2003-07-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 16, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
NORMAN HIMES
PAUL HAYES
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-Before we get started on the first application, I have several announcements that I
wish to make. If anybody is here on the Harrisena Community Church, that application has
been withdrawn, and we will not be discussing that this evening. The USA Gas station on the
corner of Glenwood and Glen, the Planning Board has asked to assume Lead Agency for
SEQRA. We will put that to a vote on our Board, but it’s entirely possible that we will not be
making a decision on that. If anybody wants to speak on that, when we get there, you may, but
we will not be making a decision. Mr. Salvador, Mr. John Salvador. Mr. Salvador made a
request of the Chairman of the Zoning Board a couple of months ago, in response to boundary
lines, zoning boundary lines, Town lines and so on, and asked me to make a ruling on whether
or not to hold a meeting or a public hearing. Here is my reply. If you wish to discuss it in
further business at the end of the meeting, we’ll be glad to entertain it.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I’ll do that.
MR. STONE-I figured that. Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2003 SEQR TYPE II DICK & NADINE JONES ZONE: SFR-1A
LOCATION: 39 CEDARWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 27’ DIAMETER
ABOVE-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT ALL POOLS
SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 03-189 TAX
MAP NO. 296.9-2-16 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020 (C2)
DICK & NADINE JONES, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2003, Dick & Nadine Jones, Meeting Date: July 16, 2003
“Project Location: 39 Cedarwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 27-foot diameter above ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant
requests relief from the requirements of the Accessory Structures ordinance to locate a portion
of the pool 12.7 feet into the 37-foot wide side yard, per §179-5-020(C2). Additionally, the
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
applicant has not requested any relief, but needs 5.3 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear
setback requirement, per §179-5-020(C2). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-428: pending this application, above ground pool.
BP 2000-289: 05/10/00, 800 sq. ft. residential alteration.
BP 99-391: 07/13/99, 1200 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with 2-car attached garage.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted a change will occur in the character of the neighborhood (are there
other pools in the neighborhood in other than a rear yard?), and might locating a portion of the
pool in the side yard be interpreted as a detriment to the nearby properties?
2) Due to the lack of usable area in which to locate a pool compliantly because of the steep
embankment in the rear yard, might it be interpreted there are no feasible alternatives?
3) Might 12.7 feet of relief from the 37-foot requirement, needed to locate a portion of the pool in
the side yard, be interpreted as moderate (34.3%), and might 5.3 feet of relief from the 20-foot
minimum rear setback requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the
ordinance (26.5%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to a lack of usable area in which to locate a pool
compliantly?”
MR. STONE-That’s it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Jones’ here? Please come forward. The first question I’ll ask, before I ask for any
comments you want to make, do you understand the Staff notes where Staff is saying you also
need relief for the rear property line?
MR. JONES-Say that again? I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-You need, in addition to the relief that you have requested, the 12.7 feet, the pool is
also within the legal setback to the rear property line, and if you want to place the pool where
you want to place it, you need further relief. In other words, there’s two variances we have to
grant you, if we’re so inclined.
MR. JONES-Yes. Correct
MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to say anything else, add anything to your application? State
your name.
MR. JONES-Richard and Nadine Jones, owner of 39 Cedarwood. Because of the hill in the back
yard, it prevents us from putting the pool where the Town would require it to be. So we tried
to come to a happy medium. Partial pool will be in the back yard, partial will be in the side
yard.
MR. STONE-You make the comment in your application that it’s a dead end street.
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Will it forever be dead end?
MR. JONES-Correct. At the end of the road, there’s an approximately 70 foot embankment that
goes into the wetland. For someone to develop that would be, I’m sure it could be done.
MR. STONE-What you’re saying is you know of no thoughts in that area?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. JONES-No. Unaware of any proposal to do any developing down there.
MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? All right. Hearing none, let me open a public hearing.
Is there anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, and we do have, as part of your
application, and we’ll read those in, just to get it on the record. Anybody in favor of? Anybody
opposed? Opposed to this application? Why don’t you read those two.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the only thing we’ve got. There’s no other correspondence, but
there’s a note or a letter here, signed by three different people. It says, “I understand Richard
and Nadine Jones, residing at 39 Cedarwood Drive, are planning to have a 27 foot above-
ground pool installed. I have no objection to the Joneses putting a pool on their property.” And
it’s signed by Mary Smith, at 37 Cedarwood, Dennis Lafontaine at 30, and Roger Lafontaine at
28 Cedarwood.
MR. STONE-Okay. Hearing no other things, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Anybody else want to ask any questions? If not, let’s talk about it.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one question.
MR. STONE-Please.
MR. MC NULTY-Do you have any plans for screening the pool? Is it just going to be put in the
yard? Are you going to put anything in front of it?
MR. JONES-We’re looking into putting shrubbery between the pool and the roadway, to help
isolate the pool.
MR. STONE-You will put a fence around the pool, though?
MR. MC NULTY-It’s an above-ground pool. They may not need to.
MR. JONES-It’s an above-ground pool. It’s 52 inches off the ground. The requirement’s 48.
