2003-01-22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
PAUL HAYES
ALLAN BRYANT
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
ROY URRICO
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2003 CHARLES MACKEY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 190.7 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING “L” SHAPED
DOCK TO CREATE AN “F” SHAPED DOCK; TOTAL 862.1 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE 700 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM DOCK SURFACE AREA. ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 LOT SIZE:
1.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-050 A.5
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2003, Charles Mackey, Meeting Date: January 22, 2003
“Project Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a 190.7 sq. ft. addition to an existing “L” shaped dock to create an “F” shaped dock;
total of 862.1 sq. ft. Relief Required: Applicant requests 162.1 sq. ft. of relief from the
maximum allowable 700 sq. ft. for docks of the Docks and Moorings regulations per § 179-5-
050(A5). 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 seem to be limited. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 162.1 sq. ft. in addition to the 700-sq. ft.
maximum allowed may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (23.2%). 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed
to the shallow water depth along the shore of this section of the lake. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-256: 05/12/00, 3094 sq. ft. residential alteration
and 684 sq. ft. addition. BP 2000-257: 05/08/00, 815 sq. ft. detached garage. BP 2000-258:
05/02/00, septic alteration. SP 46-99 Modification: 02/08/00, eliminate the attached
garage/storage structure and the connecting entry foyer. The new plan adds a detached garage
located as an extension of the parking pad previously approved and a covered porch. BP 99-
611: 10/04/99, resurfacing existing dock. SP 46-99: 09/23/99, 3094 sq. ft. residential alteration
and 684 sq. ft. addition plus an attached garage. AV 78-1999: 08/25/99, shoreline setback relief
and relief from maximum height requirements for residential addition and alteration. Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The shallow water
depth along the shore of this section of the lake necessitates a long section of dock before
adequate depths are reached for mooring. Additionally, the size of the proposed dock would
not be out of character with other docks in the area. SEQR Status: Type II”
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
8, 2003 Project Name: Mackey, Charles Owner: Charles Mackey ID Number: QBY-03-AV-4
County Project#: Jan03-21 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a 190.7 sq. ft. addition to existing “L” shaped dock to create an
“F” shaped dock; total 862.1 sq. ft. Relief requested from the 700 sq. ft. maximum dock surface
area. Site Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-6 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 191.3 sq. ft. pier addition onto an existing “L”
shaped dock. The existing dock is 671.4 sq. ft. from the mean high water mark. The new dock
configuration would be 862.7 sq. ft. from the mean high water mark where 700 sq. ft. is the
minimum size of a dock. The plans indicate the new dock is located between the existing dock
and the shoreline noting that it does not extend the dock further into Lake George. The
applicant has indicated that the new dock would allow for a more secure docking location for a
boat and easier access. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed Warren County Planning Board 1/10/03.
MR. STONE-Mr. MacElroy, I suspect you’re speaking for Mr. Mackey?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Chris
Mackey. His given name is Charles, and he goes by his middle name, Chris, Chris Mackey.
This application, as stated, is for the addition of a pier, changing the existing “L” Shaped dock
to an “F” Shaped dock. The Town’s surface area requirements for docks in this area limits the
surface area to 700 square feet. This addition will then exceed that surface area requirement.
As indicated from the Staff review, the nature of the shoreline along here, there is about a 21
foot section of dock from the mean high water mark to the mean low watermark, which adds a
certain amount of surface area, about 142 feet or so, to your overall computation. The Town’s
Ordinance, or the Town’s way of calculating the surface area starts from the high water mark,
which differentiates from the Park Commission’s way of computation, but, nonetheless, the
addition of the approximately 190, 191 square foot area, puts this dock up and beyond the
surface area requirements of the Town. What the reasoning for his request, the applicant’s
request, is to have this additional inside pier. It would stabilize his docking situation, just
having the one cross pier. This is a north facing dock, subject to sometimes pretty fierce winds
on the lake. The “L” Shaped dock is a better configuration than a “U” Shaped or an open ended
to the lake. It’s a little more protected than the “U” Shaped type, but to create the “F” Shape
would provide additional stability for docking in that area, not only one boat within the slip,
but perhaps his second smaller boat on the inside of that, as opposed to on what is the easterly
side and one exposed to the waves and wind action. Certainly the addition of that pier would
not put it out of character with the other docks along this section. There’s similar docks in that
area. Not only that, but boathouse or docks with, “U” Shaped docks with sundecks on them in
that area as well. So this certainly is less obtrusive than those docks, and the addition of that
inside pier would be not visible, really, from the lakeside to any significant extent. I do have
photos from along the shoreline that show some of the neighboring docks, if that would be
helpful.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. MAC ELROY-Just another perhaps minor point, but with the frontage that Mr. Mackey has
along the shorefront, over 200 feet, he would still qualify in the Town’s Ordinance, to be able to
install another separate dock in that area as well, of up to 700 square feet.
MR. STONE-Would you comment on the Staff comments about shallow water depth? It doesn’t
seem, to me, to be apropos, because this is closer to shore.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that point, I believe, and I think it is applicable, is it creates a situation
that that dock, if you look at the plan, you’ll see that 21 feet from the high water mark to the low
water mark, that if that was deeper, right from the beginning, that dock would be 21 feet
shorter, perhaps, than it is now. It’s because of that shallow character, right off the shoreline, in
that particular area, and it’s not necessarily true on the adjacent docks, but in that particular
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
area, it is shallower, as it’s shown there on the dotted line on the plan. So the point, I think, that
Bruce is making, and I certainly concur, is that puts that dock out further, adds a certain amount
of square footage right there. It’s a good case to follow the Park Commission’s method of
computation of dock area because that first 21 feet is really to the point of getting out to a
serviceable depth.
MR. STONE-That is an explanation. Whether it’s reasonable or not, it’s an explanation.
MR. ABBATE-So let me ask you this. So the first 21 feet create a problem for the owner. So I’m
assuming he has no boats at the present time.
MR. MAC ELROY-He has boats, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Does the 21 feet, does it create a problem for the owner?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. HAYES-They’re part of the calculation when they normally wouldn’t be.
MR. ABBATE-It’s all part of the calculation.
MR. BRYANT-But correct me if I’m wrong. If you remove that 21 feet, assuming that the lake
were a normal height at that point, you’d still be over with your addition. You’d be over the
700 allowable square feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-Even with the addition, correct, but that adds about 142 feet to the area
computation.
MR. HIMES-Another question. If the water is so shallow, from the end of the dock towards the
shoreline, how can it be effectively used for mooring or docking, whatever you want to call it?
In other words, if the boat is going to come inside, closer to land.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the dock space that is currently used and would be continued to be
used is in the same location. Now we’re simply adding a pier to the inside of that, which makes
access to that boat, and actually docking it, tying it, a more stable situation.
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Now, that raises an interesting question. You’ll have to help me out here because
I really don’t understand all of this. You’re adding a pier. Is this a commercial pier?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. That’s the term used for docks. It’s a typical dock structure, is 28 feet by
6 feet 9 inches.
MR. ABBATE-How many boats will the owner have there, how many boats?
MR. MAC ELROY-He has two boats.
MR. ABBATE-He has, at the present time?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Now he’ll have three? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. What I said earlier is that perhaps now that would give the ability also
to pull the smaller boat to the inside of the new pier, provided more protection, as opposed to
tying it to the easterly side of the straight section, which is a little more vulnerable to wind.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-You were fairly emphatic in saying he has two boats, he’ll still have two boats.
Would he be willing to stipulate that if we were to grant this expansion?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I didn’t discuss that with him, but.
MR. STONE-Well, you were very emphatic.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. He has two boats.
MR. STONE-And you said he will have two boats.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don’t know of any other plans for additional boats.
MR. STONE-You have to know, one of the concerns that this Board has expressed, as a Board, is
with the proliferation of boats, and right now the Town is wrestling with Special Use Permits
for private marinas, if you will. So it’s a subject that is of great interest at the moment.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, could I make a point here, please?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-It seems to me that whenever the applicant does not attend the application
hearing, our Board is at a distinct disadvantage to kind of ferret out the facts, and I’ve become
quite concerned that we may do the community an injustice by not seeking facts from the
principal, and you raise an important question, and I support you. Now, in order for me to go
along with this thing, I want the owner to say yes, as a stipulation, I will only have two boats,
and if he’s not here, and he can’t stipulate that, and I’m going to have a problem. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Let me just point out also, after the meeting agenda was set, Chris informed
me that he was to be out of town on business tonight. He apologizes for not being here, but
that’s the only reason.
MR. ABBATE-We can always table it.
MR. STONE-Any other questions before we at least go to a public hearing? I certainly
expressed my concern. I’m concerned about the expansion. I mean, this is, we have one pier.
We’re going to have two piers, which is very different than saying, I want one pier with a larger
area.
MR. ABBATE-Exactly.
MR. STONE-That’s not the same thing, and I just, I’m concerned, I mean, that it represents an
expansion, a nonconforming expansion. That’s what I’m concerned about.
MR. MC NULTY-Before you go to the public hearing, I just had one thought pop into my head.
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. MC NULTY-What’s the distance between the two piers? What size will that slip be in
between those two? Well, more to the point, could you get two boats in that slot?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s just going to be wide enough for one boat?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, approximately 10 feet, standard slip.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and the idea is that way he could tie the boat to both piers if he needed
to?
MR. MAC ELROY-Exactly.
MR. STONE-In other words, this would be a “U” at the end of a long pier?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s “F” Shape.
MR. STONE-I know “F”, but I mean, it’s like it were a “U” with one boat between the two piers?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-And that certainly has been his intent. That’s the purpose of this is to be able
to provide a more secure place to dock the boat and to have access from those both sides.
MR. STONE-Where does he dock his two vessels now?
MR. MAC ELROY-Inside the “L”.
MR. STONE-Inside the “L”.
MR. MAC ELROY-And to the easterly side of the street.
MR. STONE-Facing north, in other words.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So there is always the possibility of putting one in between the two piers,
one to the south of the second pier and one alongside?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, subject to whatever pertinent regulations for Marina Class A, Class B,
whatever the situation. I mean, he hasn’t expressed that intent to me, certainly.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-One other, has he ever experienced any damage from winds and so forth from the
use of the dock as it is now, to your knowledge?
MR. MAC ELROY-Damage to the boats?
MR. HIMES-Damage because of the instability that he’s trying to fix?
MR. MAC ELROY-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. HIMES-I wouldn’t expect maybe that you would, again, that’s the absence of the principal
that complicates that. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed to this application? Opposed? Mr. Salvador, please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My opposition is not so much to the project.
MR. STONE-State your name, please.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. My opposition is not so much to the project itself,
but rather to the way I believe Staff has framed the project. If you examine your Zoning
Ordinance, the definition of a Class B Marina is any dock, wharf or mooring made available for
use by any person, etc., etc. Now, this structure can very easily be made available, and this
shallow water is something you can overcome. It’s very simple. I do it every day. So I think
what you’re doing is you’re on your way to permitting a Class B Marina. It’ll be a defacto
permit for a Class B Marina to come into effect. The next step would be, of course, how do you
ferret out that this is, in fact, a Class B Marina by the number of boats. It’s an enormous
enforcement thing and it takes time and effort and, you know, the government becomes the spy,
if you will. You have to catch them in this, and I think you can address your concerns by
requiring the applicant to go through a Long Environmental Assessment where you quantify
the events that are likely to occur as a result of this project. It is very likely that a Class B
Marina will grow into this, if not a Class A. It may very likely be that the Class B Marina
already exists, and this would be then an expansion or an approval of it to continue. It exists
without a permit, I presume, if it is in fact a Class B Marina, and the other thing that is very,
very likely to occur here is the boathouse is going to be built. This is a classic. This is a classic.
