Board discussed.
MR. STONE-But I think I did say, in terms of, correct me if I’m wrong, but we were invited to comment at
the end of the meeting that it’s still in our ballpark.
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. STONE-Did I say that, Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-To that effect anyway.
MR. STONE-To that effect, yes. Okay. Any other comments, questions, gentlemen? If not, I will open the
public hearing, or wherever we stand with the public hearing, if there’s anybody that wants to speak. Does
anybody want to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I have a business in North Queensbury. We’re residents of
the Town of Lake George. We, too, live in a shared ownership facility called a Homeowners Association, and
I can tell you that we have a responsibility, in common with others, for the handling of our wastewater on
premises. We do it a little differently than they do it at Takundewide, but I can tell you, none of us are
allowed to increase the use of our facility to where it would generate more wastewater than what the design
basis is for that total facility. We’re just not allowed to do it. Now, Takundewide has a little different
situation, in that each of the units has its own wastewater facility, but they’re all tied together on the common
ground, and they’re owned in common, and the process, the treatment is in common, and I don’t think you
can allow any one of these units to enjoy an expansion that is going to burden that common facility in any
greater proportion than they’ve already been permitted to do in their original site plan approval. I think, you
talked about these previous five approvals. I think they’re all flawed. I think the approval process was
flawed. They should not have been allowed to do that. You’re creating a situation where there’s a potential
to generate more wastewater than was originally approved, I think is improper. I think I saw at least three or
four of you gentlemen at Monday night’s Town Board meeting, and you must have gathered the future of the
wastewater management problems we have in North Queensbury. Something has got to be done. I can tell
you when Takundewide was originally approved, there was a great anticipation that we were going to have a
wastewater management system that involved collecting the wastewater from these near shore sites. That was
the basis for this type of approval. We only had a few more years, and we were going to have a system in.
Well it’s been more than a few, and it doesn’t look like it’s even around the corner. They’re talking about a
management district that would change, if we’re even going to have a management district we’ve got to relax
the separation distances. What’s that going to do to a site like this? Got to come to grips with wastewater
management on this site. I think a central facility has got to be put in, collect it, take it back from the lake,
and process the water, and then discharge it to the groundwater. Anything short of that is environmentally a
disaster looking for a place to happen.
MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. Anybody else in opposition?
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I’m not really in opposition. I just think you should take a long, hard
look at this situation. I have been concerned about this project from the first time I heard of an expansion
there. I think you should have gone for a master plan long, long ago on this facility. As this Board knows,
and I’m sure every Board knows, in the Town of Queensbury, I am very concerned about wastewater and
drinking water. I assume that Takundewide takes the water out of the lake, which is not a very good source
anyway. I do not know how they treat it, but I really think everyone should take a very hard look at this. Do
your master plan. We were here when this project first came about. I’m sure we said some things about it at
that time. It’s always, well, this is just one little expansion. We’re not going to do any more. Then shortly
down the road there’s another one that expands. Well, we can make an exception for that one also. I think
the time has past for you making exceptions. The master plan should be on deck before anything else is done
on the site. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak against? Any additional correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence. This is from the Lake George Association,
signed by Julie A. Martin, Water Quality Coordinator, subject is the Nizolek Area Variance 64-2001 “I am
writing on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) to provide comments on the above referenced
application. The LGA had the opportunity to review the application and this letter outlines our concerns
about the project. Please consider these items when making your decision on this application. The applicant
is proposing the construction of a 768 square foot second story addition and the construction of a basement
beneath the existing structure. Relief is requested from the side and rear setback requirements, the floor area
ratio requirement, as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. In the review of the application
materials, there seems to be aspects of the project that should be more thoroughly investigated and reviewed:
The LGA is very concerned with the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, especially associated with lot
crowding on the water quality of Lake George. The applicant’s lot is 0.05 acres in size. The LGA questions
how well the applicant meets the area variance criteria. The LGA suggests that the floor area ratio
requirement not be further encroached upon. Please consider that the granting of this area variance could set
a dangerous precedent. Thank you for consideration of our comments and concerns in the interest of
protecting the water quality of Lake George. Sincerely, Julie A. Martin, Water Quality Coordinator”
MR. STONE-Is there anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Lapper, do you have a rebuttal?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mr. Salvador’s comment, saying that this would be a burden on the wastewater system
for the whole community, what’s inaccurate about that in this case is that these units, as he mentioned, have
separate systems. So it’s not a community system, and this system would have to be upgraded. We’re not
talking about any kind of a Board of Health variance. So this system would have to be expanded to
accommodate the additional bathroom, but because of the 18 acres of common property, what is unique
about Takundewide is that there is this area in back for replacement systems, and there’s plenty of room to
expand the existing leach field for this unit. So this is not the case where anybody would be burdened by the
expansion upstairs of the second story. The septic system would just be expanded as necessary.
MR. MASON-I would add to that. You have an engineer’s report, the Planning Board did, and I’m sorry you
don’t all have copies of it, but he studied the Nizolek system, and the engineer’s conclusion was the system’s
basically State of the Art. It’s got a 1,000 gallon concrete tank. The drain field is exactly what you install
today. All he could suggest is adding on to, finding the Distribution Box, making sure that everything is
going as it should, and then adding enough laterals to accommodate the additional bathroom. We have an
engineer who put it in writing that there isn’t an issue. We’re over 500 feet from Lake George. It’s not a near
shore system. It’s the farthest back away from the shore that it could possibly be.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what’s different about, the 500 feet is what, we think, justifies this expansion at this
time.
MR. STONE-Refresh my memory. I’m just looking through the file, and the appeal that you made of floor
area ratio, you took that off the table. We tabled that at one time, Craig, didn’t we? That’s what my notes
say. So now you’re just asking for a variance.
MR. LAPPER-I believe that we tabled it after discussing it, because we felt that if it were to grant a variance,
it wasn’t necessary to explore that issue.
MR. STONE-That’s right.
MR. MASON-Procedurally, (lost words) in the meetings of the variance request, and procedurally, for some
reason, that was a mistake. It was the Zoning Board.
MR. STONE-We left it tabled. Yes, they appealed it.
MR. MASON-It was just because the order of it was (lost words).
MR. STONE-So does the appeal, are you withdrawing the appeal?
MR. LAPPER-Well, if the variance is granted, the appeal is moot, and if the variance is denied, we would
have to discuss that issue, but, I mean, I think that, in Craig’s staff notes he acknowledged this time that
there’s a legitimate issue that there is all this extra land here, and that the Ordinance doesn’t talk about
community association. It doesn’t talk about that we could have all these acres of common property.
MR. MASON-On going forward, the other thing, Craig has, I shouldn’t say Craig, but in Staff notes it says
feasible alternatives is the acquisition of additional lands. That would be the only alternative given, and I’m
assuming that we’re not talking about land outside of Takundewide. It would be fairly difficult to make that
contiguous with the Nizolek parcel, and at one point this Board had suggested that, that by buying lands
within Takundewide and splitting this up differently that that would work. If that’s the case, I’m asking you
partly, is that the case, because if we leave here tonight and we have to look for alternatives, that might be one
of them, but I’d hate to spin our wheels and find that that’s not going to cut it.
MR. STONE-To me, the basic issue right now is, and I’ll state it as succinctly as I can, is why should we not
draw the line now and wait for the master plan?
MR. LAPPER-And I guess we feel that with the engineering report that we’ve submitted and the discussions
we’ve had with the Planning Board, we’ve established that there’s no adverse impact of this project on the
lake, on the community, and there’s nobody else, it’s not cumulative, nobody else is making a proposal, but
nevertheless, when somebody decides they want to expand their unit in the future, the Board’s been put on
notice as to what the Town’s going to require.
MR. MASON-And this Board stated, I know I’m paraphrasing a number of members who stated that this
particular project would not put Takundewide over the limit, but they feel that there is a point where we
would hit that limit, and that the Board would have to say no. So, based on all of that, based on
Takundewide Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors desire that the Nizoleks get this because they’ve
been waiting so long.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’re going to find that out right now.
MR. LAPPER-And 768 square feet is just a small addition, just in terms of any kind of building structure.
MR. STONE-But we’re going to find out how the Board feels right now, and we’re going to start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. Well, I have a number of comments to make. I’ve faced this thing with a lot
of ambivalence, in my mind. It’s a nice little lakeside community, and it seems to me, from a visual
standpoint, it is right now what it was intended to be at the beginning, it seems to me, but the world turns,
and people’s needs change, their desires change, so on, but even though not everyone can afford a lakeside
residence, a primary residence or a secondary residence, I feel sympathetic to what the people there want to
do, this applicant, let’s say, and perhaps others in the future. I feel sympathetic to it. The Planning Board, it
seems to me, from reading what I’ve gotten from them, it seems to me somewhat sympathetic to this
application certainly, and perhaps to the others, depending upon the results of about two pages of
specifications and so on, but it intrigues me the Planning Board does show this as kind of a positive response
to, you know, I have a dilemma, myself, here, planning, they’re looking at it from their standpoint. So maybe
that’s all right. From our standpoint maybe it’s a little different. We do have a one acre zone there. We have,
I guess, 30 or 31 principal structures or residences in the 20, 21 acres, something like that, and what are we
doing, in effect, by allowing these expansions of this magnitude, you know, the possibility of going on to
many more in the existing one, leads to more intensive use. It seems to me that the one acre thing in the
Code was to kind of combat overuse. This, it seems to me, is a large scale impact on that, and so I have
trouble looking the other way here, and to say, well, gee, we take this whole thing, one acre zone, all that goes
along with that, and we just rely on something the Planning Board says, no, it doesn’t look like it’ll have any
impact, and what you all have said may be very true. Maybe we could have a continuous, they have in other
communities, continuous condominium units and so forth. They’re not separated by hardly anything, and we
don’t have them here. So maybe there’s something wrong.
MR. LAPPER-The density of Takundewide, compared to Cleverdale in general I think we’ve already shown
that there’s a lot more land.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’re not going to do this.
MR. HIMES-I meant in other communities other than Queensbury, other places, you’ll see them. So there’s
certainly, in a lot of areas, they look at how compact things can be a little differently than we do. However,
it’s not within my capabilities to make that kind of assessment. I do look at the thing. I have some feeling
that one acre zone means something, in spite of the fact there’s very little places on the lake that meet that.
Now what we’re doing is we’re giving away more. We’re taking something away from what I think was
intended with this Code, the one acre zone. So I, in spite of the fact that I understand things are changing,
people seem to need more room and all that. I have to say we draw the line here. I just can’t see increasing
the intensity of use the way this is going to do, eventually, in my simple mind, and therefore I’m just very
sorry to say that I do not think that I could approve the application.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to echo some of the same sentiments. I think that we need to reflect upon
what the original intent of Takundewide was, which was for summertime, seasonal use cottages, and the
intensification of use and the changeover, as you propose to possible year round residence. I mean, I assume
if someone’s going to spend substantial money to change over a place and put a cellar in it, and a second
story, that in some point in time it’s probably going to become a retirement home or something like that, but
to interpolate, you know, we’re supposed to be looking at a single use here. This is the furthest cottage from
the lake, but nonetheless, it’s Cottage #25 of 30 plus cottages that are there. So I think that we have to keep
in mind what the intent of our granting variances is, and when you’re talking about a floor area ratio variance
that’s approximately 204% increase over what’s already there, no one bought one of these cottages initially
not knowing they were cottages. They were summer use or seasonal use, and I think that for us to allow
them all to, or, as the five previous ones have been done, to be changed to year round usage, that was
obviously not in the best interest of the lake, and I think even though this one is set well back from the lake,
it probably, allowing it to change over would not have any adverse effects on the lake per se, if we did change
this one over, even despite the fact that we now are requiring a master plan from the Association at some
point, the good old days at Takundewide of just getting these things rolled through may be over, and I think
that the buck has to stop somewhere, and rather than it being the next one, I think it should stop here.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I think that the original intent, at least in my mind, when we tabled the original
proposal, I think the intent was to draw the line at that point and say, we just weren’t going to go any further
without a master plan, and I, you know, I hear from the other Board members, I think that’s what they’re
looking for, and I think that that’s what I’d like to see. I would be opposed to the application.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to take it down the criteria and talk about the five tests that we’re required to
look at. As far as the benefit to the applicant, yes, the applicant would be able to allow, would be able to get
the construction they’ve desired for a number of years. As far as feasible alternatives, maybe the acquisition
of additional lands would be feasible in most instances, but I don’t see it as being a feasible alternative here,
and given what Takundewide is and how it’s laid out. As far as the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance,
two feet of relief from the twelve foot setback does not bother me, 67% floor area ratio does bother me, not
only in the number, but what it represents if we were to allow it, which is basically to change the Code, which
I don’t think that’s what we’re here for. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, well, we’ve
already heard about the impact and what it could have in terms of setting a precedent. This is probably
something that should have been thought about a couple of applications back in this area, and we wouldn’t
be in this situation now, but we are here now, and I think I’d echo the sentiments of some of the other Board
members. I think it’s time to stop and reevaluate where we are with this area. As far as the difficulty being
self-created, I’d say yes and no, partially the applicant itself created this, but I think the Town also takes some
responsibility in this respect, in the sense that we’ve allowed projects to get built prior to this, which lead the
applicant to believe that they could also do this project, but on the weight of everything, I cannot approve it
at this point.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think everyone on the Board agrees that this is a relatively close issue, and that there
certainly is a certain amount of weight to be placed on the applicant’s agent asking us to consider the big
picture here. Because certainly the amount of land that’s involved with the common area has to be
considered for something, but suffice to say, I don’t think anyone on this Board wants the momentum of the
Takundewide development, stopping the momentum of the Takundewide development to fall squarely on the
Nizoleks, but I have to say that I agree with the eloquent points of the Board members here, that, for the
reasons that really have already been discussed, and I won’t go into them again, it’s not really necessary, but I
think we’re looking for a master plan and we’re looking for some kind of vision as to what can be expected of
Takundewide in the future, before we can approve anymore applications.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, like the other members, I’m kind of on the fence. On the one hand, I hate to place
this burden on the Nizoleks, because I think the point’s been made validly that they had probably no real
reason to expect a problem with getting this approval. At the same time, like the other Board members, I’ve
got a real concern about where we’re going, not only with Takundewide, but in general with lakefront
properties on Lake George. There’s a trend towards taking all the seasonal properties, converting them to
year round, the cumulative impact on the lake is going to be substantial, and I think it’s time we need to
consider that. At the same time I think very possibly that a master plan for Takundewide may show that it is
possible to convert a number of these places to year round without there being a significant impact on the
lake, but that’s just my opinion at this point. We don’t have the basis for a master plan. To tell you the truth,
I’m not sure which way I’m going to go. I’m kind of on the fence, trying to balance between the Nizoleks
and what they’ve gone through so far, and the need for a better evaluation.