MR. STONE-You’re right. I’m sorry. I got carried away.
MR. JONES-It’s okay.
MR. STONE-So the answer to Mr. McNulty’s question, you do intend to put in some bushes?
MR. JONES-Yes, not only for our privacy, but also, too, when people drive by and do a
turnaround, they won’t see the pool.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Chuck, let’s start with you.
MR. MC NULTY-Obviously there’s probably not any other place that a pool could be put on
this lot, and I always have my statements that I’ve made before haunting me that some lots
maybe aren’t intended for a pool, but there’s certainly, I think, enough room in the side yard
here, and the applicant is trying to get it back as far as he practically can, and the only thing that
would bother me about it is just having the pool sitting there exposed to the main roadway, and
if there’s a condition that they will screen the pool on the roadside, then I think I’d be inclined
to be in favor.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Is that something to which you would stipulate when we make our motion, and
you would, you intend to screen with plantings?
MR. JONES-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, sir. I agree with what Chuck has just said. I don’t think that, given the
location of where this house is, and we have a picture given to us in addition to seeing it, the
picture being taken in a different season, too, by the way, there’s a utility line in the property in
back of the house so anything that goes in there is going to have to go some distance from the
house. There’s a hedgerow of trees between your place and the neighbor to, the only neighbor
you have.
MR. JONES-To the south.
MR. HIMES-On one side, and considerable distance across your front yard, the road, and the
neighbor across the street, and again, I don’t think the fact that part of the pool is in the back
yard, part of it’s going to creep into the side yard, and that’s where the problem came up. So I
don’t think there’s any detriment to the community or the neighborhood as a result of this, and
I would also be in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I wrote down that we have to consider the topographic constraints
on the property with that steep bank back there, obviously you can’t put it back there. So
there’s no other alternative to put it where you’ve suggested. So I would go along with you on
it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think, looking at the criteria, I think that they would
definitely benefit from the granting of this variance. I don’t think it would have a detrimental
effect on the character of the neighborhood, and two of the neighbors have attested to that
through their letters. There doesn’t seem to be any feasible alternative for the placing of the
pool, and although the relief may be considered somewhat moderate, it’s really brought to light
because of the structure of the lot, and I don’t think this’ll have any detrimental effect on the
neighborhood as well. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I have consistently been against pools in side yards, because I
think the rule that we have is a good one. If I was an immediate neighbor, I wouldn’t want a
pool right next to my house. So normally it would take a significant amount of circumstances to
have me to be in favor, and I think this is one of those situations. You do have a dead end
driveway, or a dead end road here. So we’re not, pass through traffic is extremely limited, in
this case, the owner of the house has presented, and I believe justifiably, the argument that there
really is no other place to put the pool based on the constraints on the lot, and I think, with the
pledge which has already been mentioned, that there’ll be significant screening, I think that the
applicant has demonstrated their willingness to mitigate whatever, you know, negative effects,
visually, that the pool will have on the street or the neighborhood. So, based on all those things,
I think that I would fall in favor of the applicant.
MR. STONE-I concur with everything I’ve heard. We could play games. We could say, well,
you could move the pool a little back closer to the hill, and then the hill comes into play. Then
the kids would be jumping off the hill, and then we get into a dangerous situation. They may
find a way to do it anyway. So be aware of that, but certainly, this is moderate relief,
particularly as Jaime Hayes said, when you consider the lot, the location, and all of that stuff,
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
and combine that with your willingness to do some screening, I certainly would go along with
it. Therefore, I need a motion to approve with the stipulation that screening will be put in place.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2003 DICK & NADINE JONES,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
39 Cedarwood Drive. Applicant proposes construction of a 27-foot diameter above-ground
swimming pool. Relief required, the applicant requests relief from the requirements of the
accessory structures ordinance to locate a portion of the pool 12.7 feet into the 37-foot wide side
yard per 179-5-020C(2). Additionally, the applicant is not requesting any relief, but needs 5.3
feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement per 179-5-020C(2). The criteria
that we measure or weigh is that there’s a significant benefit to the applicant with no
substantive detriment to the neighborhood or the community, and that we feel that the relief
required is not substantial, won’t upset the Code in any great way, whether or not there are
feasible alternatives, in this particular case. I think we all pretty well feel that there is not, or
enough that wouldn’t require a degree of variance anyway, and the aspect of whether or not
you had anything to do with the problem, is it self-created. Well, we don’t think that you do.
The lot is what it is, situated where it is, in kind of an unusual topography, as has been said. So
we would move with this on the condition that you do install abundant or certainly sufficient
screening, bushes and so forth between the pool and your road that goes by there. With that, I,
again, move that we approve the application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-By the way, I must recognize Maria’s presence. It’s a pleasure to hear your voice
calling the vote.
MR. HAYES-It’s faster, too.