The next thing that will come along, before the Planning Board, will be an application for site
plan review for a boathouse. Now this brings about a very disjointed review. You’re reviewing
one part of it, the foundation, if you will, of the boathouse. I maintain they’re integral. You
can’t separate them. You don’t toenail the columns of a boathouse to the top of a dock. You
don’t do that. The columns are an integral part of the dock, the foundation. That’s how it
stands. That’s how it has stability, and that it how it has to be evaluated. Now if this, in fact,
some day, becomes a Class B Marina, it is then a commercial dock. It’s a commercial dock, and
when you throw these people into a commercial category, you’re into another world. Another
world. I can tell you I just, not to scare you, but I just received a notice from OSHA, okay. Now
they’re going after marinas. They’ve got all the other businesses they go after. Now they’re
coming after marinas, and they layout all the rules and regulations that you have to meet to
meet their standards. The other thing the Class B Marina would have to go through is a site
plan review by your Planning Board to get a Special Use Permit. I just made application for a
site plan approval, and I note that they require handicap access facilities. Now, if this is a Class
B Marina and it has to qualify, go to site plan, it has to have handicap access facilities. So, it
would be a false sense of security to give these people a permit to build this pier, and then all of
these events are going to occur that are going to be real hardships, real hardships in the future,
if they do occur, but I think you can take care of the whole thing by doing a Long
Environmental review, Long Form, and quantify the events that are likely to occur, or get a
stipulation from the applicant that they won’t occur. That’s the way to do it, but I think you
raised these things, talked about these things, but they’re real concerns, and I think it’s
incumbent upon Staff to frame the project properly. What you have here, I think, is either a
Class B Marina being permitted, or it’s an expansion of an illegally existing Class B Marina.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Erudite as usual, Mr. Salvador. I appreciate it. Anybody else wishing
to speak in opposition? Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Mr. MacElroy, do you have any comments you wish to make?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’m sorry for the confusion over any possible future use of this. The
applicant’s request is to add a pier to an existing structure to allow for more secure, stabilized
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
docking in that particular area, not unlike several other adjacent docks. There’s no intent to
create a marina. He has done a wonderful job renovating the property, and it’s certainly not his
intent or purpose to make dock spaces available to anyone other than his own use.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, one of my concerns is the history, if you will, of this parcel over the
past three years, the number of things that have taken place, the number of building permits
that have been issued, the site plan, now an Area Variance. We had one back in 1999. Tonight
we know that there are two Area Variances on the agenda for the same piece of property. I
guess I get concerned when I see piecemeal expansion, a little bit, and it just makes me wonder
what is the ultimate goal here, and how long is this going to go on, and I think, as Mr. Abbate
made it very clear, there are some questions to which we would like answer which you,
obviously as his agent, and I’m not faulting you, but are not equipped to answer at this
particular point in time. I mean I certainly would like to say I would like a stipulation, if I were
to grant this variance, at minimum, stipulation that two personal boats and no more, and that
that would be the end of any expansion as far as the dock is concerned. We have had, recently,
we have had some problems with docks. We have ongoing problems at the moment that have
triggered this Special Use Permit, I don’t want to say investigation.
MR. SALVADOR-Undertaking.
MR. STONE-Undertaking. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. I mean, the Town is looking at this. The
Planning Board has looked at it. Basically told the Town Board, it’s your baby. How can we
work this thing out between the Town, the Park Commission and landowners. So, it’s a
difficult time, as far as I’m concerned, to come forward with a request like this. I can’t speak for
the rest of the Board, only myself, but any other comments anybody wants to make before we
talk about it?
MR. ABBATE-I think the Chairman hit the nail right on the head. There is a major concern for a
piecemeal expansion, and that can be justified, that term piecemeal expansion, going back to
August 25, 1999. There were, if you look at the parcel history, you will see a piecemeal
expansion, and then that goes to what the public hearing had to say. If you continue on this,
what’s going to happen next. So I think the Chairman is absolutely correct. I think he hit the
nail right on the head, and I think there is major concern, at least that I have, about approving
this request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we, any other comment to that?
MR. MAC ELROY-I would like to comment on this history here. I was involved with these
other actions that took place in ’99, and it’s all related to Mr. Mackey’s acquisition of the
property, shortly before ’99, and the renovations to the property, and if you call it piecemeal
because there’s area variances and site plan, and building permits, well, that’s all a part of the
process, and the ’99 area variance and site plan were then modified to actually, in fact,
downsize the project, in the Site Plan No. 46-99 Modification, and the other three are building
permits related to that project. I think it’s unfair to characterize it as piecemeal when it was
associated with one overall project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll yield, then. How about if we say number of continuing renovations?
I’m concerned with the number of continuing renovations.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, this, in fact, may be the second, and he’s been in the house for a couple
of years. He now realizes certain changes that he’d like to implement, and that’s why I’m here
tonight.
MR. ABBATE-And of course we’re only talking about 4-2003. We have yet to address 5-2003, as
well, dealing with Mr. Charles Mackey.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and that’s part of his awareness of the property, his use of the
property, and his desire for other improvements.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Why don’t we see where we stand, and we can,
Roy, let’s start with you.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m basically in agreement with what you and Mr. Abbate have said, and I
really feel we need the principal here in order to make an honest decision about this application.
There are still questions regarding the use, how many boats, and maybe his future plans. So I
recommend tabling it at this moment.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly agree with the Chairman in the sense that, as I look through the
history of this application, which it’s nice that it’s provided this to us, that there’s been a lot of
relief, you know, almost, in my mind, bordering on segmentation, which is not a good idea, as
far as our Board is concerned. We like to consider everything that’s going to happen on a site.
On the other hand, in this particular case, I think that we may be missing the point, and I should
have asked the question, but this other dock that’s permissible. I wanted to ask Staff if, in fact,
his comments are true, that he could have another dock based on the amount of lake frontage
that he has here, that it would actually be permissible.
MR. FRANK-He has 204 feet of frontage, and 151 to 250 feet of frontage will allow you two
straight “T”, “F”, “L”, or “U” Shaped wharfs from one “E” Shaped wharf. So what he stated
was correct.
MR. HAYES-So my idea here is that I would prefer, personally, as far as the impact on the lake,
to permit the addition of this one pier with the stipulation that the applicant would forego
constructing another dock. I mean, obviously, if it’s his intention to do that as well, then the
cumulative impacts would have to be considered, and we’d have to ask Mr. Mackey his
intentions, but I just am a little alarmed at the possibility here that we deny this variance or not
allow Mr. Mackey this expansion and then that forces him to construct another whole pier,
which in my mind would be a negative result, as far as the lake is concerned. So I guess I’m in
favor of the current application, the current relief that’s requested at the expense of another
pier, for sure.
MR. STONE-Another dock.
MR. HAYES-Another dock. I should say that other dock Staff has indicated that he could
actually construct another “F” Shaped pier, as long as it complied with the 700 square foot top
end of the, as far as square feet. So I can’t see that as being the result that I would like to
compel, you know, or have be the result of denial of this particular variance. So, that’s my
position.
MR. STONE-Just for the record, Mr. MacElroy, do you have the authority to stipulate that?
MR. MAC ELROY-The short answer is no. We discussed that, and that wasn’t an option that he
was considering.
MR. STONE-The answer is no, you can’t speak for him, or, yes, you could stipulate?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the answer is that I can’t stipulate to that option.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? I want to ask Mr. Hayes a question. Because I’m a
little cloudy on this. You indicate that it might be detrimental if he wants to build a compliant
dock or replace the whole dock with an “F” Shaped compliant dock.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. HAYES-No. Basically the applicant’s agent pointed, or alluded to the fact, at the beginning
of his presentation, that right now, based on the amount of lake frontage that he has, he’s
actually entitled, legally, to have a second whole dock, and my position is that I think it would
be, from an impact perspective, it would be preferable for us to grant him this relief on this
dock, if he was willing to stipulate that he wouldn’t construct the second dock, “F” Shaped
dock.
MR. STONE-In other words, there could be another 700 square foot dock somewhere on that
property, as long as it met setback requirements and so on and so forth.
MR. ABBATE-But of course he’s not willing to stipulate that.
MR. STONE-He didn’t say he wasn’t willing. He said he can’t. So we’re still, we haven’t got to
the point.
MR. ABBATE-I thought you said that you couldn’t reply to that, that you and Mr. Mackey had
considered this and he said that he would not consider such a thing. Didn’t you, am I right?
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Sure I’m right on that.
MR. STONE-Yes, but he didn’t say he could stipulate, as part of an approval. That’s what he
said.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I end up with mixed feelings on this. I’d much prefer not to see the additional
square footage going over the 700 square feet. At the same time, I can understand the argument
of the applicant that it would help him stabilize his mooring if he had another pier out there, so
he had something on each side of his boat. What little checking I’ve done through the real
estate contacts, I have indications I’ve gotten, is this is kind of a rough area to moor boats. It’s
known, at least in the real estate community, as being one of the disadvantages of that stretch of
shoreline is you’re exposed to some rougher water. A couple of other thoughts, I guess, on
some of the comments that have come up. I, too, have got some concerns about how many
marinas we get on the lake, but I’m not sure that’s really a jurisdiction of this Board. If
somebody is going to have a Class B or a Class A Marina, there is a permit process in place to
review those requests and determine the advisability of allowing or disallowing that, and some
of the other comments that were brought up about the possibility if you add a pier then you’re
going to build a boathouse and then you’re going to have a marina, and what not. On the one
hand, that is a valid concern, because there’s the general rule in zoning issues that you always
consider the worst case possible because that’s what you’re likely to get. On the other hand, it
also strikes me that we’re making up problems. You can talk almost any situation and say, well,
if you did this and then this, then you’re going to have this terrible situation and it’s going to go
on and on and on. So, I don’t think I want to follow that route, either. I would like to hear some
assurances from the property owner himself of what his current plans are, and what his
intentions are, so that we might place some stipulations on an approval. I would feel more
comfortable with that. If I had that, I would be leaning towards approval.
MR. STONE-So again, I’m writing down for my records, yes, with.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, with.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree a lot with what I’ve heard from everyone here tonight, and
I think in my mind, not being a boater, I can’t comment much on how much the actually
docking of a boat coming in off the lake, is going to be improved by adding this “F” thing, and I
would think, on the inside, I don’t understand how that’s going to benefit anything. I was
thinking once docked, maybe it would help, and that’s the way I read the statement, stabilize
the craft while it’s at, while it’s docked, and it has been said there hasn’t been, at least to the
agent’s knowledge, any damage or what not in the past. So, therefore, I feel that, not being a
boating man and the rest, that a convincing argument hasn’t been made to me for the need to
add the “F” part of this dock. In terms of what may happen in the future, we can be suspicious
of that. I agree with what Chuck had said, too, that, well, that’s for, to be considered if and
when those contingencies ever were to manifest themselves, in connection with, I think, with
what Mr. Salvador said in the public hearing, it might be of interest to us to see what’s on that
form, but whether that might be something that would be more of interest to the planning
committee than us, again, what good would that do us if the information that is recorded on it,
I’m not familiar with the form, so I don’t even know what appears on it, is that going to help
zoning decisions or isn’t it? I would be glad to, if the rest of the Board felt it would be any good
to do so, that we, if we do table the thing, that we ask for that also, but at this point in time, I’m
not convinced that this application needs to be approved, on the basis of the need. On the other
hand, I’d hate to see another dock put up, but that is within the Code, and this isn’t. So, I’m
going to come down on the fact that, if he builds another dock, our Code says that’s okay.
That’s not for us to worry about. On the basis of where it stands right now, I would be, I would
vote no on this application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to approach this from the relief required. Mr.
Mackey is requesting 162.1 square feet of relief of the maximum allowable 700 square feet for
docks. That’s about a 23%, plus or minus, increase, and, based on that, and the number of
continuing renovations, and the fact that I found no compelling argument, and the fact that the
principal’s not here this evening, I would have to say no.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I think that Mr. Abbate and Mr. Himes make a convincing argument
against the application. However, I think Mr. Hayes has a compelling for the application with
restrictions. So I fall down in the area that I would go along with the application if we could
restrict the building of a future dock, and if we could limit the number of boats to use this dock,
then I would go along with the present application. However, if that doesn’t become apparent,
then I would have to be opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-Well, let me state where I come out, and then we’ll talk about the possible
alternatives here. I humbly disagree with Mr. McNulty that we can’t anticipate the future. I
think we can anticipate the future when it comes to docks. I mean I live on the lake. I know
what happens with docks. It is, and I’m not saying that Mr. Mackey is going down the road,
but the road is fairly clear, in terms of what people have done. So, I feel it is very necessary
before I can say yes on this thing that I need someone with the authority to stipulate to certain
things that this Board seems to have concerns about, namely the number of boats, namely what
the future plans are for a second dock, second legal dock, no question about that, but a second
legal dock, a boathouse, other usage, other boats by use by other people, therefore a marina. So,
I would suggest, and I would like to think that certainly those of you who say yes with
stipulations that we table this until such time that Mr. Mackey is able to be here to answer the
concerns of the Board, plus the fact he can’t build a dock tomorrow anyway. I can guarantee
that. So, do I get a sense of the Board that this is where we ought to go?