MR. STONE-I’m certainly going to echo the sentiments of the rest of my Board members. I’m not against
the project per se. I mean, I think, if, in a vacuum, this is reasonable, I could make a reasonable argument for
considering the use of the common lands to reduce the floor area ratio, but having said that, we are
recognizing, obviously we have all recognized, that this has been creeping forward on this very nice piece of
property, and the impact, the future impact, is unknown, and while, I think Mr. McNulty said it very well,
while I don’t want to necessarily burden the Nizoleks with the straw that broke the camel’s back, I have to
think it is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think we’ve looked at this thing, and certainly we have
given it a lot of consideration and a lot of honest thought has gone into it on all the Board members. We
certainly indicate that we’re somewhat conflicted by this thing, but I think when faced with our own concern
for the future of this property, coupled with the very detailed letter by the Planning Board Chairman of things
that probably we, as a Zoning Board, with our experience, might not even have thought of, I just think it’s
time to stop, get this master plan, and then hopefully we can continue into the future with making
improvements to that piece of property. Certainly, it’s a large piece of property. I think, as Mr. Himes said,
however, even if you divide up the whole property by the number of homes, you still don’t get to one acre
lots, and that’s what we supposedly have on the lake. Having said that, I would be guided by your choices. I
mean, certainly we can deny it, and we can wait for a master plan and look for a new application. I would
certainly not require you coming before the Board and saying, is it changed enough. I would just condition
the denial on future consideration when a master plan is in place. I don’t want to put that extra step in there.
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, just my own thoughts, in connection with this, that, again, in view of what we
see as the Zoning Ordinance and what I feel is intended with it here, and the impact of what could possible
develop here. Whether or not a master plan comes along, other than acquisition of other lands, or something
along that line, or some changes, very greatly, of making this application different, I would hate to put the
people through something on the expectation that my vote would be any different in the future.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. All I’m saying, Norm, is that, normally if we denied this, they would have to come back
and ask us is it different enough, and I’m just taking that off the table. Can I do that?
MR. BROWN-I’m not so sure that you could do that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And one other thing. I certainly don’t want to argue the application for the applicant, because
that’s not our position here, as Staff, to do that. I just, and I think in the very beginning of this application,
you guys read the tabling motion, which basically said, we want to put this on the table until we get some
guidance from the Planning Board. I think, in good faith, the applicant did exactly what you wanted them to
do. They went to the Planning Board and met, on two or three occasions, got a pretty detailed, in-depth
review by the Planning Board, by their representative as well, and got some response from the Planning
Board. They got a three page letter that you read into the record of all the things that they’ve considered
when they reaffirmed their motion that said, we think that Takundewide may develop some cumulative
impacts, but we think this one’s okay, in the short term of it.
MR. STONE-That’s not what this letter says. It says, “Please note that providing a master plan to the
Planning Board does not absolve any individual property owner from the need to obtain a floor area ratio
variance for expansion of the building or for change use from seasonal to year round from the Zoning
Board.”
MR. BROWN-No, I’m not suggesting that a master plan would let them do that. I just wanted to remind you
that the tabling motion you gave to them last year was to get guidance from the Planning Board with the
preparation of a master plan.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-I think they’ve done that. I think they’ve been to the Planning Board. The Planning Board’s
looked at the project. They’ve looked at the planning issues associated with the development, and they’ve
provided the Homeowners Association with a letter of all the information that’s going to be necessary in the
master plan.
MR. STONE-But they have also provided it to us.
MR. BROWN-I’m not arguing with you. I just wanted to just refresh that point.
MR. STONE-No, no. They’ve also provided it to us, and our interpretation, our feeling is that, let’s do it
now.
MR. BROWN-That’s your decision.
MR. STONE-Yes. Go ahead, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I’d just like to comment again, in recognizing that Craig has, and I also felt that, you know,
what he says is valid, and the thing that, one of the points that I was trying to make before is there’s
something wrong here. I mean, if what I perceive the Planning Board’s thoughts to be, that, well, there are
ways where this could be handled with no impact to the community or no negative impact to the community
and so forth. Why do we have this, why are we going along with trying to support a one acre zoning code?
So unless there’s some way to take it out of our purview, of the zoning, what I’m saying is recognizing, true,
what they did, they did what we asked and so on, and (lost words) because I didn’t know what the Planning
Board was going to say, how can they feel the way they do when they understand what one acre zoning is,
unless, you know, the fact that there’s going to be a plan, and the fact that the Planning Board may say, here’s
what you do to get the plan, so that it can be approved by the Planning Board, I don’t see how, you know, the
congruency here between our efforts and the Planning Board’s.
MR. STONE-I would submit to you that the one acre is not on the table. That’s not what the variance
they’re seeking has anything to do with the one acre.
MR. HIMES-I know that. What I’m saying is that we ought to have them apply some background thinking
to applications. There’s a concert of things to take into consideration in my opinion, that really is.
MR. MASON-The floor area ratio requirement is what tries to address that, and our argument is, and I’ll
make it briefly, because I know it doesn’t hold water much with this Board, but that the 18 acres has to come,
and for that, in some way or form, there are 18 acres of undevelopable land surrounding all these buildings.
You can’t just ignore it. It’s not like, we sort of are, when we say that for the floor area ratio we don’t count
it, then all of a sudden all of the responses you get say that we have a building on .05 acres. Well, that’s just,
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
that’s silly. I mean, that thought means that for every .05 acres we’ve got a building, and that’s just not what
we’ve got there, 21 acres with 32 homes on that.
MR. STONE-I would like to call for a motion, because I think we’re getting off track, because I could argue,
I could support the argument on the floor area ratio, but we have an opportunity to say we would like to wait
on this, and that’s really what I think we’re doing. We’re waiting for a master plan, and then we could come
back with the same application, but the easiest way is you have two or three choices. One, you can withdraw
the application with no prejudice, obviously, and we’ll wait for the master plan, or we can deny it on the basis
of the votes that I’ve counted up, I think there would be support to deny the variance as constituted at the
moment, the application.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would ask, first, for two minutes, because I haven’t had a chance to respond to what
the discussion of this Board.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll give you two minutes.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess summing up where Bill was going, I guess. We’re talking about, the one acre
zone is what is proposed after we’d had an already developed area of the Town. So the reason why there are
area variances, and certainly the reason why we have the floor area ratio is because you have these pre-existing
undersized lots, and floor area ratio deals with the fact that whatever the size of the lot is, the building has to
be proportional to that lot, and that’s how you get around it and have an already developed area, and that’s
why I think our argument is very strong, and I would go so far as to say that if you ignore the 18 acres, I think
that would be an arbitrary position, and I know that this Board tries very hard not to take arbitrary positions,
but I think that you can’t ignore the fact that there’s 18 acres, and that means that the principal variance that
we’re asking for here is not a significant variance because, if you look at the floor area ratio of the whole
project, the whole development, as you look at the whole floor area ratio of any other lot, this is far less than
it was in Cleverdale. Secondly, I don’t think that anyone has identified the impacts from this application,
from this expansion of the second floor adverse impacts. We’ve had, obviously in good faith, they’ve spent a
lot of time and effort and money to try and satisfy this Board, hiring an engineer, analyzing this septic system,
talking about it with the Planning Board, and regardless of the fact that the Planning Board wrote a strong
letter to try and get some attention from the Board of Directors in the future, they again affirmed their
motion when they finished our two hour analysis, saying that they don’t see any reason why the Nizolek’s
application causes any impacts and should be denied, and I think that, from the Nizoleks’ standpoint, just a
husband and wife with their three kids, that they’ve tried to do everything they can to satisfy this Board in
good faith, and you know that. We’ve been here for over a year, after it was denied the first time, and they
are just looking for a second story addition so they have room for their teenage kids, and just in terms of
fairness, I think that now everyone’s on notice. They weren’t on notice about a master plan for a couple of
individuals, a married couple, they went and hired the engineer, and did an analysis, not just of their property,
but a larger, community wide analysis of green space, of septic system, of the water system, to satisfy you, and
did satisfy the Planning Board, for the sake of saying that they should go forward, and I guess I would just ask
you to give them some consider, because there’s no bad aspect. There’s nothing that they’re doing here,
when you look at the photo, you’re adding a second story, it doesn’t make the whole thing seem too dense.
No one has suggested that this creates a problem, and to look at the one acre zone and say that this should
comply when the rest of Cleverdale doesn’t comply, but this would comply with the floor area ratio for the
whole project, and that’s why I would argue that it’s not a significant impact.
MR. STONE-I can’t speak for the Board, obviously, but what I heard, and in my little poll here, I heard at
least five people, if not six, saying, not now. Let’s wait. Let’s not rush ahead to judgment, since we know this
master plan information has been asked for, and we just feel that this is where we want to draw the line. I
mean, that’s all. This has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a good plan, that it’s a bad plan. It’s just that it
has raised some serious questions on the future of the community, and we’d like to, I mean, that’s what I
heard. I mean, obviously, we haven’t taken a vote. We haven’t tried a motion, but that’s the comments that I
got, and I would call for a motion to deny the variance, the application, on the basis of what I heard.
MR. LAPPER-What you’re really asking for, it doesn’t sound like you want to deny this. It sounds like you
want a master plan.
MR. STONE-That’s correct. Well, we can defer consideration of this, that’s a motion we could make, for an
extended tabling. Is that legit?
MR. BROWN-I guess to clarify what my position was before is that if you’re going to table it, I’d caution you
not to table it for the reason you already tabled it for, because I think they did what you asked them to do the
last time. If you’re going to deny it, make sure you deny it for the right reasons, and not because they don’t
have a master plan ready, and I don’t think that’s in the criteria. I think if it’s too tall or it’s a detriment to the
community, you can deny it for those reasons, but not because the master plan’s not ready. Just, if you’re
going to act on it, act on it for the right reasons.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure I agree that we can’t table it to wait for a master plan, because that’s the guidance
we got. One guidance we got was that the Planning Board would like a master plan. We can say, okay, we
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
hear you, and we think it should apply to this particular application. That’s all we’re saying. At least I think
that’s what we’re saying.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with you somewhat, but I think the Planning Board, their input basically they’re saying
this proposal is okay, however, long term, it may have a detrimental effect to the other land owners, and they
say that, too, in the letter. So, I mean, it’s a double edged sword here. Yes, it’s okay, but, and whenever you
use but, it negates what goes before it. So they are saying that. So, yes, the applicant did do what we
requested. They went for guidance to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board gave them a but. So, I
think, you know, we’re still not really where we want to be. Maybe the answer is a full master plan.