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2003 SEQR TYPE II BURTON PERKINS ZONE: SR-20
LOCATION: 27 OAK TREE CIRCLE APPILCANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 16’
BY 30’ IN-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REAR SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 302.17-2-30 LOT
SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020 (C2)
BURTON PERKINS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2003, Burton Perkins, Meeting Date: July 16, 2003
“Project Location: 27 Oak Tree Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 16-foot by 30-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement, per §179-5-
020(C2). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-189: pending this application, 16’ x 30’ in-ground pool.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Being other pools exist in the Hidden Hills subdivision, might it be interpreted no change
will occur in the character of the neighborhood, and being the pool is proposed to back up to a
densely vegetated buffer, might it also be interpreted no detriment to the nearby properties will
occur?
2) If the pool is placed at a 20-foot rear setback, the separation distance to the dwelling will
range from 7 to 8 feet for approximately a third of the pool. Might this be interpreted as a
feasible alternative?
3) Might 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement be interpreted as
moderate relative the ordinance (50%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the applicant’s desire to separate the pool from
the dwelling by more than the 7 to 8 feet proposed?”
MR. STONE-Mr. Perkins? Please state your name for the record and anything you want to add
to the application before we question you.
MR. PERKINS-My name’s Burton R. Perkins. I live at 27 Oak Tree Circle in Queensbury. The
only thing that I’d like to add, basically I wanted to do a little history on the land that’s behind
us, and that does belong to the City of Glens Falls. It’s considered watershed land. It’s on the
County watershed map. I did call Mr. Ward, at the Department of Building and Codes, City of
Glens Falls. He assured me that at no time will they ever be able to develop that land that’s
behind us, and he also did state, I don’t know why, that if I was in Glens Falls, I wouldn’t even
be sitting here because I would only need eight feet.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the difference between Glens Falls and Queensbury.
MR. PERKINS-But, like you said, we do honor the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-But the more important thing is they had no objection to you being too close to
their land?
MR. PERKINS-Absolutely not.
MR. STONE-That was one of the questions I wrote down, knowing the answer, but I wrote it
down.
MR. PERKINS-Yes. He had no problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, he said that anybody
here that would have any question about it should call.
MR. STONE-Well, any questions? Bruce, this is for you. I should have looked it up and I
didn’t. Ten feet from the side is all right, in this case?
MR. FRANK-That’s the minimum requirement.
MR. STONE-I thought so. I just wanted to get that on the record. Did you consider, this is for
my edification, splitting the difference between the ten foot of relief and bringing it closer to the
house?
MR. PERKINS-We considered it. It does push it very close to the house when you do that. As a
matter of fact, it may even push the end of it up past the back of the house, as far as the
concrete work and all that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. PERKINS-So that’s going to come by it a little bit. We are going through another
consideration, too, because the septic plan that we’ve got obviously was not what was on the
plot. Okay. So we’ve got a leach field (lost words) canisters, and we’re looking at the setback is
on that right now, as a matter of fact, because we may have to do an adjustment to that to meet
that ten foot standard itself on that side. So we may even be going down to a smaller pool, and
looking for less of a setback, unfortunately, but at this point, we’re asking for the maximum.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? I mean, Mr. Hayes mentioned earlier, and
I always write it down, I mean, there is always a feasible alternative of not building, because
there’s got to be some lots in this Town that you just can’t build on.
MR. PERKINS-Yes. She wouldn’t be very happy.
MR. STONE-Okay. Hearing no other questions, let me open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, in short, feel I would support this application.
Namely because of the property behind you. We often, I didn’t know that it belonged to the
Town of Glens Falls, but we have had a number of them in the past where it’s owned by a
homeowners association or what not , and it’s protected forever, so to speak, and we’ve had a
number of them that have needed pools in the setback for that particular part of the property,
but aside from that, I think moving closer to the house would probably be filled up or covered
over by snow. I think your roof pitches that way, if I recall properly.
MR. PERKINS-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Which might not be too good for the pool. Often, I think we want to see something
from the neighbors. Sometimes there are neighbors that don’t like to see it, but usually that’s
when it’s in a side yard, a side yard thing, and that’s probably why there’s been no comment
from the neighbor here, and I take that as being they feel okay about it. So I don’t see any
problem with this and I would support the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Hidden Hills has plenty of other similar pools that we’ve granted
relief for in the past, and in the other smaller subdivisions in Town, with smaller sized lots, and
I think we’ve previously discussed the merits of having a pool located a little ways away from
the house, so people aren’t jumping off the roof and going too crazy out there. So I’d be in
support of your application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I do agree. I think they definitely would benefit from the pool as they’ve
stated. I don’t think it will have an effect on either the character or the physical nature of the
neighborhood. I do think there are feasible alternatives, and if there were a residence behind
you, I would not be in favor of it at that location, but being that there is not, and there doesn’t
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
look like there will be, I think that’s fine. As far as relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, I
do think it is a little bit much, but again, given the choice between being closer to the house and
being closer to the rear setback, I think I’d be in favor of the rear setback rather than the house.
So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I essentially agree. I think that Jim pointed out that we’ve had these pool
variances, particularly some of them smaller or a lot subdivisions that we’ve been faced with.