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2003 CHARLES MACKEY, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
15 Wild Turkey Lane. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant can appear before the Board and
answer questions relating to the number of boats that will be docked, future plans for the
property, namely a second dock, and will the dock be covered, and any other reasonable
expectations that we could come up with.
Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
MR. ABBATE-That’s fair, very fair.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, sir. So, in other words, we want to see him, and you’ve got through
the March meeting.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. If I can just comment on a couple of things to maybe think about,
because one of the things that comes to mind, and believe me, I don’t have any indication or
knowledge that he plans to do anything to his docks beyond this, and I appreciate your
experience, Mr. Chairman, in the history of docks and what comes before you, but I feel a little
uneasy putting everybody in the same box, as far as they’re going to make improvements to
their, enlarge their docks. You can look at my situation. For 40 years, we had the same exact
docks without improvements, other than trying to keep up with damage from ice.
MR. STONE-I understand. I didn’t mean to, it was merely a general statement. I wasn’t tarring
anybody, but when you see docks and you see what happens, changes happen, just like with
homes on the lake.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and the other thing about a stipulation, and I’m not sure how this
would carry through, of not having a dock that would have a sundeck, for instance. Now what
happens if the ownership of the property changes. Does that stipulation carry through with the
property?
MR. STONE-Yes, it does. Yes, it does.
MR. MAC ELROY-And someone could, in effect, remove the existing dock, and put a legal, ”U”
Shaped dock, or whatever, with the sundeck that would meet that.
MR. STONE-It’s possible. It’s possible.
MR. MAC ELROY-So that’s, I’m a little.
MR. STONE-The reason that we’re so sensitive about docks is that we had a situation three
years ago where we were lied to, and the variance was actually withdrawn by Staff, and it
appeared before us, and we made certain changes in, required of the property owner before a
new variance was granted. So, it’s not, we have a history of sitting here, and I’m sure the Board
has a number of stories they can tell you of things that we have heard or not heard, and I think
we’re getting more sensitive to these things.
MR. ABBATE-You opened a door, so I have a right to ask the question. You made a statement
about, does this continue on if the property is sold. Is Mr. Mackey using this number of
continuing renovations with the objective of selling the property?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-We listen very carefully to everything that’s said. Okay. I think we ought to go
on.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2003 TYPE II CHARLES MACKEY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 WILD
TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 696 SQ. FT. STORAGE
BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT OF 500 SQ. FT. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES
SECTION: 79-5-020 D
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2003, Charles Mackey, Meeting Date: January 22, 2002
“Project Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 696 sq. ft. storage building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 196 sq. ft. of
relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for accessory structures per § 179-5-020(D).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an oversized structure, which will
provide for the storage of seasonally used personal property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 196 sq.
ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement may be considered moderate relative
to the Ordinance (39.2%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may
be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
attributed to the applicant’s desire to protect his personal property from the weather in an
enclosed structure, and also to keep it out of sight for aesthetic and security reasons. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-256: 05/12/00, 3094 sq. ft. residential
alteration and 684 sq. ft. addition. BP 2000-257: 05/08/00, 815 sq. ft. detached garage. BP 2000-
258: 05/02/00, septic alteration. SP 49-99 Modification: 02/08/00, eliminate the attached
garage/storage structure and the connecting entry foyer. The new plan adds a detached garage
located as an extension of the parking pad previously approved and a covered porch. BP 99-
611: 10/04/99, resurfacing existing dock. SP 46-99: 09/23/99, 3094 sq. ft. residential alteration
and 684 sq. ft. addition plus an attached garage. AV 78-1999: 08/25/99, shoreline setback relief
and relief from maximum height requirements for residential addition and alteration. Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims
the proposed structure will provide for the protection of his personal property from the
weather, and also to keep it out of sight for aesthetic and security reasons. Additionally, the
proposed structure is to be built into the slope of the land resulting in only the roof and rear
gable end rising above the terrain from a Route 9L perspective. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
8, 2003 Project Name: Mackey, Charles Owner: Charles Mackey ID Number: QBY-03-AV-5
County Project#: Jan03-20 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 696 sq. ft. storage building. Relief requested
from maximum allowable accessory structure requirement of 500 sq. ft. Site Location: 15 Wild
Turkey Lane Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-6 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to construct a 696 sq. ft. accessory structure to store seasonal use items such as a boat,
personal watercraft, and snowmobile. The zoning requirements limit the size of accessory
structures to 500 sq. ft. The proposed building will meet setback and height requirements. The
applicant has indicated that the building will be constructed to be consistent with the existing
detached garage on site. The applicant has also indicated that the existing seasonal use items
are currently stored outside and the new building would allow them to be stored one location
on the property. Staff recommends discussion requesting additional information on the
amount of relief being requested as it would appear that a 500 sq. ft. building would be able to
accommodate the suggested storage items. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact The applicant provided additional information on the amount of relief being
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
requested and the intended use for storage items. The building location did not have an impact
on county resources. The Board recommends No County Impact.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll,
Warren County Planning Board 1/10/03.
MR. STONE-Mr. MacElroy.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to this thing?
MR. MAC ELROY-I will provide the explanation of the need. I was listening also in the first
application. So I know where we might be headed. An accessory storage structure is an
allowable item within the Ordinance, and that structure is, in this zone, allowed to be up to 500
sq. ft. Through consideration of items that are desired to be stored in an enclosed situation, the
applicant has decided that a structure similar in size to the detached garage would be
appropriate in its size and construction. A copy of a photo of that existing structure has been
provided. That’s a little larger than what we’re talking about, but basically the rectangular
shape is, you know, 24 by 29, in an exterior dimension, and maybe I can ask for a clarification
from Bruce. In reading the Ordinance, it’s not real clear because there’s definitions given for
Floor Area in a building, in a residential building, and it’s not clear whether that, what we
provided were the exterior dimensions, and being a concrete wall with a brick veneer, we’re out
a little bit further, the interior floor space is more like 605 feet for this structure, but we did
portray it as the larger area, which would be the outside dimensions of the structure. Lake area
living has certain uses and desires that go with it, boats, trailers. In the case of Mr. Mackey,
Wild Turkey Lane is a private road. He is the one permanent resident along this section of his
private road. Winter maintenance falls on his shoulders. If provided with a storage structure,
he would also want to house a four-wheel drive snow blower type tractor for the ability to
maintain that area. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site, but there are some slopes there, and
that’s what he would desire and want to have. Basically, he has certain items, personal
property, that many lakeshore owners have, and he’d like to house it in a structure. It has the
added benefit of not only protecting his property, but keeping it out of sight, as opposed to
boats or trailers or snowmobiles or personal water craft being stored outside at varying parts of
the year. So that’s really the desire, the need based on what he’s got. Not that you would be
storing some of those items in the house, but the nature of the house, two levels, there’s not a
conventional basement situation or attic situation. It’s a flat roof. He’s short of storage within
the house itself. He does have the detached garage, but that houses vehicles, as it should. This
structure is not intended, and I can certainly stipulate to the fact that it’s not intended to store
vehicles. I understand that that’s a concern by the Town, and that’s why the Ordinance reads
the way it does. So, that’s the explanation for that. I think it would be constructed in a location
that would be protected from visual impact, both from the lake and from upland. Again, a
structure is allowed. It’s just a question of exceeding what is allowed by Ordinance.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask a quick question of Bruce. I mean, we have boat storage, private,
listed in the Code, and then we have storage shed. Now they’re both 500 square feet. Is that
correct?
MR. FRANK-Those two separate accessory structures all fall into the same criteria as accessory
structures.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FRANK-Regardless, and 500 square feet is the maximum allowed in any zone.
MR. STONE-All right. I just wanted to be sure.
MR. FRANK-You’re only allowed one accessory structure of a maximum of 500 square feet.
MR. HAYES-In other words, a rose by any other name.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes. This is one of the areas where, you know, every time you get into the Code,
you start to say, well, why didn’t it say, and since I was involved with helping write it, I take
some responsibility. It would have been so nice if we defined accessory structure, which we do,
and then say a boat storage is an accessory structure, and a shed is an accessory structure, then
we know exactly what it is we’re talking about when asked the question. Okay. So you’re
saying that he wants this 690 square foot, or 605 building for toys, and I don’t mean that in a
negative way. I’m not.
MR. MAC ELROY-I’ve used that term myself.
MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-You’ll have to help me out here, because at times I get confused and I become
slow, so help me out. When I saw this application and I received this picture, storage structure,
two words came into my mind, and don’t take this personally, incongruity and obfuscation.
The reason I say that is that you’ve provided us with a storage structure typical, which is a two
car garage, and although you did say that he does not intend to use this as a means of storing
vehicles, I get confused. Now, is he going to have a storage shed that is capable, capable of
storing vehicles, similar to what you submitted? Will it have doors?
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Can the doors be raised or opened?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It would look and function similar to.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s where he’s going to put his Jeep or four-wheel vehicle and plow,
right?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s essentially.
MR. ABBATE-So that makes it a garage and not a shed.
MR. MAC ELROY-What kind of vehicle are you talking about? This is a four-wheel drive snow
blower, a Caboda Tractor.
MR. STONE-Chuck, let’s ask the Code Enforcement Officer. How do you tell the difference
between a garage and a boat storage shed?
MR. HAYES-A garage door, really. Right?
MR. STONE-Well, I want him to answer.
MR. MC NULTY-But you’ve got to have a big door to get the boat in.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m getting at.
MR. FRANK-I’m not sure that the Code clearly defines that as you well know.
MR. STONE-Right. So, in other words.
MR. HAYES-Shame on you.
MR. STONE-Shame.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-Well, we can just ask a simple question. Will this structure be capable, not to say
that it’s intended to, will this structure, if it’s approved, be capable of housing a vehicle?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. That answers my question. It’s not a storage, it’s a shed, it’s a, what
do you call it.
MR. BRYANT-A garage.
MR. ABBATE-A garage.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s a second garage.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. Why 696 feet? Why isn’t 500 feet enough space?
MR. MAC ELROY-Again, because of the personal property that’s desired to be stored. Boat
trailer with boat, snowmobile trailer, maybe different times of the year, obviously like you store
the snowmobiles in the summer and the boats in the winter, but personal water craft and trailer,
this four-wheel drive tractor with blower attachment, because there’s a number of items that
he’d like to store the personal property, and that size was felt to be adequate to do that.
MR. URRICO-Because the relief you’re seeking is about what a single family residential has
totaled, as far as their storage space. So that’s quite a bit of.
MR. MAC ELROY-The relief?
MR. URRICO-Well, the storage, see, 200 square feet for a single family residential.
MR. MAC ELROY-In certain zones. Certain zones the storage shed is limited to 200.
Everywhere else it’s 500.
MR. URRICO-My point is that the relief is quite substantial when you compare it to what
they’re able to get.
MR. MAC ELROY-What in other zones they will get?
MR. URRICO-My point is that it’s a substantial relief.
MR. MAC ELROY-Perhaps, and if it’s the inside dimensions, than it’s 105 feet versus the 190
feet. So, you know, it’s a matter of what I found was unclear, in terms of the dimensions, I used
the exterior dimensions. If you use the inside wall dimensions, it may be 605 feet, still an
increase to what’s allowed, but not as substantial.
MR. ABBATE-See, that’s what confuses me. Either way, whether you do the interior, the
exterior, the height, I don’t care. Either way, you’re requesting 196 square feet of relief, correct,
from the 500 square foot maximum size?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it depends what the definition is.