MR. STONE-I mean, I can see a motion, and I’m just rambling here, that says, we did receive guidance from
the Planning Board, and they requested, required a master plan from the Homeowners Association for future
development, future changes on this land, and that in our judgment, we think we should put this under that
same thing, that same, that’s the guidance. We got guidance. Guidance is a very broad word. We got
guidance. They gave us a whole series of recommendations for a master plan, and we’re saying, in our
judgment, we would like to wait on this particular one until we get it. I don’t think it’s arbitrary. I think it
goes along with what we asked for.
MR. BROWN-I would just, if that’s the way you want to act, that’s the Board’s decision, obviously, but I’d
make sure that’s one of the five criteria, that if they don’t have a master plan you feel that’s necessary to
address the effects on the neighborhood or community, and then I think that that’s okay.
MR. STONE-It’s an interesting, Jaime just mentioned to me, one of the things that I think it requires, in
future Staff notes, is the full consideration of Number Four, which is neighborhood or community. I think
that’s what you’re saying, Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STONE-I think that’s a very important point. We don’t usually address that.
MR. HAYES-Which is what Craig is saying. It just has to be part of the test.
MR. BROWN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Yes, it is part of the test, and we’re saying the greater community, the lake properties of the
Town of Queensbury, the impact on the greater community, and I think that’s what we’re trying to do here.
MR. LAPPER-Looking at the New York law from where that evolves, it actually says the neighborhood or
the district, meaning the zoning district. So it’s not quite that broad.
MR. STONE-Okay. The zoning district goes from Pilot Knob to Lake George. That’s a fairly long district.
It also includes Glen Lake and the Hudson River. I mean, that’s all lumped in our one zoning classification.
So that’s a fairly large community. Go ahead, Jaime, try something and let’s see where we go.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny Area Variance No. 64-2001, William and Linda Nizolek.
MR. LAPPER-If the Board’s going to deny it, we don’t want to be forced to go to court over this, so I guess
one possibility is to table it and see how quick we could do a master plan, given that’s what the Board wants,
to not have to fight about whether it’s appropriate, but to give them the option of seeing if they can get the
Board of Directors to do this sooner rather than later.
MR. STONE-That’s all right with me. I have no problem with that. We can table it for an extended period,
until such time as the master plan is accepted by the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-Just be clear and don’t say you need guidance if you want a document from them, if you want
a map from them or a plan from them.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me try it.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2001 WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Cottage #25, Oneida Drive, Takundewide. For such time as required for the Homeowners Association
Board of Directors to respond with a master plan as asked for by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board.
At that time, we would consider this application using the criteria of the master plan to decide whether or not
to grant this variance, for up to one year.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED KFC/A & W (KENTUCKY FRIED
CHICKEN/A & W REST.) PROPERTY OWNER: LINDA HESLER/NORTHGATE ENT.,
INC. AGENT: RAY ALEY LOCATION: 797 STATE ROUTE 9 ZONE: PC-1A APPLICANT
PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 3/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 98-4-3 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-43 LOT SIZE:
2.86 SECTION: 140-6
RAY ALEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 14-2002, KFC/A & W (Kentucky Fried Chicken/A & W Rest.),
Meeting Date: March 20, 2002 “Project Location: 797 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes placement of two additional wall signs. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from
the Sign Ordinance; per § 140-6(B3d), for the placement of two additional wall signs. Criteria for
considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to gain two additional wall signs, an additional one for KFC and an additional
one for A & W. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include utilizing the two approved,
compliant signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief for two additional wall
signs where only two are allowed (one per business in a business complex) may be interpreted as substantial,
relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be attributed to the orientation of the building with respect to State Route 9. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 2002-081: 02/13/02; alteration to the
front of building. Sign Permit 2002-079: 02/06/02; 72.7 sq. ft. wall sign Sign Permit 2002-080: 02/06/02;
73.5 sq. ft. wall sign. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. It does not appear as though a strict application of the Sign Ordinance would impose an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant. However, some consideration may be given to the orientation of the building in
relation to State Route 9. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 13, 2002
Project Name: KFC/A & W Owner: Linda Hensler/Northgate Enterprises, Inc. ID Number: QBY-SV-
14-2002 County Project#: Mar02-35 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes placement of two additional wall signs and seeks relief from the
requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 797 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 302.06-1-43
Staff Notes: The applicant proposes two additional wall signs to obtain more clients going south bound on
Route 9. Staff recommends to concur with local sign ordinance and suggests discussion. County Planning
Board Recommendation: Deny The Warren County Planning Board historically has concurred with the
Town of Queensbury’s Sign Ordinance.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board
3/14/02.
MR. STONE-Before we get to you, Craig, I believe there was a variance that we granted that is not in the
parcel history, to expand the building, two, three, four years ago. Time flies so fast when you’re having fun.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I didn’t find it.
MR. STONE-We granted one.
MR. BROWN-Okay. For this building?
MR. STONE-Yes, when they added, toward Route 9, they added.
MR. HAYES-A little wing there.
MR. STONE-A wing there, yes, along the Route 9 side of the building.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, you’re on.
MR. ALEY-Mr. Chairman, my name is Ray Aley. I’m Vice President of Operations for (Lost word)
Management which owns and operates the KFC/A & W here in Town.
MR. STONE-Since you’re new to our community, because the County denied it, to approve this variance, we
have to have five votes, not four, not a simple majority. First of all, we always need a majority of seven, even
if we only have five people, it’s got to be four, but because of the denial, this requires five.
MR. ALEY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Just so that.
MR. ALEY-Thank you for showing up everyone.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ALEY-Okay. A couple of notes. You’ll notice that the KFC, we’ve always kept that current, up to date.
It was remodeled five years ago, and the variance that was sought, I wasn’t involved in the operation at the
time, but it was the walk-in that exceeded the setback by about a foot. That was a variance that was granted.
To accommodate the new look, which was only five years old, our philosophy is to keep the stores looking
fresh. This concept is the first in the State of New York, the KFC/A & W combination, the first one here. I
gave you the photograph of the prototype. To kind of walk through the five criteria, I’m at a competitive
disadvantage because I’m located in what you’re calling a business complex, okay. Had I been a freestanding,
which I am, I’m not connected to the shopping center, I’m a freestanding building, I would be allowed to
have a pylon sign with a marquee, similar to McDonald’s/Burger King, my other competitors, as well as the
signs that are shown on the building in the prototype.
MR. HAYES-Is that right, Craig, if he was an independent building he would be, four signs would be
permitted?
MR. STONE-Not four, two and one.
MR. HAYES-Two and one.
MR. BROWN-If it was a separate business on a separate parcel.
MR. STONE-It would be one pylon, and both could be on the same pylon.
MR. HAYES-Two wall signs.
MR. BROWN-One wall sign per business and the pylon sign.
MR. STONE-It would have to conform to the size, even though it listed two businesses.
MR. HAYES-So it would be one, one and the pylon.
MR. ALEY-Okay. I’m sorry. Originally when I turned this in Craig had approved it, and then he realized
that it, so I thought that that was why he told me that it wasn’t. I bought these signs, and then he told me
after the fact.
MR. HAYES-We have to straight him out all the time.
MR. ALEY-I’m not blaming him. I guess he. Well, anyhow, the benefit to me is it gives me a little bit more
of an advantage when you can see what my business is, especially if you’re traveling southbound on Route 9.
If you look at the layout of the building, you don’t really even find out what the building is, when you’re
traveling that way, until you get to the entrance. Obviously, I think the effect on the community is increasing
the safety. Eric Flosser in his, the book was written in 2001, Fast Food Nation quotes that 75% of all QSR,
Quick Service Restaurant, purchases impulse buys. People know they’re hungry. They may not know exactly
what they want, and being an impulse, you want to allow people the opportunity to make a safe decision, as
opposed to saying, hey, quick right or quick left in. Feasible alternatives, yes, to me would be to grant the
pylon sign, and a marquee, that would be visible from both north and southbound. Is the relief substantial,
well, to me it is because I’d be able to pay the bills. As a restaurant company, our firm, we employ 36 people
at this restaurant. We offer medical, dental, health benefits, a 401K, we’re a good employer in town. We’ve
got to pay the bills. Signs help pay the bills. They increase safety and visibility.
MR. STONE-Did you buy this since the building was upgraded? Because I thought there was another
gentleman.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. ALEY-We’ve upgraded the building. Jim Mathis came, he’s my uncle. It’s a family business.
MR. STONE-Okay. That helps me. I didn’t know.
MR. ALEY-Yes. I’m V.P. of Op’s. Jim retired a few years back.
MR. STONE-Can you tell us about this dual operation, just very briefly, please.
MR. ALEY-It’s the way you’re going to see the industry going, okay. It’s called multi-branding. You’ve
probably seen the KFC/Taco Bell down on Exit 11. You can get a taco or you can get a chicken.
MR. URRICO-Or a chicken taco.
MR. ALEY-Or a chicken taco, exactly. Fifteen is actually two separate buildings, because that’s my KFC but
the Taco Bell is owned by Taco Bell Corporate. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Same idea.
MR. ALEY-They’re both under one roof. You’re going to see a lot more of them. That’s the way the
industry is going. Because it offers people quite a variety. We also offer a Dunkin Donuts, which owns
Togos and Baskin Robbins. So they’re trying to get us to open these trombos, three in one concepts.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Hess does with their gas station.
MR. ALEY-They’ve got the Blimpie inside. They’ve also got.
MR. STONE-They have pizza.
MR. ALEY-They have pizza in there now, so that’s the way the industry is going. You’re going to see a lot
more of these. As I mentioned, this is the first KFC/A & W in Upstate New York. The first one opened in
New England two weeks ago. You’ll probably see about 300 more open nationwide this year, in terms of
KFC/A & W’s. There are literally hundreds of KFC/Taco Bell’s. In fact I have one up in Malone, a combo
like this. Tri Con Restaurants just recently, two days ago, bought A & W and Long John Silvers. So you’re
going to see the five brand Pizza Hut/KFC/Taco Bell/Long John Silvers/A & W, all inter-combining in a
similar kind of concept. That allows us, the franchise operators, to keep the buildings looking fresh, to offer
competitive wages, and it offers, you, the guests, a good choice and a good selection. Perhaps you don’t like
chicken. You might like tacos or vice versa, or in these days hot dogs and burgers, and A & W root beer.
MR. URRICO-I have a couple of questions. Some are for Staff and some are for the gentleman. If we
consider this as part of a business complex, then we would be entitled to one wall sign and one freestanding
sign?
MR. BROWN-One wall sign per tenant.
MR. URRICO-One wall sign per tenant, but they could use the one sign that says like Northgate Plaza as a
place to put a sign as well? In the case of Staples, we have allowed them to do that.
MR. BROWN-If there’s room to place their advertisement on the plaza pylon sign, sure. You could do that.
MR. URRICO-And then they’re also entitled to a sign per entrance to each new road?
MR. BROWN-If the plaza has entrance from two different right of ways.
MR. URRICO-And there is one from Old Aviation Road and Route 9, right?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if they’re two separate right of ways, or it’s all the same right of way.
MR. ALEY-Are you referring to the way that everybody cuts through the center?
MR. URRICO-Yes, well, it used to be a road, but there is a way you could get in there.
MR. ALEY-Yes, people constantly cut through and block my drive thru. They really shouldn’t be.
MR. STONE-It’s not supposed to be.
MR. URRICO-So we’re not considering that as a right of way.
MR. STONE-No.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. URRICO-Okay, and have you investigated the possibility of putting a sign where Northgate Plaza is,
where that sign is located?
MR. ALEY-I had talked to Linda Hesler about that. She’s the property owner of the center there, and I think
she has a good point. What about all the other clients.
MR. URRICO-What about them?
MR. ALEY-Well, they’d want one, too.
MR. URRICO-Is there something wrong with that? I mean, we’ve allowed that in some instances. Red
Lobster has it.
MR. ALEY-I agree.
MR. STONE-But they have a limitation on the size of the sign.
MR. ALEY-Right. I’d mentioned that to her. I think she likes that sign.
MR. URRICO-And couldn’t you do with two signs rather than four signs, put one on each side, one facing
traffic heading north on Route 9 and one facing the traffic heading south on Route 9?
MR. ALEY-So that maybe if you were coming southbound you could see the A & W sign, and if you were
coming north you’d see KFC?
MR. URRICO-Or combine the two. Is there anything against the Colonel and A & W combing into one
sign? You would have two signs with both of them.
MR. ALEY-I have never, I guess what you’re referring to is a sign that would look similar to this?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. ALEY-Okay. That could be an alternative, but I’ve never seen one constructed. The cost of such
would probably be quite prohibitive.