My first impression, you know, on the quarter acre lots is, as a developer, is they’re picking on
me, but this, I think that you’ve got a good plan. I think it makes sense. I think Norm pointed
out that the water shed property behind your house means that the, you know, a great deal of
the ramification of your relief is going against nobody, really, just the woods. So I think that
really mitigates any negative impacts. So all that’s left is the benefit to the applicant, in my
mind, really, and I can certainly understand why you want to have a pool for your family. So
I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what’s been said. I think Roy said really where I’m
at pretty well when he spoke about his feelings. As he indicated, if there were another lot
behind you, then I’d have more of a problem with this. You might come close to falling into the
category of you’ve got a lot that really was never intended to have a pool, but in this case, the
probability is the land will stay watershed behind you, no absolute guarantee, but the fact that
you’re at least 10 feet from the back lot line would even mitigate a little bit that if at some time
in the future Glens Falls decided to abandon their watershed and sell it off for lots. So I think
the proposal is reasonable. It makes a lot more sense to have it more than just seven or eight
feet from the house, and I don’t think that anybody driving around the neighborhood is going
to even know the pool’s there with the lay of your land. So, all told, I think the benefit falls to
you, and I don’t think there’s detriment. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-I think the Board has correctly stated where I’m coming from. I think the
mitigating factor in this thing, because certainly we know why we have the rear setback, it’s
basically to keep yards somewhat isolated from back neighbors. I would hope if the City of
Glens Falls ever gives up that land, that the Town of Queensbury, in its infinite wisdom, would
find a way to keep that as open space, because we certainly need open space, and we need to be
sure that we’re going to have it in years to come. So, in this particular case, I think, as the Board
has said, it’s certainly, the benefit to the applicant is really the only thing on the table, and,
therefore, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2003 BURTON PERKINS, Introduced
by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
27 Oak Tree Circle. Applicant proposes construction of a 16 foot by 30 foot in-ground
swimming pool. Relief required, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot
minimum rear setback requirement per 179-5-020C(2). The criteria, of course, as you’ve heard
us all refer to, the benefit to the applicant is obvious. You’d have your pool. The aspect of
feasible alternatives, I think there that you’ve shown an effort to minimize the amount of relief
required by having the pool as close as practically possible to the back of your house, but
you’ve still got 10 feet left before your rear property line, and in connection with the detriment
to the neighborhood, again, we haven’t heard anything from anyone, and certainly whether
there might prospectively be one in the back, it’s remote because the property is owned by the
City of Glens Falls, evidently there’s a watershed, it’s been reported. So the likelihood of
anything happening there that would be impacted by your pool is very, very remote, and
certainly in connection with the community, detriment to the community, the fact of the
balancing thing being a benefit to you very greatly outweighs any detriment to the community,
and I don’t think the Code is suffering by any respect, and I don’t think we have any conditions
to impose or to ask you to agree to, so I move that we approve the application as submitted.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. PERKINS-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2003 RUSSELL & JULIE FLANSBURG ZONE: SR-1A
LOCATION: 1 ANTHONY COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6’
STOCKADE FENCE ON A CORNER LOT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
REQUIREMENT NO STOCKADE-TYPE FENCE SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ANY FRONT
YARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 94-683 TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES
SECTION: 179-5-060 (C4)
RUSSELL & JULIE FLANSBURG, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2003, Russell & Julie Flansburg, Meeting Date: July 16,
2003 “Project Location: 1 Anthony Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 6-foot high privacy fence across a portion of the non-architectural
front yard of a corner lot (Linette Lane frontage). Relief Required: Applicant requests 1-foot of
relief from the 5-foot maximum height requirement for a fence erected in a front yard not
considered to be the architectural front yard, per §179-5-060(C3), and relief to erect a privacy
type fence 26 feet into the 48-foot non-architectural front yard, per §179-5-060(C4). Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 94-683: 11/17/94, single-family dwelling with two-car attached garage.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Being a nonconforming privacy fence exists on the opposite corner lot, might it be interpreted
no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood, and being the fence is proposed to be
setback 22 feet from the front property line, and being the applicant claims those effected
neighbors are in favor of the fence, might it also be interpreted no detriment to the nearby
properties will occur?
2) Being the applicant could not attain the degree of privacy sought by erecting a compliant 5-
foot picket-type fence in the same location as that proposed, might it be interpreted there are no
feasible alternatives?
3) Might 26 feet of relief from the 48-foot requirement, to locate the proposed fence in the non-
architectural front yard, be interpreted as moderate (54.2%), and might 1 foot of relief from the
5-foot maximum height requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the
ordinance (20%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the applicant’s desire to have more privacy than
that provided by a picket-type fence?”
MR. STONE-The County didn’t care about this one, obviously.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so. No.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Flansburg. Come forward, state your name, and add
anything you want to the application, or just throw yourself on our mercy.
MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. It’s Russell Flansburg, and I’m the owner of 1 Anthony Court in
Queensbury, and one of the things I wanted to add is we went through the neighborhood, and
we got signatures from the people surrounding us that had no opposition.