MR. ABBATE-Now wait a minute now, wait a minute. This says the applicant requests 196
square feet of relief from 500 square foot maximum size. True or not?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s see if the public has anything to say, and then we can
talk about it ourselves. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the
application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed to the application? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think there’s a little overflow of the discussion that I would like to highlight
personally, and then I guess I’m segmenting my comments here. I was a part of the application,
the rather substantial application, in ’99 for an Area Variance. I’m sure you’re familiar with that
process and that there was, the house is still pretty close to the lake. There was a great deal of
examination to the equities of that Area Variance, and my recollection was that it was a close
vote, a close call, and that on balance, based on the project that was presented to us at that time,
that it was, the Board felt that granting the relief was fine. They were okay with it, but
presented here, several years later, with more relief, more buildings, and, you know, I would
have liked to have seen that be part of the original application. I certainly appreciate the
comments by the applicant’s agent, Dennis, that adding to property is a thing that people do all
the time, when they see new needs or new changes, but speaking for myself, and not the Board,
I still think it’s potentially a dangerous habit for us to consider these complicated lake variances
in their entirety, and then not have it be its entirety, you know, I mean that they come back with
new buildings and some more ideas in the future, because I’m not sure that wouldn’t have
effected the original decision in its overall sense. The other segment of my comments is that, in
this particular case, I’m not sure that the holes that have been acknowledged in our Zoning
Ordinance, as to the definitions of what compromises a garage, and I think Chuck’s points are
well taken, I really do, or a storage building, should necessarily become the applicant’s Achilles
Heel. I mean, I think that, I mean, I think that we have to examine this on the fact he’s applied
for it as a storage building, and he’s asking for this level of relief, and we should apply the test,
my opinion, we should apply the test that goes along with an Area Variance for a storage
building. I don’t think that the mistakes, and definitional mistakes that we’ve made in the
Code, should necessarily become the applicant’s liability. In this case, when I examine the
overall parcel, size of the lot, the position of this storage building on the lot, I don’t find it
troubling, in the sense that we’ve approved storage buildings in similar positions on these
rapidly sloping properties down toward the lake. We’ve done it in the past. That’s not always
a reason to do it now, but I really don’t think that this particular amount of relief, the 690 square
feet, is going to be a detriment to the surrounding properties. I think that’s a stretch. Mr.
Mackey’s improvements to the property are substantial, and as I visited it originally, before the,
his original renovations, I think that most of the people around that site would probably feel
that their property values have been enhanced, have been increased. Will this storage building
decrease those? I would say no. I think it is a self-created difficulty in the sense that as other
Board members have pointed out, that certainly, you know, a 500 square foot storage building
is still a big building, and that, you know, he could store a lot of things in that, if he chose to,
and it’s self-created in the sense that he’s asking for this 196 square feet for his own reasons, and
that has to be taken into account. So on balance, I don’t have any problem with this storage
shed, per se, recognizing the total square footage of the property, but I would comment, for
myself, that I would not be in favor of any additional relief for this particular parcel. I would
not be in favor of that in the sense that I think when balancing, if I was asked to balance
additional relief past this, in an overall project, if it was brought initially, I probably would not
have passed it, and I think I have to apply that standard to be consistent for the future. So I
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
guess I’m in favor of the application as it stands now, but I would also comment that I think
that would be the end of the relief that I would be in favor of for this particular parcel.
MR. STONE-Chuck McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, on the one hand, comparing the size requested with the allowable size
in the Ordinance, 500 square feet, it’s not a gigantic increase, but, nevertheless, I have some
problems with this. I think, as we indicated in the earlier discussion, the thing that struck me
first was, it’s called a storage building, but, boy, what was shown as the typical storage building
was a two car garage, and the way it strikes me, whether it’s a two car garage or a one car
garage, it strikes me that really what’s being asked for is a second garage. The applicant’s
allowed to have a 500 square foot storage building. I’ve got no problem with that, but going for
the oversized building, I don’t know, it strikes me as being a bit much, and even though I
indicated that I thought in the last application we were perhaps making up problems, I’m going
to do it here. Looking at that road, it strikes me that everybody on that road could make the
same kind of request. They’ve got almost the same kind of an embankment that would tend to
hide what they put in there, and I see nothing different between this applicant and the other
people on that road, that says that this applicant has got unique circumstances that would
encourage me to grant him this relief and not grant similar relief to everybody else on that road,
and if I do that, then I’m changing the Zoning Ordinance again. So, I think on that basis, I’m
going to say a 500 square foot storage building is fine, but anything bigger, no.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I feel that everyone probably wonders how did we come up with
500 square feet, you know, and whether that’s enough or not. I’ve got to say I’m sympathetic
with the application’s we’ve had, and as I drive around Town sometimes I wish that some of
the people around Town had a very large shed to put the junk they’ve got laying around the
yard in. I think that it’s a good objective to try to have things looking good. You could say I
even thought, well, the garage they have is smaller than what, than the maximum allowed, you
pick up a few feet there, you know, what’s the tradeoff here. Well, it comes down to two things,
for me, in connection with the 500 square feet and so on. The amount of personal effects,
vehicles, things that need to be garaged, so to speak, really has no end. I mean, four
snowmobiles, six snowmobiles, tractors, two boats, three boats, four. So sooner or later you
can’t accommodate everything inside. So, it’s very difficult to say, well, is 500 enough or
whatnot. So, I’ll go along, I think, with what the Ordinance says, and the second thing that I
have is that I think when, in a lot of cases when variances are asked for, there needs to be a
greater effort to prove why it’s needed. So you’ve got this building. It’s, I think, 16 feet high.
Granted, you know, you can’t put maybe a snowmobile on top of a boat or what not, but you do
put, many people put snowmobiles in the back of their pickups. You’ve got them on the
trailers. There’s, you know, it’s a cubic space, and really to be a little more sympathetic with the
application, I would like to see, you know, why couldn’t what the applicant has at the present
time, fit in the 500 square feet, the tractor/snow blower, which he doesn’t have yet, well, where
is that going to be when the time comes, outside somewhere? Really a dilemma, as I see it, and
I have to say that the spot, the location where it’s going to be, is, for this house, I think is a little
different than a couple of others that I saw, in that it’s just a flat area right next to the garage. It
seems like a perfect place for something like this, but in spite of all that, I think, well, with what
we’ve got here, 500 feet, I guess, is what we’re going to have to stick by, as far as I’m concerned,
and maybe the applicant who, I don’t know whether he has another residence somewhere else,
may have to find a place to store things in the off season or what not. There’s certainly plenty of
places around where that can be done, and I think that’s a feasible alternative, and so I think, I
hate to say this, but I think I’m just going to have to come up as a no on the application for the
additional square footage.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think that Mr. McNulty and Mr. Himes made a very persuasive
argument, and I support their argument. Also, it’s my opinion that this is a continuous
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
renovation, and as such, you know, again, in my opinion, constitutes about five bites at the
apple, and as such, I cannot support the application.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I basically agree with Mr. Himes and Mr. McNulty. I want to address the
Staff notes, just briefly. As I look at it, Item Number Two, feasible alternatives, where the Staff
says the feasible alternatives are limited, I think the alternative is to build a compliant structure.
That’s a feasible alternative.
MR. FRANK-No, it isn’t, not under Town Law it’s not a feasible alternative. If you read what
the Town Law says, is there another way for the applicant to achieve what he’s trying to, other
than Area Variance.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. In my mind as I look at it, okay, as I look at it, that’s a reasonable
alternative.
MR. FRANK-Reasonable, but that’s not part of the criteria. That’s not a feasible alternative, and
I’ll be glad to provide you with a copy of the Town Law.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that would be nice, thank you.
MR. FRANK-I could go get it for you right now, if you’d like.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. In any event, that being said, I come down on the negative side.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the compelling argument for granting this relief.
Maybe it’s there, but I don’t see it, and in the absence of that, I just don’t see a good reason to
grant the variance for this relief anyway. I’d be against it.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with the majority of the Board. I also agree with something
that Mr. Hayes said, because that’s what I wrote down when I looked at the application, looked
at the property. It was too much. It certainly could have been done when the property was
modified. Having said that, he came down on one side, which is perfectly understandable, and
I come down on the other. I think 500 square foot for a storage building is a very generous
amount for a property, in this particular area, and I see no reason to grant more. We’re
certainly on record, recently, with a request for certainly a considerably larger storage building,
on lake property, and we denied it because it was just too big, and I think this is just too big
when 500 square foot is a very generous size. So, having said that, I need a motion to deny this
application.
MR. MAC ELROY-Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment?
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. MAC ELROY-I wonder if, in fact, because of the action on the first application, that that is
being tabled for consideration by the owner, the applicant’s comments, if this may be given the
same opportunity.
MR. STONE-I didn’t sense a feeling on the part of the Board, my judgment, my call, that that
would have made any difference whatever the owner said. I heard nobody say that. They said
696 is 196 more than the allowable 500. Five hundred should be enough. So I’m going to call
for a motion to deny and we can go from there.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take the motion to deny, Mr. Chairman.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2003 CHARLES MACKEY, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
15 Wild Turkey Lane. Mr. Mackey requests construction of a 696 square foot storage shed,
which is approximately 39.2% over the 500 square foot maximum size authorized by the Town.
Again, based on our conversation this evening between the Board members and the answers
and questions between the applicant’s representative, and the fact that, in my opinion, this is a
continuation of renovations, I move that the application be denied.
Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Well, thank you. Can I have a question or comment?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. MAC ELROY-This request has been denied for the storage structure, and I have a certain
sense that because the structure looks like a garage that it would automatically function as a
garage, that if this same design was used in a 21 by 24 foot dimension, while it wouldn’t be the
size desired, requested, required by the applicant, this could be built because it has two garage
type doors. I realize it wouldn’t come back to this Board, but I wouldn’t want to mislead
anyone that that type of structure still could be constructed and used as a storage building.
MR. STONE-You’re absolutely right, and the Building Code Zoning Enforcement Officer, when
a building permit was sought, could it raise the question and bring it right back to us. In his
judgment, this is a garage, a second garage. Am I true, Mr. Frank, in what I’m saying?
MR. FRANK-Could you repeat that, please?
MR. STONE-If the building, if a building permit were requested on a similar building per the
drawing that looks like a garage, but it’s 500 square feet, you could raise the question and say it
looks like a garages to me, you better go get a variance.
MR. FRANK-I don’t know that. I think pretty much if the applicant came right out and said I
want a second garage, he would be instructed that it wouldn’t be permitted. I don’t think the
Code supports.
MR. STONE-All right, but what if you saw this picture? What if you saw that Mr. MacElroy
said, if this were a 500 square foot building that looked like that? Would the question possibly
be asked, is it a garage?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. I don’t believe the Code would support it if you were to take it
to a judge.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-The Code would have to support it. I don’t think there’s anything in our Code,
and maybe this is something that you or someone else should address the Town Board and
have it clarified and made part of our Town Code.
MR. STONE-Okay.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask you this question, to change it a little bit. Would you ask the
question, is this proposed storage shed capable of storing vehicles? Would you ask that
question?
MR. FRANK-Would I, personally?
MR. ABBATE-What would the reasonable person in your position, would they ask the question,
this project that you are presenting, does it have the capability of storing a vehicle, a capacity for
storing a vehicle? What would the reasonable person ask?
MR. FRANK-I don’t think you need to ask the question if you look at the dimensions of it. I
mean, it’s obvious you could put a vehicle in there.
MR. ABBATE-Well, all right, then let me ask you this. If you can put a vehicle in there, and a
vehicle is then put in there, then is it a storage shed or a garage?
MR. FRANK-Then it would be considered a garage.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir, and by the way, 21 by 24, you’d still have to come before us
because that’s 504 square feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-Let me ask one other question, then. Is that a Code Enforcement Officer
question about whether it’s the measurement from the inside dimensions or the exterior
dimensions?
MR. FRANK-It’s definitely the outside dimensions, and I understand what you’re saying,
depending on the thickness of the wall you lose floor area, but I know for a fact that it’s
definitely the outside dimensions.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the way that your office has interpreted it.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-All our buildings are considered on the outside.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the definitions aren’t totally clear. Thank you.
MR. HIMES-Mr. MacElroy, just for your information, I think once a couple of years ago we had
a situation similar to this, not the same but similar, and the thing about the storage of a vehicle
or storage of other things, and an agreement was reached where something was put up in the
front of it where the doorways were narrowed, so that an ordinary vehicle couldn’t get in or
out.
MR. MAC ELROY-But if you were to store a boat in a storage structure, that’s not a car. It’s not
a garage.
MR. HIMES-That was the difference between that problem and this one, but that’s what
happened in that case.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, well, that’s where I think there’s.
MR. STONE-Where’s the confusion, when I’m reading building floor area total, the combined
area of all floors of the primary structure and covered porches as measured from outside walls?