MR. URRICO-You can see that wall, the wall that’s facing north on Route 9, the one that just went up. You
can see that from Ray Supply, or just south of Wal-Mart.
MR. ALEY-That wall you can see.
MR. URRICO-Yes, and that would be the wall that you pointed out to in your notes that, heading south you
can’t see Kentucky Fried Chicken as it currently is located without a sign there, the impulse buying you were
talking about, would allow people more time to decide whether they want chicken or not. Right? You’re
talking about maximum exposure. I would think that wall, having a sign on it, would be something you’d
need to have.
MR. ALEY-I’m sorry. I’m not sure I’m following your.
MR. URRICO-You’ve requested four signs. I’m asking why you cannot get, cannot use just two signs, one in
each direction, one facing traffic coming north and one facing traffic coming south?
MR. ALEY-Okay. I follow that. So if I look at this, on the front corner, if I have two signs that shared both
of the brands, that’s what you’re suggesting, so I just put signs on the front corner?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. ALEY-So in effect, wouldn’t you interpret that that’s, I’ve never seen.
MR. URRICO-I’m just trying to help you out because I think four is excessive to me. This is my feeling.
MR. ALEY-But I’m asking that you see it as two. Because I’m two separate businesses. I had to pay two
separate franchise fees. I pay two different sets of royalties. I have to keep track of my sales separately. I’m
really two businesses.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I guess we disagree.
MR. STONE-And if you were a standalone property, you could have one sign for each business, and you
could have a pylon sign, which would be visible from both directions. The building that you have chosen to
lease happens to be in a plaza, and we have rules and regulations about plazas, in terms of how many signs,
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
and the only thing I would say, I mean obviously you’ve got some concern here about signs, our Sign
Ordinance is, we feel very strongly about our Sign Ordinance in the Town. You have to know that as you
discuss this with us. Any other comments anybody wanted to make?
MR. UNDERWOOD-As the new concept goes, it appears to me, like with your checkerboard with you’re a
& W on those entrances and then the Colonel kind of out on the point there, maybe it would be possible to
put the Colonel’s face right on the point, you know, angled so it’s, so you can see it from both directions
there. At that point maybe we could consider slightly smaller A & W signs on those entranceways. So at least
you’ll get rid of one of the signs. I don’t know if that’s a possibility or something to consider, or if that would
work for you, either.
MR. STONE-Let me ask Craig a question. If there were a sign, I’m looking at this prototype, which is not,
but if that sign were on the corner, braced on both sides, is that something that can be, or even a wraparound
sign?
MR. BROWN-So what’s your question?
MR. STONE-I don’t know what my question is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you could hang it on a bracket, or you could put it right on the face of the, you
know, where the corner comes together, put it right on the corner, you know, so it’s facing out.
MR. STONE-I guess what I’m asking, Craig, if we have a wall sign, does that mean flush with a wall?
MR. BROWN-Typically, yes. It’s typically, if it’s a sign on one face of the building, that’s a sign. If it goes
around a corner, that’s two signs. It’s on two separate faces.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I thought.
MR. BROWN-And I think to get maybe an answer to one of Roy’s questions that he started with in the
beginning, it would still be interpreted as two signs per business if you had two combo signs. I think that’s a
feasible alternative, to allow them to get the four signs they want, but combine them into two physical signs.
It sounds like that’s where you’re trying to go with that. It would still be interpreted as two signs per
business, and still require a variance. Does that answer your question?
MR. STONE-It would. In other words, if you took a conforming sign, I forget what the size is, I should look
it up.
MR. ALEY-Well, for example.
MR. STONE-Yes, for that.
MR. ALEY-This is what the freeway is going to look like, the exit signs on the Interstate will look like this,
without this bottom banner.
MR. STONE-Yes, A & W and.
MR. ALEY-That’s what’s going on the Northway.
MR. STONE-Now if that one sign, it would still be, two signs, if he has one sign that advertises both
businesses.
MR. HAYES-One sign.
MR. STONE-It’s one sign, isn’t it?
MR. BROWN-It’s two signs. If we’re going to call them two separate businesses, the advertising for each
one of them has to be separated. So that’s two signs. They’re jammed together, but it’s two signs.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the issue is we’re talking two separate businesses in the same building. Any other
questions, gentlemen, before we continue?
MR. ALEY-I’d like to make one comment. The sign permit here also, you know, if you’re looking at
evaluating the square feet, the square footage, as mentioned on the sign permits, were for all of the signs that
are in question. So, currently, I’m only half of what’s on here. When I wrote out the sign permit, I included
all of the signs, and then submitted it. Craig then called me afterwards and said, wait, because of being in
complex, and so that’s really half of it. I’m only 36 and a half square on each of them, and the dimensions are
on all the signs. So you can verify that. I’m not really using 150 square feet by using all four, or by using two.
I’m only 75 square, approximately.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-What is on this prototype? What is All American Foods underneath there. Is that something
you want, too?
MR. ALEY-That’s A & W’s. That’s their slogan, logo, All American Food Burgers and Dogs.
MR. STONE-Okay. What’s the square footage of that, if we took that sign together. Have you got any idea?
Because you’ve got to include the stuff in the middle.
MR. ALEY-I did.
MR. STONE-Did you?
MR. ALEY-I’ve got it on one of the permits. I’m sorry. I turned all my stuff in.
MR. HAYES-Yes. It’s right here. It’s outlined and done correctly.
MR. STONE-Is it? Okay. Any other questions or comments, gentlemen, before I open the public hearing?
Hearing none, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In
favor?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I’m a little confused. You’re talking about what I call a strip mall
and you’re calling, I don’t know what it is, with an additional building in it, and you’re saying that he cannot
have a freestanding sign because he is part of this complex.
MR. STONE-Staff is saying that.
MRS. SALVADOR-Staff is saying this. Okay. Then why are the outlets allowed freestanding signs and wall
signs, if this gentleman is not allowed a freestanding sign? What’s the difference between the outlets and this
strip mall?
MR. BROWN-The plaza is allowed a freestanding sign, and if there’s room on the plaza sign to put each
individual tenant, that’s fine, but I think in this case, from what Mr. Aley said, that the plaza owner isn’t
willing to get all the individual tenants on the sign.
MRS. SALVADOR-Well, maybe all the individual tenants don’t want to be on the sign.
MR. BROWN-I can’t answer that.
MRS. SALVADOR-I mean, I travel there all the time, and I’ve honestly never noticed a freestanding sign
there. There obviously is one.
MR. HAYES-But that’s for them to decide.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, okay, but could he have that on that freestanding sign if the owner of this complex
agreed to it?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Yes, absolutely.
MR. STONE-As long as the sign doesn’t exceed the maximum allowable signage.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Then may I ask a stupid question, because I don’t really ever, having lived in this
area 29 years, I don’t remember seeing a freestanding sign there because there’s so much congestion there
anyway. What is on the freestanding sign?
MR. URRICO-Northgate Plaza.
MR. BROWN-I think it just says Northgate Plaza.
MRS. SALVADOR-Northgate Plaza. That’s all it says.
MR. BROWN-And there may be an Aroxy, no, maybe it’s just Northgate Plaza. Just Northgate Plaza. Just
the Plaza identification.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. If the owner agrees. So it’s not your regulation that he can’t have this sign.
MR. STONE-Not at all.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. HAYES-He pointed out that she just doesn’t appear to want to cooperate with that idea, basically.
MR. STONE-If you look at the corner of 149 and Route 9, there’s a sign there with all of them, but it doesn’t
exceed the maximum allowable square footage.
MRS. SALVADOR-And what is the maximum allowable square footage?
MR. BROWN-Based on the setback, it’s either 50 square foot or 64 square feet.
MR. HAYES-How far it is away from the road, essentially.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. That’s pretty close to the road, and that does not exceed 50 square feet?
MR. STONE-Apparently not. We hope not.
MRS. SALVADOR-I would measure it. It depends on what you’re measuring. Are you just measuring the
lettering on the signs, or are you measuring the whole?
MR. HAYES-The sign itself.
MRS. SALVADOR-The sign itself? That’s close to the road. I think that’s more than 50 square feet, but
that’s not the subject tonight.
MR. STONE-I mean, that is something that the applicant certainly can choose to follow, and all we care
about is that when the new sign goes up, that it meets the requirements of 50 or 64 and that if it doesn’t, then
the owner of the property can request a variance. So there is an option.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. There is an option. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? In favor of? Opposed? Anybody opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do we have any further questions? Jim, let’s start with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know. I think that we still have to uphold the sign standards that are in the
code book, and, you know, it allows for single signs, or in this case it would be two signs on the wall. So I
think that’s probably the only alternative. So in doing so I would say you’re probably not going to be allowed
sign number three and sign number four. I think that’s your only choice as what you get. Sorry.
MR. STONE-You’re saying no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, historically I’ve been against the two sign scenario also. We had a couple come before
us on Quaker Road some time back, but I’ve got to say there are a couple of points that were brought up.
Number One, the building is in a weird setting, you know, location, and you really can’t see that front sign
when you’re coming south on Route 9, and I think, had it not been snowing today, I would probably agree
with Jim and say you’re really not entitled to it, but you bring up a very good issue, a safety issue. Today it
was snowing and I was coming south on Route 9, you know, and I basically got beyond the building before I
realized I was passing the building. So I think because of the position of the building, it does create a safety
problem just having signs on one side. I think, because of those conditions, I would be in favor of the
application.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Okay. I tried to get to some points earlier about this being a unique situation. Because if Old
Aviation Road is considered part of the application, then technically this is on a corner, then he would be
entitled to facing signs on each corner, and the fact that it’s part of a plaza, it’s kind of a unique plaza. It’s not
visible from all parts of Route 9, but we are considering this as part of the plaza, and I think there’s an option
to use that pylon sign. I think that’s a matter of getting together with the landlord there and I wouldn’t have
a problem if the signs were combined, if you put one on both sides, they could be visible from both
directions, but as constituted now, four separate individual signs, I cannot go along with it. I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with Roy. I think that in this particular circumstance, I mean, the applicant
has made the case that there is some need, and it’s certainly understandable. I think there’s a little bit of a
twin argument here that although these are two businesses, the applicant pointed out why the efficiencies of
having two in one, if you will, the decreasing costs and stuff of that nature. He also pointed out that in this
particular circumstance that some of these franchisees are moving towards three and four brands in one
building, and I guess that was kind of the final thing for me because the idea that, like on that building, that
somebody would want to put three signs, you know, I can’t help but feel that the effects on the
neighborhood or community of that type of signage or even this type of signage is not negative. I think that
the signs are, they’re internally illuminated, I’m assuming, and I think that, I just think that the overall
aesthetics of Route 9 I think in this particular case the applicant hasn’t demonstrated to me some
overwhelming reason why those negative, you know, effects on the community should be overridden in this
particular case. I think in this case, I think the design of the building is nice. I think that they’ve done a good
job with this project. I’ve watched it, and I think it’s even a good idea, but I’m I guess on balance it’s just a
little too much of the Colonel, I think, for vision’s sake, and I would be opposed.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m really torn on this one. It wasn’t too long ago that we denied permission for a sign
facing north on another building not too far from this up the side street, but listening to the choices and
some of the suggestions, I prefer what’s here to the idea of putting an angled sign on the front corner of the
building. I’m not sure how this is going to look if it was all lit up at night or how bright it would be, and that
would be one concern, but I guess in total it strikes me that this building is in a unique position. I think I
would prefer to see the four signs on the building than to see another sign on the pylon sign. So I guess,
partly because of my evaluation of the aesthetics, and in looking at especially item number four, effects on the
neighborhood or community, I think sum total four signs on this building, as it’s proposed, would be
attractive, would be an improvement to the area. I’d be inclined to be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with the sentiments I’ve heard, in connection with two businesses,
two signs, three businesses, three signs, and so on. Whether it be one business on one side and the other on
the other, I don’t know, or some third alternative, different kind of a sign, hanging from the building, the
point, say, I think someone mentioned on the corner of the building here for example. I, too, felt that this is
in a little tough spot. In connection with the impulse part of it, they’re going by a couple of places right close
to yours, and you pass those by without getting an impulse to go in, you know, I wonder how much
difference it’s going to make, but I think I’m going to stick with the aspect of finding some other solution,
rather than what has been proposed here with four physically separate signs. Thank you. So I would not be
in favor. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with the majority of the Board who feels that four signs is overkill,
particularly when there is an alternative that you indicate you had informal discussion with the property
owner, but I guess I would like to see certainly that alternative exhausted before I go ahead and authorize a
100% increase in the allowed signage as we see it. The Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, I think, has been a
very favorable thing for our Town. You certainly, probably even better than I, go to a lot of communities
and you know some places are garish. We don’t think we’re garish. We think that we’ve done a very good
job in limiting the number of signs, while at the same time encouraging businesses to be successful. I think
the, I was struck, and I don’t know whether it was negative or positive, but I was struck, when I drove up to
the building, not having seen it while it was being painted, and seeing the A & W checkerboard or whatever
you want to call it on two walls of the building, and I know they’re not technically a sign, but they certainly
said something to me. I’m not sure what they said, but it said something to me. To talk about Roy’s concern
about Aviation Road, I think the Town has made a deliberate attempt to make that a non-roadway. So I
don’t even think it’s something that we even should consider. The other thing, and we’ve had this many
times, people have approached us for a variance because of a business decision which may not be as
favorable as another business decision and kind of asked us to bail them out. I don’t think that’s our job. I
mean, you made the choice to put in two businesses. Our law is very clear, and I don’t think it’s our job to
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
bail you out. Having said that, I think I would vote to deny this application and I would like a motion to do
so. Do we have to do the Unlisted if we’re going to deny it?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s still a decision.