MR. STONE-Do you want to submit that and we’ll read it in later. We’ll at least count the
names and we’ll get some idea. Is that it?
MR. FLANSBURG-Basically, yes. We just wanted to enjoy the benefits of a private back yard
like most people have on a standard lot.
MR. STONE-Except you don’t have a standard lot.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. We weren’t aware of that at the time. We have a corner lot. We want
the same as a standard lot.
MR. STONE-Yes. Are you aware that the fence across the street, nonconforming, does conform
as far as height is concerned? I mean, it’s a five foot high fence.
MR. FLANSBURG-Right. We understand that. We wanted to go with a vinyl fence, so you
haven’t got to worry about it for 15, 20 years, deteriorating and looking bad, and we want to do
it one time, and they come in six foot. If you go to Home Depot or Lowe’s, you get them in six
foot sections, six foot high, six foot.
MR. STONE-What are the back steps for?
MR. FLANSBURG-They’re actually the back entrance to the house.
MR. STONE-But it goes upstairs. This is a one family house?
MR. FLANSBURG-One family house, raised ranch. That goes into the kitchen upstairs.
MR. STONE-Okay. It looked different to me than what I would normally expect, and what’s on
the north side of the house? It’s a portable garage or a portable shed?
MR. FLANSBURG-This is a portable carport that we just set off to the side, that’s all. That’s
actually in the process of being sold right now. That’s something we had at the old place. We
moved over, and we didn’t want to just let it stay at the old place.
MR. STONE-So it will go?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, it’s gone. No, that’s gone. That’s history.
MR. STONE-Good. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. URRICO-Are they seeking relief for the stockade fence? Because I don’t see that on the
relief.
MR. STONE-They’re seeking relief for a stockade fence, and a foot higher than it’s supposed to
be. No, the stockade fence is fine if it’s, well, it’s a combination.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes.
MR. STONE-If it were in the back yard, they could have a stockade fence.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. FRANK-If it was in their back yard, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FRANK-I have addressed they need relief to erect a privacy type fence. So that’s part of
the relief being sought and requested.
MR. HAYES-So it’s both things.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-What’s the highest you could go with a stockade fence and have it be, you know, a
stockade fence and be legal?
MR. FRANK-You can’t have any type of privacy fence in any front yard. So, the highest
allowable in the back yard is six feet high, for a residence.
MR. STONE-So if it were along the back yard line, that could be six feet of stockade fence, but
it’s because?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, compliantly.
MR. HAYES-They could have a three foot fence that was a complete barrier, right, and that
would not be a stockade fence, then.
MR. FRANK-In the rear yard you’re referring to or the side yard?
MR. HAYES-Anywhere.
MR. STONE-No, you couldn’t have a stockade fence.
MR. FRANK-You can’t have any height stockade fence in any front yard.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. STONE-You’ve got to have visibility if it’s in the front yard.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Gotcha.
MR. STONE-Remember we had one a couple of years ago where we said take out every other
one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That one on Country Club Road we had last year.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. FLANSBURG-I have a question. Now, if we went straight off the end of the house, which
is 48 feet, we could go with a stockade fence, because that’s considered my rear yard. Correct?
MR. STONE-That’s correct. Right, Bruce? If they went from the end of the house, right to the
back line.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-It could be a stockade fence.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. FRANK-If you project a line off the frontage of the house that faces Linette Lane, and
extended that to the rear property line, that would be a compliant location, and they could
actually wrap it all the way around to the other frontage, compliantly.
MR. STONE-You mean around the whole back side, you mean, to the north?
MR. FRANK-I could hand this to you. I’ve highlighted in green the compliant location.
MR. STONE-Yes, I can see that, where you’ve got the green. Yes. From the back of the house
on both sides, all the way around.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-But it’s got to be directly behind the house.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. FLANSBURG-We just wanted to move it just forward 22 feet is basically what we were
looking.
MR. STONE-That’s obviously the problem we may be having. I don’t know where we stand
quite yet, but we’re working on it.
MR. FRANK-And I think the intent of the Code is like what you’ve mentioned already to not
restrict the visibility. They’re proposing to set it back 22 feet from their property line. I don’t
know what the distance is to the road.
MR. FLANSBURG-The distance to the road is 26 feet from the fence, the line where we want to
put the fence, to the road edge. Then you’ve got another 14 feet that the Town owns. So we’re
actually 34 feet off from the edge of the road, where the fence would be resting.
MR. FRANK-So it’s set back quite a ways from the road, the travel lane, the road bed, but of
course they need relief from their property line, not.
MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions?
MR. HIMES-I just one that may have an obvious answer but, why wouldn’t you go with the
compliant fence from the back of the house to the, you know, your rear property line, and come
around if you felt like it?
MR. FLANSBURG-Because what that would do is that would actually take our rear yard and
that would actually cut it for usable space. Down the line, we wanted to put a pool on the left
side, down the line, a couple of years, and it would take away the whole back yard effect, with
the dog that we have, also. So we want to have family, and then we want to have the pool, and
then we have our dog also. We want to be able to have a yard where we can do all three things
comfortably.