Page 17911.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not a storage structure.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-And it says, including storage sheds, I mean, greater than 100 square feet, and, I
mean, if we’re talking about floors of structures and covered porches measured from the
outside.
MR. MAC ELROY-Which definition?
MR. STONE-17911, bottom of the page, under Building Floor Area, Total. I mean, that’s where I
would, I think it’s logical to assume that the outside of the storage building would be the same,
but it’s a good question.
MR. MAC ELROY-I’ll look at, good. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2003 TYPE II KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: SCHODER RIVERS ASSOC. CONSULTING
ENGINEERS CARL B. SCHODER, P.E. ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 51 BIRCH ROAD –
GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK, SHORELINE SETBACK, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC VARIANCE – TOWN
BOARD OF HEALTH TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-4-
030, 179-4-070
CARL SCHODER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, before we get started, I would just like to say, I would like to be
replaced by an alternate, if possible. I got to this site Monday, and having a minor injury, I
found it very difficult to examine the site because of the snow drifts around it and all, and I did
my best to get in, but I couldn’t get down around it to give it the kind of.
MR. STONE-Okay. The only, and you certainly have the right to do that, but inspection of a site
is not mandatory by members of the Zoning Board. We don’t have to go. We all do, but,
normally.
MR. HIMES-I understand it, and normally I wouldn’t say this, except in this particular case.
MR. STONE-If you want to do that, Jim, do you feel comfortable coming up?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I couldn’t inspect it either, Mr. Chairman. It was too dangerous, quite
frankly.
MR. BRYANT-I couldn’t, either.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s wait until we, and I went to the wrong one because I couldn’t
find it either.
MR. HIMES-There was just no access, no sidewalk, nothing to get into it.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll let Jim, and we’ll see where we go.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2003, Kenneth & Leigh Searles, Meeting Date: January
22, 2003 “Project Location: 51 Birch Road – Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,183 sq. ft. single family dwelling and construct a
2,212 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 30.1 feet of relief from
the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, 13.2 feet of relief from the 20-foot
minimum side setback requirement, 1.05% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirement, and 2.3% of relief from the 65% minimum permeability requirement of the WR-1A
Zone, § 179-4-030. 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 a new
dwelling in the same location as the existing dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives for the shoreline setback seem to be limited due to the size of the pre-existing
nonconforming parcel, location of the proposed new septic system, and the steep slope that
extends across the center of the parcel. However, feasible alternatives may include centering
the dwelling on the parcel to alleviate the need for side setback relief, reducing some of the
existing impermeable surfaces on the parcel (flagstone patio, concrete pavers, one of two
storage sheds) to alleviate the need for permeability relief, and reducing the FAR to 22% being
the proposed dwelling is to be built on a new foundation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 30.1 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement
may be interpreted as moderate (60.2%). 13.2 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side
setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (66%). 1.05% of relief from
the 22% maximum FAR requirement may be interpreted as minimal (4.8%), and 2.3% of relief
from the 65% minimum permeability requirement may be interpreted as minimal (6.6%), all
relative to the Ordinance. 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? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the size of the pre-existing
nonconforming parcel and the steep slope that extends across the parcel’s center. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 89-382: 07/26/89, rebuild existing dock. SP
44-89: 07/25/89, rebuild and reconfigure dock to an “L” shape. Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Being the applicant is proposing
to construct a new dwelling on a new foundation, it appears feasible alternatives exist for the
side setback relief, FAR relief, and permeability relief being sought. However, relocating the
dwelling further from the shore does not appear to be feasible because of site constraints (steep
slope, proposed new septic location). SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen, introduce yourselves, please.
MR. SCHODER-Certainly. My name is Carl Schoder. I’m with Schoder Rivers Associates. I’m
acting as agent for the applicant. I have with me Curt Dybas, who is the architect for the design
of the house. Our function is basically civil design. Trying to design the retaining walls to
provide better site access so people can actually get down to the building in the winter, those
types of things. I’d like to start, if I may, I note that people had some difficulties getting down
to the house and seeing the house. I have some photographs with me, which I’d like to, with
the permission of the Chairman, share with the Board.
MR. STONE-Surely. Please do.
MR. SCHODER-Actually it’s one photograph. That’s the one. This structure is an older
structure, as you will see momentarily, and I guess the question as to why we’re all here and
what the motivation or intent of the Searles are in this project is to be able to reconstruct,
basically, what they have, what they currently have. The building is somewhat dated, as you
can see by the appearance of it. The siding is certainly dated. The structure has got some
fundamental problems. The foundations are very shallow. They don’t extend below frost. They
have been moving. They have been heaving. The condition at below the building currently is
such that there is inadequate air flow going through it and it’s too close to the ground surface
within the crawl space, such that there’s quite a bit of rock, quite a bit of deterioration of plates,
first floor joists, that sort of thing. It was looked at as to the possibility of trying to repair those
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
items, but the difficulty is the damage is so extensive that that would present quite a difficult
and expensive endeavor. So the logic was to, instead of doing that, since they are basically
happy with what they have there, with the size of the building they have and the like, simply
replace that building on its original footprint. The proposed structure that’s indicated on
Drawing C-1 that you folks have in front of you, does indeed do that. It keeps the building
within the existing footprint. It keeps the existing side line setback condition at what it is now.
It does not change it. It doesn’t make it less. It doesn’t make it more, but obviously if I’m
within the existing footprint, I’m not making that less. Similarly, on the shoreline setback,
there’s no modification proposed from what the existing case is. Similarly as you note, there are
two other variance applications or variance items in front of you, one is the FAR and the other is
the percent permeable. We are effectively not looking to modify the existing condition for
either of those two cases in any substantial manner. As a matter of fact, the percent permeable
in the final design comes out to be the same, exactly as what the percent permeable is now. It’s
two percent under the 65% permeable that this zone would require by the regulations.
Similarly the FAR, the difference in the FAR is .227 existing versus .23 proposed. So we’re
looking at a change in that ratio of .003 from what was originally there. Again, the reason I’m
making those points is in keeping with the tone that the applicant’s intent is really not to build
out this site any more than what is there, but simply to have something there that’s a
structurally sound building, that will add some more value to the property, and being a newer
building certainly, but that does not create any further hardships or any further encroachments
than are currently the case. Additional to that, in the reconstruction of this building, the
applicant will be proposing the relocation of a septic system, which is currently very close to the
lake. We are not sure of the exact location of that system, but logic and the site layout dictate
that basically it’s going to be in that small postage stamp of lawn that is immediately adjacent to
the house. We would propose to take that septic system and remove it from that location, the
disposal system that is, and bring it to the top of the hill, such that we can maintain the required
100 foot separation from the lakeshore, and install a pump system, a septic tank and an effluent
pump system to be able to access that. Additional to that, the existing site slopes behind the
building, between the building and that higher area where the septic system is to be located, are
currently being retained by some dry rubble stone retaining walls. Those dry rubble stone
retaining walls are failing currently and could put the house in jeopardy, put people in
jeopardy. It also has a stairway that goes down it that is quite deteriorated and relatively unsafe
that needs to be replaced, and that would all be part of this improvement project. Relative to
the steep site slopes, the steep site slopes present another difficulty, and that difficulty
specifically is trying to move this house back from the lake. If we were to try and site the house
back into those slopes, the steepness of them, and we’re talking about something that’s in excess
of 20 feet here, of hillside, would require the construction of some relatively expensive retaining
walls and the like. As is, in trying to maintain this property and maintain the building where it
is, we still have to invest in retaining walls, but fortunately we’ll be able to use something which
effectively is a stepped or a terraced reinforced earth, masonry faced type of retaining wall
system, as opposed to going to a concrete system, which will be needed if we were to try and
push back in and actually resist that earth load for the living space. Regarding the side line
setbacks, several items there. First off, the relief that’s requested on the side that is, again,
consistent with existing conditions, is from a lot that is an unbuildable lot, basically. It’s 35 feet
wide. It’s used as lake access by someone who lives in that area, that walks down to the lake,
but it is not a lot that has got any significant width to it or significant anticipated development
in it. The other lot on the opposite side, obviously, does have a structure on it. It is a buildable
lot. I’m not sure if it’s conforming or not, but it has that type of an effect. If I were to try and
move this building, the way the site is currently configured, if I were to try and slide it to the
west, such that I would be pulling away from that current variance issue, what additionally
would happen would be the location of the septic tank and the location of the pump pit would
have to be effected. Moving that septic tank over, the furthest I could move that septic tank
over would be 10 feet, and the reason for that is the neighbor’s well. The neighbor’s well is
existing under the house in the structure, and currently I’m about 60 feet away from it.
Obviously I can’t be closer than 50. Secondly, there’s a pump pit that needs to be at the effluent
side of that septic system, that would also have to be shifted with it. Well, to try and shift that, I
have an existing structure in the way, and that is a shed structure, if you will, that is used to
hold, well under 500 square feet I might add, that is used to hold beach supplies and that type
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
of thing, and boat supplies. It’s a relatively small building, but it’s built into the corner of that
site, in such a manner that it actually provides stability for the neighbor’s foundation. He’s got
a walkway that comes down. He’s got a foundation that’s built right on the line, right up
adjacent to that, and to remove that or to move that shed would be a very difficult proposition.
That could put the neighbor’s property in jeopardy. So I can’t move over, okay. The only other
thing I could do, if I were to do something to that effect and try and increase that setback issue,
would be to pull the septic tank closer to the lake, okay, because I’ve got physical sizes on these
two items. I’ve got one thing that’s sandwiched in between the house and the shed. As a
matter of fact the pump pit’s only four feet from the shed right now. I’d have to pull that
forward, and in pulling that forward, and I think you can see that on the plan, obviously, I’d be
further encroaching on the required setback distance for the septic system to Glen Lake, which
is not something that I thought would be desirable. Third item on that sideline setback that is of
concern to me is we’re going to anticipate doing something relative to stormwater infiltration
and runoff from this house. I’m dealing with a postage stamp. I can’t pump stormwater. I’ve
got to find some piece of land that I can actually put that water in. The only piece of land that
I’ve really got to work with would be that little grassed area that would be between the septic
tank, if you will, and the lake, thinking about something to the effect of a shallow swale for that
lawn to be able to trap that runoff, possibly some infiltration at that location. If I move the
building over further, I’m losing the ability to do anything really effectively in that area. So I
am kind of constrained. I’ve got a very narrow lot. It’s 72 feet wide, 72 and a half feet wide on
the average width, versus a required lot width which would be reasonable of 150. I’m, you
know, in quite a tight situation there. Regarding the percent permeability and the FAR, again, I
noted that the request is a relatively minor request, and it is consistent with what is there now.
The increase in the FAR is brought about, actually the footprint of the building, a plan area
slightly smaller, but there is a small area in the back of the building that was a one story shed
roof that will now extend up to the second story. It doesn’t increase the height of the building
or change any of that, and it’s on the side of the building that’s backed up into the hillside, but
nonetheless that, actually that square footage on that second floor is what added to the FAR to
bring it up that slight bit. It’s not a representation of an increase in the footprint of the building
overall. Really the benefits of the project, as I see the benefits of the project, obviously is that the
applicant, they wind up with a new house and something they can live in and use and enjoy for
a long period of time. I think the community would also see a benefit. The photographs I’ve
shown you, the photograph I’ve handed out just now, shows a relatively old structure. What
we would be replacing it with would be a nice architecturally designed new house, with a
relatively attractive set of retaining walls behind it that would provide better site access, and not
to be taken lightly, a major benefit, I think, to Glen Lake and to the project in general would be
the relocation of that septic system to get that discharge back away from the lake in the location
where it should be. I think those are my comments. I’d love to discuss this with you folks.
MR. STONE-Well, I can congratulate you on your presentation. Very clear, very concise. I
think you’ve addressed all the points, but let me ask a couple of questions.
MR. SCHODER-Certainly.
MR. STONE-The septic tank that you show, what’s the design of the septic? I’m still not sure.
MR. SCHODER-Certainly.
MR. STONE-You’re going to take it from the house into a tank down on the ground level, or are
you going to pump it all the way up to the back?
MR. SCHODER-I just need to open this so I can point to the same thing I’m going to be telling
you to point to, so bear with me for just a second. Okay. Down below there is a rectangular box
that’s shown that’s labeled 1500 gallon septic tank. Do we see that? It would be located just to
the west of the house and the walkway.