MR. STONE-Yes, you’re right. I meant to do it.
MOTION THAT, BASED UPON A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FORM, THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY
THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2002 KFC/A & W, Introduced by Norman Himes
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
797 State Route 9. The applicant proposes placement of two additional wall signs, that would be for a total
of four signs. Relief required, applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance per 140-6B(3)(d), for the
placement of two additional wall signs. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to gain
two additional wall signs and an additional one for KFC and an additional one for A & W. Feasible
alternatives may include utilizing the two approved compliant signs, or some other alternative that would be
compliant. Is the relief substantive relative to the Ordinance? Relief for two additional wall signs where only
two are allowed, one per business in a business complex, may be interpreted as substantial relative to the
Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, the moderate to substantial effects on the
community may be anticipated as a result of this action, especially in view of the fact that there could
eventually be an additional business located here which might precipitate applications for still further signage.
Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed somewhat to the orientation of the building
with respect to Route 9. However, the business has existed there, under one entity all along, it is something
that is, I think, well known to the general public who lives here, and I move that we decline this application as
submitted.
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2002 KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 26 JOSHUA ROCK ROAD ZONE: WR-3A, CEA APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. ALSO, THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE WILL BE REPLACED
WITH A SMALLER BOATHOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, SIDELINE
REQUIREMENTS, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONE.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-2002 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 3/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. : 4-1-4 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 239.19-1-5 LOT SIZE:
0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2002, Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski, Meeting Date: March 20,
2002 “Project Location: 26 Joshua Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: At the request of the
applicant, the boathouse portion of this application shall not be considered as part of this action.
Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1312 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a new
1,608 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of side setback relief for both
sides from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, 7 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
shoreline setback requirement (as measured from the shoreline to the second story decks), and 0.4% of relief
from the 22% maximum FAR (floor area ratio) requirement of the WR-3A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, the
applicant seeks 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement per § 179-70. 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 for the residence might include constructing a compliant
addition on the north side of the existing residence. Feasible alternatives for the minimum road frontage
requirement seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5 feet of relief
for the 20-foot side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate, considering relief is being requested
on both sides. 7 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted
as minimum. 0.4% of relief from the 22% maximum FAR (floor area ratio) requirement may be interpreted
as minimal. 40 feet of relief for the minimum road frontage requirement may be interpreted as substantial.
Also, it appears as though one section of the private drive may not allow ingress of a fire truck due to two
large trees on opposite sides of a slight S-bend in that section of the drive. 4. Effects on the neighborhood
or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this
action. It appears as though numerous large evergreen trees will have to be removed to develop the property
as proposed (approximately 16 to 20). 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 1317: 12/16/87; removal of porch and
construction of addition with deck. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as
a result of this action. It appears as though numerous large evergreen trees will have to be removed to
develop the property as proposed (approximately 16 to 20). There appears to be sufficient available area to
construct an addition in a compliant location, which would not require a variance and would not require the
need to remove as many of the large trees. Also, consideration should be given to the potential problem
accessing the parcel with emergency vehicles. It appears as though one section of the private drive may not
allow ingress of a fire truck due to two large trees on opposite sides of a slight S-bend in that section of the
drive. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 13, 2002
Project Name: Maschewski, Kevin & Marybeth Owner: Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski ID Number:
QBY-AV-16-2002 Warren County Project#: Mar02-39 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose demolition of existing residence and construction of a
new single-family dwelling. Also, the existing boathouse will be replaced with a smaller boathouse. Relief is
requested from shoreline, sideline, and floor area ratio requirements. Site Location: 26 Joshua Rock Road.
Tax Map Number(s): 239.19-1-5 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to remove an existing dwelling (1,312
sq. ft.) and boathouse (1,080 sq. ft.) structure and to build a 1,608 sq. ft. home and a 986 sq. ft. boat house.
The relief requested does not have an impact on County resources. The application is also associated with
QBY-SPR-11-2002. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 3/14/02.
MR. STONE-Mr. Maschewski and Mrs. Maschewski.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Just for the record, my name is Kevin Maschewski and Marybeth, my wife. A couple
of changes that we had made, prior to getting here this evening. One is the boathouse variance, we had
pulled that from the application. That was pulled last week. Craig, I’m not too sure if you guys knew about
that.
MR. STONE-It says in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on the Staff notes.
MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t read that section of the Staff notes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. The boathouse is existing. I didn’t want to cloud any of the issues. My whole
intent in coming in front of this Board originally was for just side yard setbacks. In addition to that Craig had
indicated that we do require a variance for because we’re not on a Town road. We’re a keyhole lot. So
knowing that, when we purchased the property, what we’re doing is crossing an easement through a family
owned estate, and I’m not sure, and there are members of that family here. My understanding it’s been since
the 1800’s. We have permission, deeded easement across that has access to our parcel. So we’re pulling the
boathouse variance and in addition to that, the 22.3, the whole design was based on 22. It started with 22
concept, finalizing the drawings it came out to 22.3. By the time I tweaked this, added that, changed this,
moved this, the 22.3, the .3 will go away. It was never intended to be on there as a variance. So kind of
keeping that to the side right now I didn’t want to cloud the issues. The Board knows I’ve been here enough,
and I know the ordinances enough that I didn’t even want to get involved with that. The whole design is
really based on, as far as the architecture, the Adirondack old world style. If you drive through the estate
going through there, it’s a bunch of buildings, stone, stucco, the whole design was based around that. I tried
not to buck the system, what’s on the estate. It’s my understanding there’s in excess of 16 some acres, of
which 3 of us are pretty much right along each other on the water. This is existing. There’s an existing house
to the north, to the south, and an existing house to the north, and I do have a revised survey that indicates
the setbacks, and I’ll hand it to you. In keeping with not overwhelming the variances required, my whole
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
design was based on just going for the side yard variances. The primary modification to that survey was the
addition of the lake front setbacks of the adjoining properties. Knowing that it’s a 75 foot lake front setback
or the average, in speaking with Craig, it was probably worth our while to put those on. Seventy foot
requested, old design was trying to gear around 75 foot, but there’s two burdens that are put on this property,
one is the WR-3A zoning of 75 feet, and the other burden is an easement across approximately 17 feet. So in
between that 75 and that 17, one we had to establish a location for a new residence as well as septic system.
Pushing 75 feet, you push the septic up into that easement. Knowing we could not go there, we actually
pulled forward the house, tried to keep it as close to 70, 75 as possible. That’s where the 70 came from. It’s
pretty much a rock and a hard place there, because of the easements. If you think them out, what we could
accomplish if I had five more feet where that easement is, we could have gotten the 75 feet. The side yard
setbacks established at 15 feet was based on pulling the house away from the present side of 5.1. There is
22.6. If you follow the numbers that’s 27.7. The two 15 foot side yards increases the existing setbacks to 30
feet from the 27.7, and I always look at, maybe it’s right or maybe it’s wrong, but I always look at the sliding
scale of the setbacks, from 61 feet to 150 feet as sliding. The setback requirement at seven feet, being that we
were just over that cusp of 61 feet as it changes from 15 foot setback to 20. The incremental difference is
only .4 feet on each either side. The house design, ergonomically designed, it’s 40 wide by 28 deep, pretty
much a dimension of (lost words) portion of the plywood. I kept it a simple design, kept the roof line, a little
intricate, in keeping with the old world look. So looking at why and how we came up with setbacks that came
about, our whole intent with this is to improve what’s there. It appears, over the years, the previous owner
who had been there over 40 years, seemed to have done what he wanted to do. A couple of things. The
addition of a well up in this corner, which is approximately three feet from the property line, New York State
Department of Health, the best I can tell, was either 10 or 15, I think it was 15 feet, nevertheless, it’s illegal,
being that the best I can tell on the existing septic, it’s somewhere in this area. The distance between them is
approximately 60 feet, 100 foot required between them. I’ll guarantee you that that water has a bacterial
count in it. Our proposal is to get rid of the well, put a water line into the lake, and we’re just going to have
to put a purification system. That parcel is not big enough for a septic and a well and try to meet the design
criteria separation of 100 feet. In doing so, pulling the house away from the property, along this side, it goes
from 5.1 foot setback to a little over 7 feet. There’s approximately, believe it or not, 6 fuel tanks alongside of
that house, two kerosene’s, 275 gallons apiece, illegal, and 4 propane tanks, pretty much illegal, on the side of
that house. It’s only five foot from the setback, and the tanks stick off the house about three feet, three,
three and a half feet. So those propane tanks are pretty much right on the property line. Each one of these
three houses, and there may be somebody that knows better in the audience, date back to the early 1800’s, or
not early, 1800’s. So they’re well over 100 years old. As far as I’m concerned, this is a time bomb waiting to
go off. The house existing was a garage back in the 1800’s. It has a stone foundation on it. Back in the 80’s,
I believe ’88, a variance was granted to put on a front addition, which is semi-modern, but the addition has
differential settling from the existing garage, which was converted, years back, I guess, to a cottage. Again,
the history I’m a little, not so familiar on, but looking at that, I don’t think a feasible alternative is an addition.
I’ve tried it. Other builders have tried it. Right now it’s a hodgepodge of an addition on over 100 year old
house. My concept, (lost words) get rid of the fuel tanks, get rid of the well, get rid of the septic which I do
not have history on. I do not know where it is. There has been indications from one of the owners over here
that when laundry is being completed and done in the house, the bubbles show up in the lake. I don’t know
the, if that’s fallacy or not, but in any event, there’s no record of the system, and I don’t know. I have not yet
flushed the toilet in the house. The location of this well pretty much hinders anything that these owners here,
and it’s my understanding they’re in the audience, their septic system, I believe, is also within 100 feet of that
well, and if any modifications want to be done, or a variance put forth for this property, that well’s going to
take precedence. If that septic system is going to be updated there, which maybe somewhere down the line,
in the future, they may want to, it’s not going to work with that well. So we need to abandon that well and
get rid of it. It’s illegal. It was put in without the Town’s understanding or acknowledgement. It doesn’t
belong there. In addition, we’ve got a shed 12 and a half feet from the property line, and another shed four
and a half feet, I believe the numbers say. They’re going to be taken out. Our whole concept is
improvement, and as I read through some of these Staff notes, it kind of had looked, or felt to me that the
notes were swayed around a negative approach to the environment, suds in the water, illegal wells, fuel tanks.
In addition to the six fuel tanks, there’s a seventh one sitting on the, next to the shed. I’ve got pictures, and
I’ll hand them out in a second. So our whole concept here it to clean it up, try to meet the setbacks the best
we can. The floor area ratio, again, I’d be willing to split that .3, which is only representative of about 35
square feet. I’ve got ideas where I could take it out of the square footage of the building. Green space,
permeability issue, we increased the green space from 65.8% to 69.4, a slight increase but nevertheless it is an
increase. My red number over here, I just kind of jotted some quick notes on my way over, and I don’t want
to harp on the WR-3A zone, but I have to. This parcel is representative of a One A zone. We’ve all seen this
size parcel in Cleverdale, in Assembly Point developed with lesser of a lake front setback. The average of the
two setbacks here from the lake, if you add the numbers up, I believe the average is 59 feet. The existing
house is 61. We are proposing 70 here. Again, it’s an improvement. Would I wish we would have gotten 75?
Absolutely. But the septic in the back has to be maintained. There’s got to be separations from the structure
to the septic. I think it’s more important to allow enough area for septic than it is to try to keep that 75 foot
lake front setback. Septic has to get addressed. My red notes up there, being it’s a WR-3A zone, this is
unbelievable, but the numbers are true. The setback areas consume 84.4% of this lot, and the only allowable
building area, window, footprint is 15.6%. That’s a lot. When you have setbacks consume that much of a
parcel, it just happened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time, understanding it’s a WR-3A, we’re trying
to achieve it. We are actually providing 18.4% in our setbacks. So we’re still giving the Town 81.6% of the
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
parcel for setbacks. Pretty much we’re looking at it as an improvement, it has to be, not with the water
conditions, the septic conditions, and maintain the 22%, again, tweaking it, I can get back down to 22.0.