MR. HIMES-But there is room back there for the pool.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, to the left. Correct.
MR. HIMES-With the fence being put in compliantly? There would be enough room for the
pool? We have to look at this, you know, feasible alternative, call it.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. Right, but the only thing, we would lose, that front yard would not be
usable to us, in the privacy manner we want, or we’re desiring.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That makes it a little tougher. Thank you.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you recently purchase this, then, or have you owned it for a long
time?
MR. FLANSBURG-We purchased the home about a year, a year and a half ago.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the stumps out front, those came down a long time ago I take it?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. They’re going to be removed. Dan the Stump Man’s actually going to
take those out for us.
MR. STONE-Take what? I’m sorry, I missed that.
MR. URRICO-The stumps.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The stumps out.
MR. STONE-The stumps. Okay. Yes.
MR. FLANSBURG-Because what we’d like to do is run the vinyl fence, as we were speaking, we
want to put like a nice flower garden in front of it. So it actually would hide the full effect of the
height of the fence you might say. So you’d get a nice appearance from the roadside also,
instead of just a fence and grass and that’s it.
MR. STONE-Anything else? All right. Let me open the public hearing and see if anybody
wants to speak in favor of this application. In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Do you
want to read that?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and we’ve got one other comment that’s coming. Okay. The petitioner
letter that the applicant has supplied says, “We the undersigned are aware that the property
owners, Russell and Julie Flansburg, residing at 1 Anthony Court, Queensbury, NY 12804, in the
Herald Square Village development have petitioned the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board for
a variance (Area Variance No. 60-2003). The applicants propose “construction of a 6’ stockade
(white vinyl) fence on the corner lot and seek relief from the requirement of no stockade-type
fence shall be allowed in any front yard.” We understand that this fence is proposed to be
erected in the property owner’s front yard (2), and will be located 35 feet from the side of the
road, running along the side of the driveway and on the side of the property facing Linette
Lane, and in no way will have any negative effect on the appearance of the neighborhood, and
will afford the Flansburgs privacy in what is their “back yard”. We in no way object to this
proposal.” And it’s signed by seven people, 8 Linette, 10 Linette, 5 Linette, 6 Linette, 12 and 12
Linette Lane.
MR. STONE-These are all people who are across the street from you?
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. STONE-From the fence.
MR. FLANSBURG-Left and right, anyone who has view of the fence.
MR. STONE-What’s the other one?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The other one’s a telephone message received by Sue Hemingway on
Tuesday, and it’s Steve Tessino at 6 Michelle Court, called the Zoning Officer on Tuesday to
voice his opposition to the proposed construction of the stockade fence at 1 Anthony Court.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-No other comments?
MR. MC NULTY-No other comments.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-If we have no further questions, let’s start with Jim. Let’s here what you think.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s kind of unfortunate that those trees are gone out there. Because I
think that somewhat would have, you know, mitigated the expanse of the fence that you’re
proposing out there. A six foot fence is pretty big in that side yard, but again, it is set back 35
feet from the road. I guess I would reluctantly go along with this, even though there seems to
be an alternative to keeping it back in line with the garage, you know, and across at that point,
but as a stipulation, I would like to see some substantial plantings out there. I think that, you
know, if you put an arborvitae hedge up, it’ll grow 20 feet high, you know, and you’ll have
even more privacy. So, you know, the alternative of, as you said, if you want a vinyl fence it’s
six feet tall, so, other than if you want to cut it down yourself, but it’s kind of a pain doing that,
too. I would go along with it, but I would make the suggestion that you plant a hedge across,
you know, rather than having people just looking at a huge expanse of fence across the yard
there.
MR. FLANSBURG-We could do that, no problem.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think, you know, there was a time when fortresses in Queensbury were
quite common, but I don’t think we see them as much anymore, and when I went through that
neighborhood, I was kind of struck by the number of large fences that are there, and to add
another one, in my opinion, would be detrimental to that neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that
you’re the one coming before us at this time, but had I had a chance to vote on the others, I
would not have been in favor of them either. I think that, I understand the benefit you would
get, and the neighbors seem to be more or less in favor of it, but I understand why, because two
of them already have that type of a fence located on their properties. As far as feasible
alternatives, I think there are. I think I’m not in favor of the stockade fence, and I’m not in favor
of the six foot stockade fence. I think five feet is sufficient, and I think, although the relief is not
substantial relative to the Ordinance, I think, again, I think five feet, a five foot stockade fence
on a visible lot in a front yard is substantial, and I think it would have an adverse effect on the
neighborhood because I think it’s continuing a trend that is going to lead to a lot more of these,
and I don’t think that’s going to be good for everybody.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think I essentially agree. I think that these corner lots present unique
circumstances. I certainly understand the applicant’s desire to make that back yard a focal
point, and also to have some private enjoyment back there. Corner lots, I live on a corner lot
myself, and essentially you do lose some of your privacy in your back yard, by definition. So it
kind of is a double-edged sword for an applicant when they’re trying to obtain that goal.