MR. STONE-I’ve got to find the 1500. Here we go, yes. Okay.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. SCHODER-That’s the septic tank which would take effluent from the house, as any normal
septic tank would, by gravity, From that tank, the effluent would flow then into a pump pit,
okay, which is a circular, the septic tank construction would be a concrete, pre-cast concrete
tank, okay. It would then go into a pre-cast concrete basically manhole section, okay, five foot
diameter, five foot (lost word) manhole system, which would be an effluent pump pit. So what
we’re opting to do is we’re opting to pump the effluent, instead of taking this tank and moving
it up the hill, and put a raw sewage pump down here to lift up to the tank, we’re opting to
pump the effluent. There’s a technical reason for that, and a very good one. When you pump
raw sewage into a septic tank, you have a slug flow of sewage every time the pump comes on.
It reduces the effectiveness of the tank and the effectiveness of treatment within the tank. When
you pump effluent from the septic tank up into the leach field obviously you’re eliminating that
problem. You have a septic tank that acts as a normal tank like anyone else’s here would that
has a gravity system. Now, if you’d like, I could tell you a little bit more about what the system
is up on top of the hill.
MR. STONE-But let me just go, first of all, you’re going to have a septic tank that’s 34 feet from
the lake.
MR. SCHODER-That is correct, and we’re applying for a septic system variance for that.
MR. STONE-I understand. Okay.
MR. SCHODER-That is correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question.
MR. SCHODER-Yes, sir.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How are you going to access that septic tank to pump it out? Because I
assume you’re going to have to pump it out every three years minimally.
MR. SCHODER-Yes. The septic tank is going to be located down below the stairs. To answer
the question, it will be a difficult issue and, yes, you’re right. You should pump it out between
three and five years. You have about 20 feet of grade relief. You’re not going to be drawing
that up with a vacuum pump, I don’t think, because I think you’re going to wind up with too
high of a lift. Consequently, the septic tank would likely be pumped with a trash pump and
delivered up to the truck, and that is a very good question. That’s the only other way you could
do it. You would use a trash pump.
MR. STONE-Does anybody have those facilities locally?
MR. SCHODER-Trash pumps? Contractors have trash pumps. I would imagine that that
would be something that you would be able to arrange with one of the waste haulers to be able
to supply.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The reason I ask is that, since I did all the septic testing on Glen Lake
approximately six years ago, this was one of the sites that was identified as marginally passing,
you know, it was obviously a hot zone, which I assume you’ve probably just got a drum in the
ground there from the old days when it was a camp. Who knows. I’m just taking a guess.
MR. SCHODER-Yes. We chased around a little trying to find out what was there. Couldn’t
find anything. My suspicion is 55 gallon drum with holes in the sides.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that one of the things you need to consider, too, is that on
Glen Lake, because of the steep slopes, we have plenty of other examples. I live on the other
side of the lake, and I know the Petrosky property over there, the Hughes property, which is
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
currently in progress over there, was dealing with much the same thing, and, you know, despite
the fact that you have a steep bank there, you know, there are feasible alternatives to keeping
the house on its current site. I know it’s going to be more expensive to do that. It’s going to be
more of a major engineering undertaking, but at the same time, you know, I think that part of
our Code is that, you know, a zoning variance isn’t to proliferate something that probably
shouldn’t have been built there, you know, when the original camp was done, but at the same
time we have to consider it is there, but there are considerations for moving it back and, you
know, personally I feel that you’d be better off putting your septic settling tank up on the hill. I
think you’re going to present yourself with real problems if you’re middle, dead of winter and
your thing plugs up or fills up to the brim, if you don’t keep on top of it, you know, I don’t
know how you’re going to pump it up the hill. It just seems a little bit obtuse, with wells right
in the proximity, too.
MR. SCHODER-Relative to berming into the hill, what it really boils down to, folks, is a cost
issue, the amount of money that’s going to get sunk into this site to rebuild what they have, as a
baseline, okay, is going to be already, because of the walls, because of steps that have to go
down, and because of the reconstruction of the house itself, and access to be able to reconstruct
that house, is going to be a relatively costly endeavor that is already going to push the fair,
reasonable market cost of what you would put on a postage stamp lot to get it right down to the
bottom line. You’re talking about something that it wouldn’t surprise me to see in excess of
$400,000. We start putting more costs on top of that, we’re getting to a point where it’s getting
to be a hardship on, you know, trying to maintain what they’ve got, because what they’ve got’s
falling down, but trying to have the ability to do something different and add even more cost to
it, they’re going to lose what they’ve got, and they’re not going to get any reasonable return on
sinking that additional dollar into it, and I guess this is the point I was trying to make before on
the retaining walls. I’m not sure how much that will hold water, but I’m laying out the folks.
That’s exactly where these folks are on this.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. If I may echo what the Chairman basically said, you gave a very competent
and a very rational very interesting presentation. You almost mesmerized me until you woke
me up.
MR. SCHODER-Hopefully I didn’t bore you.
MR. ABBATE-No, no, not at all. I found it quite interesting, but I’d also have to echo what Jim
has to say here. I’m willing to listen to what you have to say. My mind is not made up. I
would say, as Jim said, why not keep it on the same site, instead of trying to get closer, what is
it, 30 feet closer to the water, I think.
MR. SCHODER-We’re not getting closer. We’re on exactly the same site.
MR. ABBATE-It’s staying the same.
MR. SCHODER-The exact, the current setback is 19.9 feet.
MR. ABBATE-I wrote myself a wrong note, 20 foot closer.
MR. SCHODER-Okay. Let me be very clear on that.
MR. ABBATE-Please.,
MR. SCHODER-The current setback is 19.9 feet, as measured from the survey.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. SCHODER-The proposed setback is 19.9 feet. There is no change in that shoreline setback,
nor is there any change in the side line setback. It’s exactly where it was.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-I stand corrected, and I appreciate that.
MR. SCHODER-That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Could you just, since I’m looking at it, comment on the dock situation here.
MR. SCHODER-The dock situation.
MR. STONE-I mean, I see three docks in front of the property. They may not all come from the
property, but there are three docks in front of the property.
MR. SCHODER-The one on the west side is the neighbor’s. That’s not theirs.
MR. STONE-I understand. Okay. How about the two in the middle? One in the middle and
one on the right?
MR SCHODER-The dock on the right is left to me. I’m looking upside down. Sorry. The dock
on the left is on their property. It’s my understanding that that dock is used significantly
actually by the folks that go down that 35 foot wide strip. Someone told me that, but I can’t say
that for a fact. I’m not sure.
MR. STONE-When you say that, you mean the McGowan, identified as the property now or
formerly of?
MR. SCHODER-I’m speaking off of something that I seem to remember someone saying,
because I kind of wondered what that was there.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, that’s the property that?
MR. SCHODER-That’s correct, the McGowan property. Yes. The other dock would be their
main dock, which would be the dock that they normally would use, the one in the center of the
property.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SCHODER-The one on the left side of the property, to my recollection, is not a very large
dock, nor a very functional dock. It’s the one that’s falling down.
MR. DYBAS-The one that you see in that picture that’s sloping into the.
MR. STONE-So you understand, since you saw fit to identify each of the points, that because
you are taking the house down, there is no such thing as the footprint.
MR. SCHODER-I understand what you’re saying. I guess the point I’m making is.
MR. STONE-You don’t necessarily agree, but that’s the way the Town looks at it.
MR. SCHODER-Well, no, yes, okay, you’re right. Well, no, there is a footprint. Physically there
is a footprint, of what entity was there, there is a footprint, and I’m using that as a baseline
reference. I guess what I’m saying is there’s also something that these guys own currently.
There’s something that they have, and what they’re asking to do is maintain what they have,
not increase on it, and if I use the word “footprint” to delineate what in plan view that limit
would be, that’s my intent on that.
MR. STONE-Okay. You used it in two different ways in your presentation.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. SCHODER-That was my intent, though. Okay.
MR. STONE-What, to use it in two different ways?
MR. SCHODER-That also, no. It certainly wasn’t. I don’t want to confuse it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It is a nonconforming parcel though. Correct?
MR. SCHODER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I just wanted to make that clear.
MR. SCHODER-Yes. It’s nonconforming in several respects.
MR. ABBATE-And you mentioned a shed on that property?
MR. SCHODER-Okay. There are two sheds on this property. One is an eight by eight, on skids,
shed that’s located up on top of the hill. The other is this storage shed, if you will, that’s bermed
into on the side of the property. If you want to look on the drawing.
MR. ABBATE-No, just give me the dimension.
MR. SCHODER-I’ll have to scale them.
MR. ABBATE-No, don’t scale them. I’m just asking you this. Is it capable of storing a vehicle?
MR. SCHODER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just want to make sure.
MR. SCHODER-No, most certainly. If that’s your intent, no.
MR. DYBAS-In that particular photograph, it’s to the left of where you see the stairs coming
down.
MR. SCHODER-That’s right. You see the stone wall, where the stairs come down, right there?
MR. ABBATE-I do, yes.
MR. DYBAS-Right where the (lost word) is.
MR. ABBATE-See, I couldn’t get down there. My age I can’t risk it.
MR. SCHODER-I appreciate it, because I’ve been down that hill in the snow, and it’s not fun.
That shed actually has got a couple of window panels in the front and it’s got a man door that
comes on the side. It’s used in off season to store beach stuff, if you will. I’m not sure, maybe
someone changes in there in the Spring or in the Summer.
MR. STONE-You indicated that that’s holding up the neighbor’s property. Is that going to
remain in exactly the same way, or are they going to say, we’ve got a nice new house. We’ve
got to refinish the shed.
MR. SCHODER-They have no intent on refinishing the shed. If they did anything, they might
change the glass window in the front, but our proposal is not to do anything with that shed.
MR. ABBATE-Would they consent to stipulations?
MR. SCHODER-That they are not going to do what, exactly?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-Well, it’s a nonconforming shed at the moment.
MR. SCHODER-Correct.
MR. STONE-It’s on the property line.
MR. SCHODER-Correct.
MR. STONE-It’s over the property line.
MR. SCHODER-Would they consent to not increasing the size of that shed, say? I’m looking for
relative to what?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Or not moving it or anything else, because it is nonconforming.
MR. SCHODER-They can’t move it.
MR. STONE-I hear that.
MR. SCHODER-This is round cobblestone laid up masonry. It’s physically unmovable. Okay.
Also, I would think.
MR. STONE-It’s wood on top.
MR. SCHODER-It has a wood roof.
MR. DYBAS-It’s basically built into the back.
MR. URRICO-Is there any way of zooming in on that?
MR. SCHODER-I would think that we would be in a position of being able to stipulate that they
would not be interested in increasing the size of that shed. Am I correct? I have with me in the
audience also someone that is a brother-in-law. He’s brother-in-law of the owner. Also might
be the contractor.
MR. STONE-In other words, the thing coming down on the left side of this picture, that’s an
enclosed stairway or something?
MR. SCHODER-Yes. The neighbors have a stairway. If you look at our drawing, you can see,
find the shed, okay, that we were talking about, right. Now, opposite the side of the property
line, you’ll see enclosed staircase?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SCHODER-Okay. That is the neighbor’s enclosed stairway that comes off their house
which is built right on, as a matter of fact, slightly over the property line, that wanders down to
a walkway that takes them out to that dock you were asking about.
MR. STONE-All right, but interestingly enough, their house is built on that grassy knoll.
MR. SCHODER-Their house is built on the grassy knoll, but the other house directly next to
them is not, and that’s where that well is shown. There’s one that’s down right by the lake. As
a matter of fact, it’s 33.4 feet back, on the drawing. There’s two houses there.
MR. STONE-Are you saying there’s a second, there’s two houses on the same property?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. SCHODER-There’s two structures there. The second structure is the one that has the well
on it, the lower one.
MR. STONE-The lower one is on top of the well.
MR. SCHODER-On top of the well.
MR. STONE-But they’re on the same property. Same owner?
MR. SCHODER-I’m pretty sure, yes. The lower one is their house, actually. The upper part is
the garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? I mean, the one concern that I will
express at the moment, and I’m sure it may be shared, is that we have been reluctant, over the
years, to grant this many much, and I’m slashing it, relief, on a particular project. It’s a lot of
relief. I understand all the ramifications and all the explanations, but if you look at it, there’s a
lot of different reliefs requested.