MR. STONE-So you say you’re seeking five feet of relief, you make cogent arguments. I’m not going to go
there, but you’re asking five foot of relief on both sides of the house, for the side setback, and seven foot
from the 75 foot.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Originally it was supposed to be five foot from the seventy-five. In thorough review
of the Staff, there was indication that the front leader, going from the lake, does not go to the front deck.
There’s a viewing deck off the second floor, and that only protrudes out two feet. Pretty much designed two
feet based on the two foot jog in the front. Staff indicated that you need to pull that to the deck. It’s
changed on that survey, but knowing that, I’d like to still keep some more room back in that, for the septic.
The septic system is being designed (lost words). Where I’m going to steal .3 out of this, I’m going to reduce
the size of the garage.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re taking that off the table, though. You’re saying you’re not asking, and you will be
dependent upon your as built survey, in terms of making 22.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, yes, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-Isn’t that correct, Craig, if he’s willing to say that.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Or, at the building permit, Craig and I discussed this. At the building permit
application, the drawing he reviews it and makes sure that it conforms to the 22%.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-If you don’t give him Floor Area Ratio relief, he doesn’t get a building permit unless it’s 22,
which sounds like he wants to take whatever square feet out.
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. HAYES-So what’s the front setback twist here now, Kevin?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’d still like to keep that front setback at 68 feet.
MR. STONE-Right. So that’s the seven feet.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s the seven feet.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Only because I’d prefer to leave that extra two feet.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Believe it or not, but I’d like to leave it in the back for septic design.
MR. STONE-And then of course the 40 feet of relief. So you’re asking for three things. That’s what I’m just
trying to get clear, the five foot on either side, the seven foot from the lake, and the forty foot relief because
you’re not on a Town road.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-You’re not asking for Floor Area Ratio relief.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to say? Do you want to give us the pictures?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. The pictures have been eluding me all day. There was, actually, yes, let me get
these pictures out to you.
MR. HAYES-Is this for you, Kevin, is this for your house?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. STONE-This is it this time. Okay. I was going to ask that question. Knowing the one on Assembly
Point.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MRS. MASCHEWSKI-That we never moved into.
MR. STONE-I know.
MR. HAYES-There’s nothing wrong with that.
MR. STONE-There’s nothing wrong. It’s fine. Builders and realtors sell houses out from under them at any
time.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Two years on a new company so we had to complete something. What I just passed
around are pictures. There were comments made by Staff indicating safety vehicles and the inability to get
fire apparatus at the site. Hearing that my first question was, has anybody proved it. Has anybody proved it
can or cannot be done? And I called the fire department and my understanding was that nobody could prove
it. I said, well, let’s prove it. For tonight’s meeting, I’m not going in there without an answer. Pictures,
photographs do prove that we can get fire apparatus down at our property. Again, it’s just, we have a
mortgage on it. How it went through without the bank asking, I don’t know, but the answer is it’s now
proven on the pictures. In addition to Staff notes indicate a substantial amount of trees, 16 to 20. Again,
prove it. They didn’t count, but there’s exactly 10 trees to be removed, 10 of which, in my landscape, I don’t
have a problem if the Board said hey, (lost words).
MR. STONE-What caliper are these things?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re old, pine trees.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Big.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-In addition, the (lost words) fuel tanks, knowing that these houses are that old, it’s a
bomb, I think. The new house is going to have a full alarm system, smoke detection, monitor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the Maschewski’s, gentlemen?
MR. URRICO-There was a point made about the large evergreen trees. Do you want to address that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There is not 16 to 20. There’s exactly 10. All of them are within, well, I can tell
you where they are. It’s actually pretty easy. There’s a cluster around this woodshed. There’s a cluster
around this woodshed, and then there’s a cluster in here. They’re all basically this shed, this shed and the
cluster here. In clusters of about three, three, and four. None of them are within let’s say 60 some feet from
the lake, and I’m not even sure, I say 10, but there may be one out here on this side of the shed that’s not
even going to be touched, but I counted 10, just until I get the foundation staked out. We’ll say 10. Could I
replace 10? We’re in close proximity to the property line, five foot high little white pine trees are pretty for
landscaping, and they’re inexpensive, maybe throw six or so on either side of the property line.
MR. STONE-What’s going to be the different view from the lake, compared to what it is now? Will there be
much?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m going to say no. You mean from the lake looking up?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Probably not much. The main reason is the boathouse is so massive down there, it just
pretty much consumes the whole front. There is a big oak tree that’s right here, and it’s big. I’m going to say
it’s all of three foot plus diameter, and that oak, when that fills up, I can’t tell because I’ve never seen the
property with the leaves on it, but the impact, it’s not detrimental. Is that the right answer?
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m hoping, and I know the owners of this property are in the audience, pulling the
house back and over is certainly going to help, you know, their peripheral of the lake, and I know they had a
concern there of the view of the lake, but I cannot imagine that this, I’ve never measured this, but one inch
equals twenty feet, you’ve got about two and a half inches, it’s got to be 70 foot of structure here, five feet to
ten feet off the property line. It’s got to look like a wall.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Come
forward, one at a time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
WILLIAM BALDWIN
MR. BALDWIN-I’m William Baldwin. This is my wife Cheryl. We own the property to the south of the
Maschewski’s, and we’re very happy that they’re moving into the neighborhood. They look like they’ve got
the right idea. I do, however, have to say I cannot agree to the variance on the 15 foot side line setback. The
only place I’m really interested is my side. I understand that the other setbacks on the other side of the (lost
words). It seems to me that that house, as it’s proposed, it’s in the neighborhood of 30% wider than the
Code allows for.
MR. STONE-The Code allows for 20 feet on either side.
MR. HAYES-What is it now, Kevin?
MR. BALDWIN-It’s a 70 foot lot, so that leaves.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty foot wide house.
MR. STONE-Thirty feet. The setback is greater than 60 feet, there’s 20 feet on either side. So the lot is 70
wide. So the house should be, to conform it would be 30 feet wide.
MR. MC NULTY-So he’s 25% over on (lost words).
MR. BALDWIN-So I was off five percent.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BALDWIN-And the reason that I’m interested in that five feet is so I can maintain my privacy for me
and my family and also the Maschewski’s. I’ve been in that house my whole life, and I’ve seen things change
there. The former neighbor, and this is a real opportunity to make things better.
MR. STONE-Mrs. Baldwin, did you want to add anything?
CHERYL BALDWIN
MRS. BALDWIN-Okay. I would like to oppose all three aspects for violations, the setback, wanting 15 and
to 20 feet, the second that the house is too big for the lot size, to scale it back to meet the requirement, and
third the distance from the lake, and it should meet the regulations of 75.
MR. STONE-Just for your edification, he said he is not seeking a variance for Floor Area Ratio. So it will
meet the Code, as far as the size is concerned.
MRS. BALDWIN-I didn’t understand that 40 feet.
MR. STONE-Well, any lot is supposed to be, a new lot, new subdivision has to have 40 feet on a Town road.
MRS. BALDWIN-But this isn’t a subdivision.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. HAYES-It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. STONE-Pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. HAYES-Makes it legal, it’s a legal lot.
MR. STONE-It’s a legal lot, but he has to ask for that. Staff says that he needs, we have to recognize that.
That’s all.
MRS. BALDWIN-Okay. I don’t know if this is your concern, but the road that comes down there is a
concern. He’s going to make this a year round home, you know, the idea, the environmental factors, (lost
words) how does he keep that open, and the former owner, I believe, violated our rights by, I believe, I know
he did by plowing the snow into our yard, with stones, providing runoff into the lake, was not beneficial to
the lake. I’m curious to know about the well that I’ve been hearing is illegal. How did the former owner get
away with it?
MR. STONE-I couldn’t tell you, and I’m sure Staff probably couldn’t tell you either. Things happen in the
still of the night.
MRS. BALDWIN-Can you just do that? Yes.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-I don’t know. It’s not our purview to get involved in there. I mean, he is telling us about it.
Basically, he wants us to know that he would like to do right by the property, and that’s, he has a right to do
that, and it doesn’t necessarily have to figure into our determination.
MR. HAYES-Well, if he wasn’t willing, that well, if he wasn’t going to get rid of it, a variance would be
needed for setback, basically, right? Or there would be a pre-existing well?
MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s a pre-existing well, but it would effect any septic plans in the future, for both this
property and the surrounding property.
MR. STONE-Yes, if he’s putting a new system in, a new septic system, it would come into play. So he’s
saying I want a new septic system. It’s more important than the well, whether it’s a good well or a bad well.
So he says I’m going to close it up.
MRS. BALDWIN-Okay. So he’s going to close it and that’s not an issue?
MR. STONE-It’s not an issue, and that would be buildings people who would get involved with that thing. I
don’t want to put you on the spot, but I feel I must ask you. You are aware that the current building is five
feet from the line? Okay, and he’s going to be 10 more feet than that, and you still have objection, and you
have a perfect right to have an objection.
MRS. BALDWIN-I do, and I’m so tired of living with violations of the former owner, that please don’t ask
me to accept this without objecting.
MR. STONE-No, you have a perfect right to do it. I just want to be sure that you understand that this is
going to be twice as far away from where it is now, or more than that, three times as far as that.
MRS. BALDWIN-Yes, I do understand that, but it’s still not within the regulations.
MR. STONE-But that’s why we sit here. That’s what we do, is that we grant relief from our zoning code.
Okay. Is there anything else that you want to tell us?
MRS. BALDWIN-No, I’m glad that he’s upgrading the property. It certainly needs it, as he stated, and he
started out as a garage, was sold to (lost words) fishing hut or house, and turned into the hodgepodge. So,
yes, I’m glad they’re upgrading it, but I’m also hoping that it meets the regulations of the Town.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re here for, to either make him meet it or change what his requirements are.
MR. BALDWIN-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else wishing to speak against? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have three pieces of correspondence. One is from Katherine Q. Seelye, President,
Joshua’s Rock Association, “I write on behalf of the Joshua’s Rock Corporation, a family organization of
which I am president and which is adjacent to the property recently purchased by Kevin and Beth
Maschewski. We are happy to have the Maschewski’s as neighbors and support their plans for upgrades and
improvements to the property. Our one concern is the roadway into the property for which our family in
1966 provided a 17-foot easement. We understand that the building of a new house will require heavy
construction vehicles to traverse our roads. Such traffic will obviously put unusual stress on the roadways,
which are basically dirt paths. In a telephone discussion today with Mr. Maschewski, he agreed to be
responsible for repairing any damage to the roads caused by his traffic and for covering the costs of any
accidents that may occur. He said that after construction was complete, he would discuss with the
corporation whether to put gravel on the road. We know that the Maschewski’s are aware that our family will
be vacationing on the property during the summer and we hope they can keep their construction activity to a
minimum during that time. We look forward to working with our new neighbors in a spirit of cooperation.
Thank you. Sincerely, Katherine Q. Seelye President Joshua’s Rock Corporation” And we have a letter
from the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., signed by Randy Barton, Chief of the North
Queensbury Fire Company. “I’m writing this letter to follow up on a conversation regarding access into the
Maschewski residence on 26 Joshua Rock Drive. We have done an inspection of the site on March 19, 2002
and determined that we can get our apparatus into the site for adequate fire suppression. If you need any
additional information please give me a call. Thank you. Randy Bardin Chief North Queensbury Fire
Company” And finally we’ve got a letter from Patricia E. Klinck, and she’s got her summer residence at 28
Joshua Rock Rd. Dunham’s Bay, and she says “Due to the short notice (we received the public hearing
notice 3/16/02) we will be unable to attend the public hearing on 3/20/02. We have discussed the plans for
the property with the Maschewski’s. We are willing to give a variance to allow the new residence to be 15 feet
from our property line (north side). We however would strongly oppose any variance that would bring the
residence any closer than 15 feet to our property line. We also have no opposition to the additional
improvements for the property as requested by the Maschewski’s. Sincerely, Patricia E. Klinck” That’s it.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-That’s it. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE- Do you want to respond to anything you’ve heard?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Other than, Bill, you and I had spoken the other night and obviously the previous
owner had done you wrong, made some issues, and as I indicated, tell me what they are, and I won’t repeat
them. It’s that simple. It is our intention to improve the property. Part of the improvement is getting rid of
that well. I can’t get rid of the well without removal of the house. I mean, that’s pretty much a
straightforward thing. I don’t know where the septic is. I don’t want to run a new water line and find that
I’m still having water septic issues. So part of the improvements as a whole picture includes a new septic and
new well. So, kind of in light of that, I understand your concern. Whatever (lost words) bad over the years,
we’re going to be good neighbors. That’s pretty much it.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Just for review, before we make comments. The applicant is
seeking five foot of relief on either side. The lot size is 70 feet, and seven foot of relief from the 75 foot from
the lake, plus the 40 feet for the road. Having said all that, let’s start with Allan.