Myself, kind of applying the balancing test to your benefit, to the detriment to the
neighborhood or greater community, I would feel inclined to end up with some compromise
between what you want and what is permitted already. I’m going to leave it up to the rest of
the Board to see where they go with this, but you propose 22 feet out, and I would be
comfortable with like 10 or 11, which would give you some additional square footage in your
back yard, but would certainly reduce dramatically the amount that that fence would jet out in
front of your house out toward the front, you know, creating this barrier. Ten feet of an extra
fence is not enough for me to create, I think the Fort Apache effect that Roy was alluding to,
because it certainly can get to that, you know. If you end up with a huge fence down the linear
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
perimeter of the fence, it can kind of look like a Fort Apache or whatever, and I know that’s not
your intent, but it certainly could be the result. So, I’m not in favor of this, on a balancing thing
right now, in favor of this application, as it is, but I’m in favor of giving you some relief, some
extension of that fence so you can increase the size of your back yard. I think that there’s some
point in between there that’s fair to everyone.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I basically agree with Roy. I don’t know. I’ve been down that
neighborhood. There certainly is more of the stockade type fences out in front yards than what
I’d like to see, including one at Two Michelle Lane that looks like it’s just about finishing
construction. So I don’t know how they’re doing it, but that might be something to check on,
because there’s just one little leg of that left to be finished, and it’s definitely in their front yard,
but, looking at the neighborhood, and considering everything, I think adding yet another one in
the front yard is going to tend towards changing the character of the neighborhood. It’s going
to end up being the Fort Apache, and therefore, I’m going to be opposed, and I think I’m going
to be inclined not to accept a compromise, either. I’d like to see a compliant fence, if it’s going
to be a stockade type fence.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I can basically agree with what I’ve heard from my fellow Board
members, but I, you know, your fence, you’re making an effort to not have it as in your face as
the one across the street on the corner, for example, but, to me, just my own way of thinking,
that most of those kinds of fences are, unless they’re completely obscured by some kind of
shrubbery or what not, kind of are noticeable or in your face a little bit. Now, my main reason
for objecting is the feasible alternative of going right back off the house, and I would go along
with what Jaime said, possibly, a few feet here and there, depending upon if you were to, I
might say you have some future plans, and this is like Step One, talking about a pool, and
you’ve a dog yard or something, and so on. Let’s see what those are. In other words, here’s
your back yard. Here’s a scaled drawing of the pool and this and that and the other, and where
does the fence need to be, and does it have to be six feet high and a stockade type fence, as
opposed to what Jim said about appropriate hedging. Of course, everybody’s grown up and
gone, probably, but I don’t know how long it takes those things to grow to get six or seven or
twenty feet high, as Jim said. So that would be my thing. As submitted now, I would not be in
favor, and vote no. I would be willing to hear if you could prove that what you’ve got in the
back yard there, that a compliant fence isn’t sufficient, can’t promise that, but I’d certainly be
willing, try awful hard in my mind, to do something to alleviate the hardship, but as it stands, I
would have to vote no. I’m sorry for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-We are mandated to come up with a balancing test for an Area Variance. We’re
supposed to balance the benefit to the applicant, which is obvious, the applicant comes in with a
certain request, they want this, this, and this, but we are required to look at the zoning code,
which has been adopted by the legally elected Town Board, who has a lot of input from a lot of
citizens, it seems to be what people want. Our job is to say, can we grant some relief from this
thing, depending upon circumstances, and again, it’s the balancing test. The benefit to the
applicant versus the detriment to the community. Now, we can determine, define the
community in a variety of ways. It can be three houses on either side. It can be the whole
subdivision. It can be the whole Town. I think what you’ve heard tonight is a concern by the
majority of the Board that privacy fences, when they are in excess of what the Code allows, not
really thought of. Doesn’t balance out the way you would like it to do. I did hear, as I listened
to my fellow Board members, you had one person who said yes with planting, and of course the
minimum would be some kind of planting that would eventually almost negate the need for the
fence, over time. I think that’s probably what Jim was suggesting. I heard two outright no’s,
and I heard two no’s with a significant modification, I think, move it back closer to the house
ten feet. Certainly the six foot high is on the table, and I certainly agree with the majority of the
Board that I could not, in good conscience, grant the variance that you’re seeking. Now, what
do the Flansburgs do about that? Well, one, you can try to make a modification right here on
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
the basis of what you heard, and what I’ve tried to summarize, but I can’t get into everybody’s
head. This is why we do what we do. You can withdraw the application, come back with a
modified plan. We could table the application, in anticipation of getting a modified plan that
you might find acceptance on the Board. You are also, and we apologize for this, and I should
have apologized earlier, we normally have seven members. Tonight we have two members
missing, and we’re down to six, and I apologize for that, but that’s the summer. People do take
vacations, and even though we have alternates, it’s hard to get everybody here. So the ball is
really up to you. I mean, we could go ahead, on the basis of what I heard, we could deny your
application straight out, or we could table it for you to come back with a modified plan, or you
could withdraw it and then come in, discuss with Staff, and look at the notes, the comments that
we’ve made tonight, and come up with something that you think might apply, but certainly a
five foot fence, excuse me, a six foot stockade fence where you want to put it is not going to gain
the approval of this Board this evening.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, what if we went 10 foot? What if we brought it 10 foot out? I mean,
is that for discussion now, or?