MR. SCHODER-Could I address that?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. SCHODER-If one of those came out of play, which would be a relatively easy thing to do,
would that help? Specifically permeability. I could increase the permeability, it would be
conforming by taking out the concrete pavers that are in the front of the shed.
MR. STONE-Well, that would probably help.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Currently he has approximately, you’re requesting 133.4% of relief, total, if
you totaled it all up.
MR. SCHODER-How did you total those? I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think
the math works there totally.
MR. ABBATE-You see how you’ve mesmerized me.
MR. SCHODER-You stopped me on that one. Well, okay, 133.4, went down 131.4. I can drop
two percent off on that, what am I trying for, permeability.
MR. STONE-At least that would show good faith, one of the things that we quite often get into,
but we’re not there yet. Let’s see where we’re going. Anything else before I open the public
hearing? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor
of the application? Please come forward. Grant this man some room.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK PRENDEVILLE
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Hi. My name is Mark Prendeville. I own a property about seven houses
south of the one proposed. I don’t have any problem with the new house. I think it would be
great in the neighborhood. I know the property. It slopes way out. There’s no way they could
take that all out without costing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. The only
thing, I guess I’m for it and against it. The only thing that bothers me is the septic. I’m worried
about them getting someone in there to pump it. You would need a, probably a hundred foot
line to get down those stairs and down the hill. I would much rather see, even though I’m not
an engineer, some type of a holding tank there with a macerator type system that grinds it up
and then pumps it up.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate your thoughts. Since they are seeking a septic variance from
the Board of Health, we’ll leave that in the lap of the Board of Health and hope that you would
go to that meeting and express your concern so that they would, in fact, address that in some
manner. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a memo from David and Marianne McGowan. They say “We currently
own a lot on Glen Lake to the east side of the residence of Kenneth & Leigh Searles. The lot is
“Land locked” and our only access to this property is by way of a “Right Of Way” across the
back side of the property owned by Kenneth & Leigh Searles. We drive across this “Right Of
Way” to access the lot. The “Right Of Way” is currently a 12’ wide strip. We have reviewed the
plans that are on file at the office in the Town of Queensbury. The plans include locating the
leach field for the septic system directly across the “Right Of Way” that we currently drive over
to gain access to our lot. The plans call for placement of barriers to prevent driving on the
“Right Of Way” illegally restricting our access. The current plans call for the relocation of the
“Right Of Way”. We have been in discussions with the Searles, but have not yet agreed to this
change. The backside of both our lot and the Searles lot is uneven and in the current state, it’s
not possible to drive to our property on the proposed “Right Of Way”. Modifications to the
landscape on both lots and modifications to the proposed “Right Of Way” will most likely be
needed to allow access. In addition, the plan narrows our “Right Of Way” to less than 11’ in
one location. We request that the Board deny a permit to construct the septic/leach field portion
of this project until we have legal resolution of the “Right Of Way” issue. As an alternative to
moving the “Right Of Way”, we also request that the engineers consider construction of the
septic/leach field in a manor that will allow us to drive over it. David & Marianne McGowan”
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment on both comments, if you would.
MR. SCHODER-Yes, I do, on both points. The first point, as far as the septic system and
pumping up the hill, versus our pumping out the tank, if you will, up the hill, we’ll take that
under advisement. As you note, quite correctly, we are going in front of the septic variance, the
Town Board of Health is what I’m trying to say.
MR. STONE-The Board of Health.
MR. SCHODER-The Board of Health, thank you, in order to try and resolve that, and if a
modification seems to be appropriate, there are ways that you can do what we’re talking about.
What it would require would be a stilling basin before the septic tank, okay, which would add
some cost, but maybe something feasible and maybe something we could work with. I may
need to put that under a parking lot, because unlike, and what I’ll get to in the right of way
point in a moment here, the points that were made, there’s not a lot of room up there to be able
to put all these things, but I may be able to work something like that out, where I can still let
flow and attenuate that flow and then still have effective septic treatment. I know the
Department of Health does not like, nor does DEC, like pumping directly into the tanks, but
there may be something we can work with. Okay. Secondly, the type of septic system, now let
me address the right of way point, if I may. The letter from the McGowans is right on point.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
There is currently negotiation on a proposed right of way relocation. There is an inaccuracy in
the letter in that it notes that it’s down to 11 feet. It is not. Indeed it is 12 feet across. The access
to their property, I’m not totally sure that it’s clear to them what this right of way boundary is,
but I think that’s part of those negotiations, in order to effect that relocation. The Searles
attorney is currently working with that exact issue, and obviously, unless this right of way can
be moved, we don’t have a project, because if the right of way can’t be moved, there’s no other
place to put the septic system. There is an imperative here to being able to do this, and there’s
an imperative here in being able to satisfy the McGowans’ wants.
MR. STONE-When you mean the septic system, you mean the leach field?
MR. SCHODER-The leach field, that is correct.
MR. STONE-The evaporative area.
MR. SCHODER-That is correct, or the infiltrated area, yes.
MR. STONE-Or infiltrated, both, yes.
MR. SCHODER-On second point, as far that leach field is concerned, the type of leach field that
is being proposed here, I’m not sure if folks are familiar with, is something called an Elgin In
Drain system. An Elgin system is not chambers, because everybody always thinks the first
thing when I say that. It’s not like that. It’s not pipes in the ground as per a conventional trench
system. What it is is a series of baskets, if you will, of a material that is approximately three feet
wide and approximately a foot high basket. This material is.
MR. STONE-I’ve got a question. That’s a foot to you?
MR. SCHODER-Approximately a foot.
MR. STONE-Okay. You said a foot. I just wanted to be sure.
MR. SCHODER-No, no, no, follow with the other hand. About a foot high, about three feet
wide. It’s placed in a sand bed. Mason sand is put below it. Mason sand is put around the
units, and the leachate, or leachate, the discharge that’s actually coming out and getting applied
to the system is applied in pipes that are located on top of these baskets. What happens is you
have a much more effective system, the Department of Health has recognized can greatly
reduce the amount of area necessary in order to actually build a system. That’s what’s allowing
us to build a conforming septic system on this site in the first place is that technology. One
thing that cannot happen with that technology is you can’t drive over them. So we have to be
able to work with the McGowans and come to resolution on that point, and certainly we’d be
glad to entertain a condition on any sort of motion to that effect.
MR. ABBATE-That would be civil litigation. We don’t get involved in that.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. SCHODER-I’m not saying that we’re going to take them to court. If we can’t, we can’t.
MR. ABBATE-No, no, no. I’m just trying to figure out how to work that into a motion.
MR. STONE-Yes, but their right to get to their property is grounded in law.
MR. SCHODER-It’s most certainly grounded in law.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s up to you guys to work out. Mr. Abbate is absolutely right.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions anybody has? Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with
Chuck McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’d much prefer is this could be built further back from the lake, but I
understand the constraints. I guess, two or three things that come into play here for me. One is
the point that’s been made about the number of variances. Although some of them, like the
Floor Area Ratio and the permeability, are relatively minor. So on the one hand you could say,
if they’re so minor, why don’t you design something that eliminates them. On the other hand,
if they’re so minor, I’m not sure that it’s a real big deal, except the fact, again, it brings us back
to allowing a quantity of variances. So if one or two of those could be taken care of, like you
say, if the permeability could be solved, I think that would make me happy, as far as the
number of variances that we’re allowing. Beyond that, excepting the explanation that’s been
made for the various difficulties, I don’t see how there’s much else that can be done with this
property. So, given that, I will probably be reluctantly in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think there’s several points that need to be addressed. One of them
is the size of the parcel. I mean, I think you’re stuck with .21 acres on a one acre Waterfront
Residential zone, and for those of us that live over on the lake there, I know with my property,
my house is essentially the same distance from the lake, at the same time, but in order to
increase my setbacks when I came for a variance, I ended up taking off the porch on the front of
my house, you know, to increase the setbacks from the waterfront. At the same time, one of the
things I agreed to do was to put some vegetation out in front of the house, which I think
adequately deals with some of your runoff, too. You could plant some trees, do some
shrubbery plantings, get rid of that flagstone patio that you have down in front of there. That’s
something that can be considered as a feasible alternative. I’m still very concerned with the
septic that you propose. With the tank being down that close to the lake, I think that, you
know, that’s something that we try to steer away from on Glen Lake, and I think that we’ve
been very effective in doing that. I applaud your use of the Elgin system. I know you used it, at
the Docksider that was used there. I don’t know if there’s any other alternatives to that, you
know, with infiltrators or something like that up on the hill to increase the, decrease the size. I
assume that’s the only thing you could do, at the present time, based upon the small size of the
lot. As far as the house goes, you know, since it is new construction, I mean, if we were
considering somebody building on an empty parcel here, obviously, I don’t think we would
allow you to build that close to the lake, and I think that you made your case for, you know, the
house being where it is, and that’s what you’re stuck with, but, I still think there could be some
compromise. There could be some minor excavation in the back parcel. Maybe you could go 10
feet back, you know, and get the house set back a little bit further from the water. I don’t think
that that would be a dramatic thing. Many of the houses on the lake are walkout type cellars,
and, you know, you can incorporate that into your design of the home also at the same time,
and, you know, increase your sort of being out front, right on the water, as it is right now.
Other than that, I think that during site plan review they’re probably going to review that, too,
you know, so, I mean, that’s to be considered, you know, I mean, the Planning Board’s
definitely going to take a sharp look at that, but I think the flagstone patio out front, that whole
thing could go and get replaced with grass or something instead. It’s still going to be adequate
to go out there in the summertime and have your picnic. As it stands, the setbacks, the side
setbacks, I don’t have a problem with those because I think that, you know, we face those
constantly up on the lake. I don’t have a problem with those, and the only thing would be the
Floor Area Ratio. I don’t know if you could get it down just slightly to more better conform to
what you have on the lot. I mean, I think everyone wants to maximize the size of the home
they’re going to build, but I think that you also have to consider the size of the lot and if
everybody in that congested bay over there builds the maximum size house they want, it’s
going to be pretty congested, much more so than it is now, as a camp. So I’m kind of sitting on
the fence.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck Abbate?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. If you folks could address some of the concerns, not all of the
concerns, but some of the concerns, and make some concessions of what Jim has just stated, I
would reluctantly support your application.
MR. STONE-Al? Well, do you want to tell him what concessions you’d like to see, Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I think the concessions I would like to see are not reasonable. I would like to see,
you know, I’m being very honest about it. I’d like to see the back torn down and the entire
structure moved probably 20 feet away from there. The septic system I think is an outstanding
idea. I think perhaps if you could reduce, in a reasonable manner, the Floor Area Ratio, that
would satisfy me.
MR. SCHODER-May I make a comment at this point?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. SCHODER-We can do that. Remember before I said that what we did is we stacked two
pieces on top of each other in the back? I’m speaking for the architect here. Okay. Are you
nodding? I get myself in trouble when I speak for architects.
MR. DYBAS-The section in the rear, right now if you were fortunate enough to get down there,
by the way my name is Curt Dybas, that rear portion of the existing structure, the roof is at
grade, to give you an idea what the grading is in the back of this building. I mean, you have
this large bank coming down, and literally the eaves is right at grade. That portion of the
building we made two stories. Now, when we squared the building up within the footprint, the
building became smaller, but we added that second floor. As you can see from our notes, it
would be fairly simple to get within the 22% FAR.
MR. ABBATE-See more specifically, I was thinking about the front portion. I think there’s a
porch there. Is there not?
MR. DYBAS-There is a porch on the front of the building now.
MR. ABBATE-Right. If you could reduce that, that would certainly show your willingness to
work in the spirit of cooperation, and that would satisfy me in supporting your application, and
also that would help Jim, I suspect, in his position. I mean, I’m not an architect or an engineer.
I’m just saying this is what I would like. It may or may not be reasonable.
MR. DYBAS-The present porch as it’s used is, you know, as you can see it’s enclosed and it’s
part of their living space. The building itself, the original structure is quite small in footprint,
and I really, that would be something I’d have to talk to the client about, but I doubt, you know,
it’s going to be a very tough floor plan, to squeeze everything in. I believe in your package you
have the floor plan.
MR. STONE-Yes. You’re going to where that long porch is along the front of the house?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-You’re going to rebuild that as a dining room and a porch, am I correct, looking at
this thing?
MR. DYBAS-Yes. It’s all incorporated.