MR. BRYANT-Well, we can certainly tell, Mr. and Mrs. Maschewski, that you are seasoned visitors to the
ZBA. You came here with all your ducks in a row, the fire company and counting the trees, but anyway, on
your newest project, I want to commend you, because I think you took the majority of our concerns and you
took them seriously. I mean, as far as the setback from the lake, I know there are lake dwellers on the Board
who refuse to give up an inch, but based on the size of the property, you basically did the best you could.
The side setbacks, you’re going to actually be 16 feet, because didn’t you say four feet?
MR. STONE-Well, he’s ratioing the 60 to 150 is what he’s doing, and that’s not what the Code says, but he’s
trying. It was nice.
MR. BRYANT-You really put forth an effort, and I’ve got to say that, basically, I would be in favor of the
project as proposed, without the floor area ratio, that’s not involved, I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I echo what Allan said. I think when we look at the cumulative impact, at first it was stark,
but when you take each of the variances, they’re not that bad. You actually have done a great job of
alleviating any concerns at this time that I have. The five foot setback, I think, is an improvement of what
was there before. The seven feet from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback, to me, is minimal. I know
folks may not like it, but I think it’s the best you can do. The best we can expect from that piece of property,
and then the 40 foot relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage, I think that’s just picked up from the
previous property, so I’m satisfied, and I would vote yes on all those.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I agree with Allan that if there was a ZBA certified criteria, you’d have that
stamp now at this point, but you certainly, you did everything you needed to do on this application. It’s hard
for me to imagine that, based on what I saw at that house, in and around the property, that this won’t
represent a substantial improvement. The benefit to the applicant is fairly obvious. He has a desire for a
homestead, and that’s certainly understandable. I agree that, I guess taking the floor area ratio off, I really
think that the relief is pretty minimal, too. I mean, I don’t think that seven feet of a 75 foot requirement on a
small lot like this is really substantial. I mean, the house is going to be, still going to be 68 feet away from the
lakeshore, and that, in my mind, is pretty substantial. The 40 feet of relief for the road frontage, you’ve
established on a factual basis that at least the powers that be are satisfied that they can still meet the
emergency vehicle criteria, and that’s the concern there, because this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and
the side setback relief, I think the neighbor’s point is well taken, and I think that they certainly have a right to
feel a little bit upset about what’s happened. I think that’s totally justified, but in this particular case, it’s only
five feet of relief you’re asking for, 15 foot setback versus the five that was there before, and not to mention
that you’re moving the house further away from the lake, on top of all that. I can’t imagine that, in the overall
sense, this isn’t a dramatic improvement. So I think this is, I have no problem whatsoever with the
application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. Frankly, the floor area ratio didn’t bother me an awful lot because it
wasn’t a very significant difference. The setback from the lake, again, is relatively minor. As long as it’s close
to what’s required for the 3A zone, it satisfies me. It would be nicer if there weren’t the side setback issues,
but I think that’s balanced by moving the house off the lot line, and moving it back from the lake a little
more. It would be nice not to cut a lot of those big hemlocks that are there, but if I were living in the house
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
where it is now, there’s a few of them I think I’d like to take down anyway because they’re kind of leaning
towards the house. So, as long as there’s care taken with removal of those trees and not excessive removal of
vegetation beyond that, I could go along with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with most of what’s been said. Certainly everything that you’ve
presented and all is an improvement, it’s very nice. I feel very good about it. On the other hand, I recognize
what neighbors have said. When you look at it from the standpoint that I have here, well, we’re taking
something down, we’re starting from scratch, and you’ve got these setback requirements, and someone, a
neighbor objects. I think that sometimes under these circumstances, I found in my experience here that often
there can be some understanding reached, a compromise made, some changes that where the parties agree.
I’d like to see that happen here. In the absence of it, I’m afraid I’d not be in favor of the application. In spite
of the fact that I think that everything you’re doing is good. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As an aside to what Norm said, I would make the suggestion that possibly you
could plant some of those trees that are going to be, replant some of those trees that are going to be taken
down, maybe even possibly on both sides, you know. I mean, you’re not going to get a lot of light from that
south side anyway, since it’s pretty well treed over there, but possibly, you know, putting up a hedge or
planting some pines would do the trick, you know, if you take them all down on that other side, it would be
nice to see you put some of them back, to let it grow back to what it once was. My only other concern would
be your septic. I don’t know how that’s going to work out for you, based upon, you know, how rocky it is
there either. I mean, we’ve dealt with other ones, the Seelye property on the other side of the ridge there
from you, and that is a concern, but I’m sure site planning’s going to take care of that anyway. Based upon
that, I think I could live with the setback allowances from the side lines, and as far as from the lake, I think
you’re far enough back.
MR. STONE-Well, I concur with the majority of the Board, and as the lake dweller, who has been cited, I
have no real problem with this particular setback from the lake. You are improving it from 61 to 68. That is
a significant improvement. We have allowed closer in that particular area because of circumstances and I
think this is a reasonable situation. I have to admit, I liked your argument that if the lot’s only 70 feet and the
cut off point is 60 to go to 20, then maybe it ought to be 16. I can’t legally accept that, but it’s good. It’s a
nice try, but certainly there’s a tremendous improvement in, certainly on the south side, from what appears to
be a real mess, in terms of all the tanks, plus the building itself, that I think I would like to hope that your
neighbors, while they’ve argued that it should be 20, I think they’re going to be very pleased when this thing
gets built, if my judgment is worth anything. We haven’t talked about the road, but I think that goes with the
territory. We have to grant that relief. The house has been there. You’re going to build a new house.
You’ve shown that the fire people can get down there. You’ve got all the proper easements in place to use
the road. You seem to have indicated, at least in terms of the letters that your neighbors wrote, that you are
willing to maintain that road, or to make sure that it doesn’t degrade because of your building activities. Is
that true, I mean, you have said those things?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I have to the President of the Association.
MR. STONE-All right. So you’re on the record down there. Yes, I think this is a reasonable project,
particularly taking off the floor area ratio, and I think, as Chuck said, it probably, I agree with him, it probably
wouldn’t have bothered me either, but I think it’s good of you to say I don’t want all the relief that I can
possibly get, because the basic comment that I had written down here was lots of relief, and it is something
we get sometimes concerned about when someone comes in and they want five kinds of relief and so on, but
having said that, I would like a motion to approve this variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2002 KEVIN & MARYBETH
MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Urrico:
26 Joshua Rock Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1312 square foot single family
dwelling and construction of a new 1,608 square foot single family dwelling. Specifically, they’re requesting
five feet of setback relief for both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and seven feet
of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, as measured from the shoreline to the
second story decks. Additionally, the applicant is seeking 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road
frontage requirement per Section 179-70. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired home in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives might include constructing a
compliant addition on the north side, but given the fact that this was a converted garage, it doesn’t appear
that that’s a possibility. The minimum road frontage requirements seem to be also a moot point, given the
fact that this house has been here for quite some time. As far as the relief, the five feet of relief could be
interpreted as moderate, but given the fact that this is only a 75 foot lot, it’s a pretty minimal request
nonetheless. The seven feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback has also been shown to be
minimal relief, based upon the fact that the septic system needs to go on the lot and you have to have some
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
place to put it back there. The minimum road frontage requirement can be interpreted as substantial, by our
guidelines, but as we said before, based upon the fact that it’s a long standing building, it’s been there for
quite some time, there seems to be adequate room, as you proved also, for the fire equipment to get down
there. Effects on the neighborhood, in general, the effects on the neighborhood should be positive, given the
fact that the septic system and the well and the other deficiencies that you’ve pointed out are so prevalent on
the lot at the present time. So it appears as though a large number of trees are going to be removed, and we
would expect some replanting on both sides of the house to somewhat offset the effect on your next door
neighbors, which you have agreed to.
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-I have a question, Kevin, are you going to be an on-time builder for yourself?
MRS. MASCHEWSKI-He better be.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2002 TYPE II HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE
FLAUM PROPERTY OWNER: ILENE FLAUM AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ.
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 721 BANK STREET, SE CORNER INTERSECTION OF
QUAKER RD. & ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO
EXTEND THE BOUNDARY LINE FROM ITS PRESENT LOCATION TO A LOCATION
WHICH WILL BE ONE FOOT BEYOND THE FOUNDATION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM SETBACK, PERMEABILITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 35-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 103-1-
1.1, 2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-60 LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-22
JON LAPPER & HOWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2002, Howard Carr, Managing Agent for Ilene Flaum, Meeting Date:
March 20, 2002 “Project Location: 721 Bank St., SE corner intersection of Quaker Rd. & Route 9
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes creation of a 1.45 acre parcel around the existing
STAPLES building on Bank Street. Relief Required: Applicant requests 29 feet of relief from the 30 foot
minimum side setback requirement, 12,600 sf of relief from the maximum allowable gross floor area
requirement of the Plaza Commercial zone, § 179-22. Also, the applicant seeks relief to allow 23 parking
spaces on the property where 150 are required per the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations of § 179-
66. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to
the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create and transfer separate parcel. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include combining the parcel with the larger plaza parcel and
developing a “lease parcel” for the Staples building. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: The cumulative relief, relative to the Ordinance, may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects
on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as
self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): This plaza has been the subject of
many reviews by both the Planning Board and Zoning Board. The applicable project associated with this
variance request is Site Plan 35-92. This application was for the construction of a 30,000 sf commercial
building in the “plaza”. The location of the building was changed several times and the approvals were
extended several times until the most recent Staples project. Previous approvals have granted relief from
Bank Street and from the southerly property line setback requirement. No relief has been granted from the
westerly property line or from the density requirements or from the parking space requirements. It appears
as though these reliefs were not granted, nor sought, as the “Staples parcel” was consistently presented as part
of the entire plaza. Staff comments: While the practical impacts of such a variance may appear minimal to
the general public and with proper easements and agreements the plaza would continue to operate virtually
unchanged, there appears to be a feasible alternative available to the applicant. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 13, 2002
Project Name: Carr, Howard Owner: Ilene Flaum ID Number: QBY-AV-18-2002 County Project#:
Mar02-36 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a
boundary lot line adjustment to extend the boundary line from its present location to a location which will be
one foot beyond the foundation. Relief is requested from setback, permeability and parking requirements.
Site Location: 721 Bank Street. Southeast corner of Route 9 and Quaker Road. Staff Notes: The proposed
boundary line agreement does not alter the existing conditions. Staff does not identify any county impacts.
Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E.
Haley, Warren County Planning Board 3/14/02.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper, before you start, the survey that we got here doesn’t really have the
property lines on it that you’re asking for, at least I couldn’t find them.
MR. LAPPER-The property line that we’re proposing is right here, and then.
MR. STONE-I know what they’re asking for, but they’re not on the.
MR. LAPPER-It’s hard to tell, but they are one foot in front of the building, coming along the front of the
building, coming down here, and then.
MR. STONE-You’re only showing it on this one here.
MR. CARR-You see all these courses that he’s picking up, the double line here, that’s where the line comes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CARR-The line out here.
MR. STONE-So we’re talking only this?
MR. CARR-This is the piece, the portion of the building that’s left.
MR. STONE-I knew, I mean I could understand it, but I just didn’t see it. Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-It’s all of the building, plus the parking in the back.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Howard Carr. Howard and I have been working on the Plaza
since 1991. When we first got started there was the vacant Kentucky Fried Chicken at the corner, and the
vacant liquor store where Olive Garden is now.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And the Plaza was virtually empty. Howard gets the credit for putting these deals together,
finding the tenants, and because this was a pre-existing Plaza, it required a number of variances and a lot of
site plan changes. We had it approved back in ’92 originally with a big L shaped building in front of where
this is, heading down along the NiMo right of way and we, Howard had anticipated leasing it that way, and
then Red Lobster came along and that changed it. So we took some of the approval and moved it up closer
to the road, and ultimately when he put together the Staples deal, to move Staples as an in-line to a
freestanding in the back, we actually reduced, at one point we had it approved for more square footage then
we’d actually built there, but obviously with the parking requirements of the restaurant, they’ve been so
successful, it’s good that there weren’t more businesses or tenants in there, but the site is now commercially
completely leased for the first time and what we’re proposing now, I’ll ask Howard to explain reciprocal
easement agreements and zero lot line subdivisions which are very common in shopping centers, although
I’ve only done this once before for the CVS on Main Street, which has a zero lot line subdivision, but I did
this for the BJ’s at the Wilton Mall in Wilton, and it’s not unusual at all that tenants will want to own their
pad, which is what’s requested here. Our argument, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood and
significance, is that, with a reciprocal easement agreement, there, of course would be a condition of any
approval, that the drive aisles and parking spaces and pedestrian walkways are available for the tenant,
invitees, employees of both of the parcel owners. There would just be no change whatsoever in the use of
the site, and there’d be no change in what’s constructed because it’s already developed. So we are proposing
that this would have no change whatsoever on the site, and it is just for the convenience of the applicant, so
that Staples can buy the pad, which is what they have decided they want to do. Howard, why don’t you give
them some background.
MR. CARR-Well, relative to what we deal with in today’s shopping center development is that we run into a
situation where the bulk of the large anchor tenants have a desire to own their own buildings. In this case,
Staples built their own building subject to a (lost word). Now they want the right to acquire the land
underneath the building to merge the two elements, and it’s very common because they find that they can
obtain financing for total occupancy costs at a much lower rate than we can, as an individual
investor/developer. So what they end up doing is packaging these things, taking them to a pension fund or
something like that, and then financing them that way, and ending up with a much lower cost to operate, and
that’s their primary goal in this thing. It was typical, if you’ve been down to Albany recently, the new Target
Center at the Northway Mall, Target owns its own pad. Similar thing was done there. There happens to be
two parcels, there’s the building pad and then there’s the parking lot area, which is just two separate parcels,
but again, a similar situation where they own, you know, right around the outside of the building, and that’s
pretty much, you know, nothing really changes on the, in the shopping center. There’s reciprocal easement
agreements, there’ll be what we call an REA, is a Real Estate Operating Agreement, between the two parcel
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
owners. It’s basically just going to say that one of those people is responsible for operating the premises, and
everybody agrees to pay their pro-rata shares of operating expenses, real estate taxes, common area
maintenance, insurance costs, etc. So that’s really what it’s all about.
MR. STONE-That’s how you get your money. They pay, they’ve got to pay something for the privilege of
being on what used to be your land, don’t they?
MR. CARR-Yes, they’ll buy the footprint of the building or about a foot outside of it.
MR. HAYES-There’s actually going to be a deed, then.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-The other charges get charged back pro-rata. That’s all.
MR. CARR-Operationally, there’ll be a Real Estate Operating Agreement that, you know, hopefully in this
case it’ll be fairly simple because it’s only one parcel. To give you an idea, we, for a while, operated the BJ’s in
Northway Mall down in Albany, and that operating agreement is about that thick. It’s also almost 40 years
old. So a lot of things have changed over time, and that’s what happens with the retail. I mean, it’s always,
it’s the moving target. It has to remain fluid, because the market forces it to. So, we think it’s a reasonable
request for the Board, especially, you know, from where we’ve come, and the Board certainly remembers
what that used to look like.
MR. STONE-Did you say you’re fully leased? Is the Staples building leased?
MR. CARR-Almost fully.
MR. STONE-I’ve been away for a month and a half. I didn’t know. I haven’t looked.
MR. CARR-We’re not at liberty to disclose anything yet.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s good. I hope you have somebody. That’s great.
MR. URRICO-You said this is becoming more common, freestanding pads, not necessarily with the strip
stores?
MR. CARR-No, it is very common with strip stores. As a matter of fact, it really originated in the malls,
where the anchor boxes, like where Sears would own some building. Down in Albany, Colonie Center, which
you’ve got to come in, Sears owns its own building, Macys owns its own building.
MR. STONE-Even though they’re contiguous?
MR. CARR-Yes, and then there’s the subdivision of the mall area that’s owned by Equitable, in that case. It’s
very common.
MR. URRICO-So it’s conceivable that Red Lobster will come forth and ask for the same, and Olive Garden,
Rite Aid?
MR. CARR-Well, Olive Garden it’s a lot more difficult because their premises is integrated not only if there’s
a new building, but for the old building. So that would be quite a feat. I mean, could you do it? You can
always do it because you can always create a condominium type element.
MR. URRICO-It’s conceivable, but it’s not assumable.
MR. CARR-Yes, I don’t see that happening, okay. Could it happen with Red Lobster? Yes, it could. I don’t
want to say it can’t. To tell you the truth, what happens more often than not with restaurants, they continue,
the Red Lobster is a ground lease. They’ll typically continue for a period of time, and then the restaurants
sort of wear themselves out, the buildings and the structures and the kitchens and that stuff, and if you take a
look at what they did in Albany, they just rented, I mean, they gutted the old one, built a new Red Lobster on
Wolfe Road, and put in the Smoke Bones concept, and the Red Lobster isn’t red anymore.
MR. STONE-So what’s the down side to the Town of Queensbury?
MR. CARR-There is no down side. There really isn’t. Nothing changes.
MR. STONE-I just wanted you to say it. That’s all. It didn’t sound like it.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. BRYANT-What does Staff think the down side is? Is there a down side? From an operational view, I
can see that nothing would change, but I mean, long term, is there a down side?
MR. BROWN-No. I think if there was a long term down side, it would be that if this, if Staples is no longer
there, and the building is demolished and a new use comes in, I don’t even know if there’d be a down side.
I’m sure the cross easements would still be in place. Anybody who wanted to develop that site would have
the ability to use the rest of the Plaza as Staples does right now.
MR. CARR-All that stuff would be recorded in the County Clerk.
MR. BROWN-Other than just maybe future setback problems, but I don’t see any.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you don’t see any?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. URRICO-Signs are on my mind, I guess. What about the signage? Would there be, would Staples be
able to ask for additional signage?
MR. BROWN-As a separate parcel, they no longer would be considered, I mean, you could probably argue
that they’re not part of the business complex now. So they probably could make an argument for their own
freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-They have no property.
MR. URRICO-They have no property to put it on.
MR. STONE-They’d put it on the back.
MR. BROWN-Well, yes, this map shows they own the whole piece, this whole trapezoidal piece. So they
could put it some place in the back. In this case, they’re not just going to own the footprint, they’re going to
own everything you see on this map.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-If they wanted to, I think that, because you’re allowed to have a freestanding sign at the
entrance where you’ve got a road, a different road. I believe they could have that now if they wanted that.
MR. STONE-They could have one back there, I think, right where you’re.
MR. BROWN-The Plaza has two freestanding signs right now.
MR. STONE-Two, one on either road.
MR. BROWN-Right, but I guess to answer Roy’s question, an argument could be made this is a separate
parcel and they would be entitled to a freestanding sign if they wanted that. Is that a problem? I don’t know.
MR. HIMES-Just curious if any of the organizations that you speak about did run into financial difficulties,
which happens now and then, companies go out of business, but I was just more curious than anything else.
What kind of business planning goes into protecting the Plaza?
MR. LAPPER-Theoretically, it wouldn’t matter, because whether it’s Staples or another retailer that you, you
know, the auto parts place, if the reciprocal easement is in place, those rights and obligations are the same,
regardless of what tenant is in the building. So whether it was Staples or another.
MR. HIMES-So the Plaza doesn’t derive any revenues from Staples as this goes along?
MR. LAPPER-They buy it. They pay for the land. So there’s a check when they porches it, and then there
would just be operating payments. So, if they went backup, it would be the same as if any other tenant went
bankrupt and stopped paying their percentage of the maintenance. They’d go through the bankruptcy and get
carried for a while and they either stick with the lease or they leave.
MR. HIMES-And so Staples fate would be paying taxes to Queensbury?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HIMES-By themselves, and you’d be excused.
MR. STONE-The taxes would be paid by somebody.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. CARR-By someone.
MR. HIMES-So, well, okay, so if they went out of business, owning the land, the tax bills, a small matter, I
think.
MR. LAPPER-The Town would send it to a tax sale and somebody else would buy it. It’s just a separate
deeded parcel, separate tax map parcel.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, before I open a public hearing? I thought we had this couple back here
going to speak. Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this? In
favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions? If not, let’s quickly talk about it. We’ll start with Roy. Go ahead.
MR. URRICO-I don’t have a problem with it. It sounds like an operational change, which would be
beneficial. It won’t effect the Town. It’ll be beneficial to Staples and to the Plaza. I would ask for one
stipulation. That signage not change, that the current signage, as it is, would stay the same.
MR. LAPPER-Maybe the way to say that would be that we wouldn’t ask for any additional signs, if there’s a
change, if Staples leaves and somebody steps in.
MR. CARR-If that becomes a Best Buy, the change of sign kind of is going to change.
MR. LAPPER-But no additional signage.
MR. URRICO-You’re not (lost words) proposal right now, but, yes, I would ask that no more signage be
added.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, the Staff notes brought up the questions that I had when I read the application, and I
think they’ve been answered. It’s my understanding this is definitely a common practice in property
development. So I think everything’s, with the reciprocal easements and the operating agreements, I think
everything is covered here, and I think, while the relief is pretty substantial, everything else, in my mind, falls
in favor of the applicant. So I think I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. I think my biggest concern was what was going to happen in regards
to parking, and I guess there’s still a little bit of risk if the real estate agreements fall apart at some point, but it
sounds like it’s basically covered. So I have no problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I don’t have anything to say negative about this. It sounds, I’m glad to see the
Plaza’s doing well. If this helps, I’m all for it.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have no problem with it. I think the reciprocal agreements, like you said, are
going to take care of, it’s basically going to be the same operation it’s always been.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of it. It sounds good.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-I agree. I mean, it’s almost like a bookkeeping thing I think. I appreciate the fact that Staff is
on top of it and that they’ve raised the proper questions, and I think you’ve answered the proper questions,
and we’re basically, no problem with the thing. So I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2002 HOWARD CARR, MANAGING
AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan
Bryant:
721 Bank Street, SE corner intersection of Quaker Rd. & Route 9. The applicant proposes creation of a 1.45
acre parcel around the existing Staples building on Bank St. The applicant requests 29 feet of relief from the
30 foot minimum side setback requirement, 4,600 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable gross
floor area requirement from the Plaza Commercial Zone, 179-22. Also, the applicant seeks relief to allow 23
parking spaces on the property, where 150 are required, per the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations
of 179-66. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to create and transfer a separate
parcel. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives may include combining the parcel with the larger Plaza
parcel and developing a lease parcel for the Staples building, but this procedure seems a lot better for all
concerned. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative relief relative to the Ordinance
may be interpreted as substantial, but as pointed out, this is an occurrence that seems to be taking place quite
a bit in plazas of this size where the individual businesses attempt to own the pad, as it’s been called. Effects
on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as
a result of this action, and is this difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self-created. I also would
like to add a stipulation that no additional signs be allowed at this location.
Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate
MR. LAPPER-Before you go, I have to ask you an Any Further Business that may come before the Board
question. Remember back that second application that everybody liked so much with the garage, I think Mr.
King.
MR. HAYES-The carriage house.
MR. STONE-The carriage house.
MR. LAPPER-The carriage house. What I didn’t think to ask you, when you were making a motion, in terms
of how you view that. You were pretty clear about the 900 square feet. So the question is, and nobody
seemed to have a problem with the setback because that was the existing setback of 15 feet. So the question
is, if their application were modified so that it were 900 square foot of carriage house with 15 foot setback,
how do you feel about the 24 or 25 foot height? They’re comfortable scaling back to 900 feet to satisfy the
Board’s request.
MR. STONE-He can ask. I’ll only tell you, you guys don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.
MR. HAYES-I want to know whether this is on Howard’s bill or his.
MR. STONE-Well, all I can say is I didn’t hear anybody complaining about it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s the only thing I would say.
MR. URRICO-I was a little bothered by the height.
MR. LAPPER-What I didn’t realize until we got done is that the height is measured from the lakeside because
it falls off, and that when Don was saying that it’s 21 feet because of his ladder, that’s at the garage site, and
actually it’s even probably 24 now, but I’ll have to come up with that number, and I think it’s really no
different than what’s there.
MR. HIMES-It’s about the same size then?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I didn’t know that at the time we were discussing it.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, we said we don’t have to answer. I do want to add my two cents.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/20/02)
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t have any problem with that, if you keep it 900 feet. You’ve got a little bedroom
upstairs and a little bathroom. I really don’t have a problem with it, but somewhere along the line we’ve got
to say that, we’ve got to do a master plan, and we’ve got to know what’s going to happen with the rest of
those parcels.
MR. STONE-No, no, no. He’s talking King.
MR. UNDERWOOD-King.
MR. BRYANT-King who?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The one with the garage.
MR. STONE-The garage on Antigua Road.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I agree with that.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
50