MR. STONE-And you’re going to build it right to that corner point? I assume that left corner
point is the 19.9?
MR. SCHODER-That is correct.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. DYBAS-Yes. That is correct.
MR. SCHODER-So it wouldn’t change the setback. Again, it will be easier for us to be able to
comply with the FAR by modifying that addition in the back, and we would, in the spirit of
cooperation here, trying to satisfy that need, be willing, certainly, to do that. To change porch is
a little tough. I know that Curt went through a lot of difficulty in trying to come up with a floor
plan that actually did work, because it’s a small space.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not insisting on the porch. As I said, I’m not an engineer, but if you would be
willing to reduce the floor area ratio, somewhere along the line, I think that would be
reasonable.
MR. DYBAS-We can reduce the floor area ratio and comply with the Ordinance.
MR. ABBATE-Then I would reluctantly support your application.
MR. DYBAS-I believe you mentioned that we would do the permeability within the Ordinance.
MR. SCHODER-The pavers are gone.
MR. DYBAS-The pavers are gone, and the FAR would be within the Ordinance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the FAR is gone.
MR. HAYES-And the permeability requirement.
MR. STONE-And the permeability requirement. Okay. So we’re talking the side setback, and
the shoreline. Those were the four, those were the two.
MR. HAYES-And those are essentially unchanged.
MR. STONE-They’re essentially unchanged from where they are now.
MR. SCHODER-Which are unchanged from where they are now. That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s go on then. Al?
MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with Mr. McNulty. I’d like to see the building pushed back
from the lake, too, but when you look at the figures, your new footprint is actually smaller than
the existing footprint, and your Floor Area Ratio and permeability are very close to the existing
building. So, all you’re doing, really, is replacing the existing building. When you go around
Glen Lake, there’s a lot of houses that are right up on the lake. So, this would be very close to
what the make up of that area is currently. So, with that in mind, I’d be in favor of the
application, and I really don’t want to nitpick about the Floor Area Ratio. It would be nice if
you reduced them, and the permeability, but that won’t affect my vote one way or another.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. In an idealistic world, when we rewrite the Code, we would start from
scratch, but we don’t have that opportunity, and so we try to approach what we can. We try to
get what we can, and I think in this instance you’ve done a good job of designing without
encroaching, which I think is very important. I agree with Mr. Bryant. I think what you’re
asking for is a good plan. Overall, it’s an improvement to the property. I think even moving
your septic is an improvement. Upgrading the house is an improvement. I think the fact that
you’ve taken the Floor Area Ratio and the permeability off the table basically leaves us with the
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
house we had before, with some improvements, a lot of improvements, and I think that’s good
for everybody. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with the other members of the Board. As we look at this camp
now, it’s proximity to the lake, it certainly harkens the idea that we kind of wish now we didn’t
know what we didn’t know then when they put these where they are, but we do, and these
camps are there, and I think that Jim has pointed out that, on Glen Lake in particular, that’s a
problem, but I don’t think that changes our analysis in this particular case, because, I think just
from a feasible alternative perspective, I think it’s relatively impossible or difficult to make a
substantial impact on that problem with this particular site. I think, you know, we all would
like to see it moved further back, but I’m just not sure that that is a feasible alternative in this
particular case, a reasonable feasible alternative in this particular case. We have talked about
the amount of relief as being over 100%, by one of the Board members, and that certainly is
germane. We’ve got to look at the cumulative relief, but essentially this relief is already
existing. We are not creating new relief. You have agreed, and I would stipulate as part of any
approval that I would be in favor of, is that you live up to complying with the Floor Area Ratio
and the permeability requirements, because, as you’ve already alluded to, I think that, in this
case, that’s a relatively easy task, if you decide to. So I think that that’s reducing the cumulative
relief that’s requested, compared to the Ordinance in this particular case. As far as effects on
the neighborhood or community, as I look at the pictures of the camp, it is an older camp. If I
had a camp next door and you were going to construct what’s depicted, I would be pleased,
and that’s been brought out by one of the other neighbors. I certainly think it would improve
my property values, and I think, even greater than that, and I realize there’s still some kinks to
be worked out, but our Glen Lake czar, Jim, identified that as a potential problematic zone from
a septic scenario, and the idea that we’re going to go from a faulty system or nonexistent
system, or whatever you want to call it, to a well managed, well engineered, publicly approved
process, I think is a huge gain for the lake. I can’t say enough about that. In my opinion, that
might be the single biggest issue that’s on the table at this particular point, considering that
you’re proposing to build within the existing footprint. So I think that that’s huge, and I don’t
think the difficulty is self-created, in that this camp is on a footprint. It’s already too close to the
lake, but you’re not proposing to go any closer. So I think it has more to do with the nature of
configuration of this unusual lot and the house position that exists today. So, on balance, I think
that I would have to say that I’m not even really reluctant. I think that this is a good application
and it’s been well presented and I feel comfortable that this is going to amount to an
improvement at this site in the end. So, I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Bottom line, so am I with the stipulations you have. Let me just say a couple of
things. One, this drawing, and I’m nitpicking, this drawing says proposed summer residence.
We don’t build homes in the Town of Queensbury anymore. We build residences. They have
to be all year long houses.
MR. DYBAS-You are 100% correct. Any structure built has to be insulated and heated.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. DYBAS-And it will be.
MR. STONE-The other thing is, what I would like, when, and this goes to Staff, when we, it
appears, approve this thing, I would like a copy formally sent to the Board of Health, the
minutes, reflecting our concerns about the septic system. Let them read the kind of questions
that have been raised both by the public and by the Board, so that if we can’t get to the meeting,
and sometimes it’s not possible, but I’d like our views on record with the Board of Health.
Having said that, I agree, I think, with the stipulation by the applicant’s agent, to remove, to
provide a plan that does not require a permeability nor a Floor Area Ratio variance, I can
certainly go along with the two requests that you are making, because of the fact that this
property exists, this property does have difficulties, and that you’re doing the utmost to make it
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
conforming within the limits of the variance. So what I would like to do, I need a motion to
approve, and I’d like this motion to mention that the applicant has modified his plans, although
we haven’t seen them, but has expressed willingness to modify his plans to eliminate the need
for permeability and Floor Area Ratio variance. So who wants to do it?
MR. ABBATE-I think Mr. Hayes volunteered.
MR. HAYES-I was just making sure that if we eliminate the, I was just making sure that the
permeability was, the section that we’re asking relief from is, there’s no section mentioned here
for the dimensional relief, and I wanted to make sure I used the right section of the Code.
MR. STONE-Okay. Fine.
MR. HAYES-Do you see what I’m saying? So the motion is proper, I guess.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2003 KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
51 Birch Road – Glen Lake. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,183 square foot
single-family dwelling and construct a dwelling that will comply with the Floor Area Ratio.
Specifically, the applicant requests 30.1 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline
setback requirement, 13.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement. The
benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the new dwelling in the
same location on the same footprint as the existing structure, replace an older camp that has
several structural problems with a new, properly designed home. Feasible alternatives, I
believe in this particular case that the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the unique
configuration of the lot, the required setback and placement requirements for the septic system
and the topography that immediately is at the rear of the camp, in this particular case. Is the
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Based on removal of part of the relief requested by
the applicant, which I will stipulate in my motion, I believe that the relief is not substantial
compared to the Ordinance, or is moderate compared to the Ordinance in the sense that it exists
now in the existing footprint. If this was a new build, I would certainly think that that relief
was substantial in the cumulative impacts, but in this particular case, I think it is moderate,
based on that this represents no additional encroachment to the neighbors or to the lake.
Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe in this particular case that there is very
minimal effects on the neighborhood. I believe that you could actually make the case that the
construction of a new camp and a new functioning septic system would have a positive impact
on the neighborhood or community in this particular case. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t
believe that it is. I think the difficulty that we were asked to deal with tonight has more to do
with the pre-existing nonconforming parcel, the camp is located currently where it’s located.
Based on that, I believe that the test falls in favor of the applicant and I would move for its
approval. I would move for its approval, again, just to clarify, that the applicant’s agents have
indicated, again, that they will comply with the Floor Area Ratio requirement, and they will
comply with the permeability requirements of the zone that the house is in now. So I would
move for its approval. In making this motion, the Board is cognizant of a neighbor dispute over
right of way.
Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
MR. ABBATE-Jaime, I wonder if I could interject something. I notice that, is he meeting the
height requirements?
MR. STONE-Twenty-eight feet is what it says on the plans.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-He’s not asking for that.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-And I looked. It said 28.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Does any mention have to be made about the McGowan property that’s in
contention?
MR. HAYES-I can certainly put that in there.
MR. STONE-Just say the Board is cognizant of, in making this motion, the Board is cognizant of
a neighbor dispute over right of way.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So noted.
MR. STONE-I think that’s enough.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen, and thank you for your cooperation.
MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. By the way, you did an outstanding job of presenting your case.
MR. SCHODER-Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-I have two sets of minutes that I think that we haven’t looked at, November 27,
2002.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 27, 2002: NONE
MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SECOND REGULAR
MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 2002, OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone
MR. STONE-We have one more, and then Mr. Salvador has requested five minutes.
December 18, 2002: NONE
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, DECEMBER 18, 2002, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Salvador, you had requested five minutes of this Board’s time.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-A couple of things. Once again tonight we listened to the complaints and the
hand-wringing about piecemeal approvals, and I really think this has a solution, and I think the
solution is that you address these projects by doing a supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, rather than an individual, Environmental Impact Statement for each of these little
pieces that are really a part of the total project. If you treat it as a supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, what you do is then you envelope what is there originally, okay, and its
statement of Environmental Impact, together with what’s being added, and you identify the
cumulative impacts of the two. It’s very simple. We are involved in classic segmentation which
is a violation of the SEQRA law, and it goes on all over, and these projects get reviewed by three
different boards. You’re trying to communicate now. You recognize the problem, but why
can’t we have one board be the Lead Agency and do a coordinated review?
MR. STONE-It’s a valid question. Our marching orders, quite frankly, on this, come from the
Office of Community Development. We are told whether it’s a Type II or an Unlisted Action.
We don’t even do a SEQRA on most of the projects that appear before us. We don’t, because
we’re told we don’t need to.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know.
MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I direct you to Staff or the Town Board who can tell the Staff to do it.
I don’t disagree with you, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. You know this whole subject came up, I served on the Comprehensive
Planning Committee and we aired these, we talked about these things. All we can do is wring
our hands, yes, it’s a problem. Yes, it’s a problem, but it doesn’t move on. It has a solution. It
has a solution, and I think it’s in the SEQRA law, it recognizes it.
MR. STONE-I suggest that, one, as you do, is you bring it up in Open Forum, at Town Board
meetings, and you do that very well. I also suggest that in September, October, and November
of this year, when we have election for Town Board members, that you confront each and every
one of the candidates with, at least plant the thought. That’s all I can tell you. You plant a little
seed and maybe it gets nourished.
MR. ABBATE-I might add, John, that I, too, agree with you.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-I think you’re right.
MR. SALVADOR-The second reason I came here tonight, I don’t know if you fellows recognize
these jackets.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/22/03)
MR. ABBATE-That looks like a court order, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-We filed a petition complaint in Supreme Court, yesterday, and the Town
will be served tomorrow. We would have served you earlier, however, we find it necessary to
engage a process server to serve the Town so that it’s perfect and there are no flaws. In any
case, this deals with the grandfathering issue. We feel you’ve acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
MR. ABBATE-John, will this interfere with my vacation coming up in March?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the return date is March 6, I believe.
th
MR. STONE-Good, I’ll be in Hawaii.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I’ll be in Europe.
MR. SALVADOR-The reason I’m mentioning this to you is, in all seriousness, this wasn’t a
difficult thing to put together, believe me. In all seriousness, and I don’t know if you do this,
but you should read these papers. You should read these papers.
MR. ABBATE-Well, they should be on file in the County Court.
MR. SALVADOR-They are. They are on file, yes, but you can get them from your, we served
the Town Clerk. We served the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk gets them. What she does with
them from there, I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Well, as you know, this is the process that we have. If you object to what was done
last month, then you’re doing the right thing. I guess. I don’t know.
MR. BRYANT-So what is the point of this discussion now? What are we doing now?
MR. STONE-He’s just letting us know. That’s all.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m just letting you know, and the Town will be served tomorrow. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
40