MR. STONE-If you want to propose that, sure. If you want to say you’d go 10 feet from the
house rather than the.
MR. HAYES-Twenty-two.
MR. STONE-The 22 feet.
MR. FLANSBURG-And with the plantings.
MR. STONE-And with the planting, obviously.
MR. FLANSBURG-Because, I mean, the only reason I want to go six foot is because that’s how it
comes, and there’s a lot, we’re going to pay somebody to install the fence. So there’s a lot more
cost incurred in cutting that all down, and if we move it back 12 feet farther now, it’s actually
going to be less of an impact, as you’re saying, visibly, and with the plantings over time, we
already bought some cedar hedge, to start with, to put across the front. I mean, it’s not going to
be the full length.
MR. STONE-I can poll the Board on 10 feet, and with extensive plantings, and see where we go.
I mean, I can ask the Board to talk on that subject.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, at least I’d still have a little more of my back yard.
MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I can’t guarantee that’s going to fly, but let’s start again with Jim.
You’re still, you’d be happy.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think that would be reasonable. I think that we had that one
on Country Club Road last year that stuck out, I think half way out to the road, and ten feet’s a
pretty minimal request, I think, compared to that. As long as they were going to go with an
arborvitae hedge in front of it, you know, and that’s going to give you, in the long term, you
know, 20 feet of height. So no one’s ever going to see in your yard.
MR. FLANSBURG-Arborvitae?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Arborvitae is just a cedar hedge.
MR. FLANSBURG-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. URRICO-Yes. My problem isn’t with the projection into the front yard. My problem is
with the stockade fence itself.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s not going to fly. Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think a 10 foot, I agree with Jim. I think 10 feet is, you know, it’s a reasonable
compromise in this circumstance. I don’t think that it’ll, you know, if you use the plantings and
agree to do that, I think that balance will fall in your favor. I think that’s doable, and I think it’s
kind of a unique circumstance in that it is a corner lot. I certainly agree with Roy that, you
know, stockade fences in general are not the best idea, but I think that 10 feet is fairly minimal,
in the end.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question before you go any further?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. FRANK-The ten foot that you mentioned, I heard you say 10 feet from the house. Their
original proposal was to set it back 22 feet from their front property line. So what are you
discussing, to set back 10 feet further than initially requested?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-That would not be 10 feet from the house.
MR. HAYES-No, no, ten feet from the house is.
MR. STONE-Ten feet from the house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-From the garage projected.
MR. STONE-Which would be more.
MR. HAYES-Twelve feet less than what it was.
MR. FRANK-Actually, according to their plans, it would be 16 feet further back.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-But we’re only approving 10 feet of relief.
MR. FRANK-That’s okay. That’s what I want to know, what you’re discussing.
MR. STONE-No, 10 feet of relief from the back. That’s what’s on the table right now.
MR. FRANK-All right.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m still opposed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-I will still feel that I would want to, before I yield on the Code, to see some reasons
given why it can’t fit in the back yard with a compliant fence. Why it has to be six feet, when it
is that far from the road. So I won’t yield from my position on that.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Fine. So your compromise is not going to fly. Now, again, you can make further
concessions, or we can table it for up to two months, and you can come in and discuss. You
might be able to find out that it’s not as expensive, one, to cut the fence down. I don’t know.
I’ve never put a fence in. I don’t know.
MR. FLANSBURG-But now I can put a hedge up front.
MR. STONE-You can put the hedge any where you want.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anywhere you want out in the yard.
MR. FLANSBURG-So I can get 15 feet tall hedge going the whole length, there’d be no issue, as
long as I stay within the 48 feet, it’s not an issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would do that, if I were you.
MR. STONE-You could do that. You could put in a wire for the dog, or whatever.
MR. FLANSBURG-The only reason it surprised me is I can put the hedge up, and that still gives
that Fort Apache look.
MR. STONE-No, but it’s natural. If you look around, look at your neighbors across the street.
That fence stares you right in the eyes. Trees don’t do that.
MR. FLANSBURG-The only other thing that disturbs me is that I know no one else in that area
got a permit to put those fences up, and no one did a thing about it, and I go the right way, and
unfortunately I’m going to lose on that.
MR. STONE-And I understand that. This is something that the Code Enforcement Officer, the
Zoning Administrator have been working on for two or three years. It’s very difficult to enforce
compliance on people who have done these things, and I don’t condone what people have done.
It’s wrong, and you’re actually doing the right thing and you’re to be congratulated. I’m just
sorry that, and this is probably why a lot of people have done it without getting permission
because this Board is probably not going to give them permission to do it.
MR. HAYES-No, it doesn’t mean they have that right. Just because they did it does not mean
they have the right to.
MR. STONE-No, they don’t have the right. I mean, Staff is working. Is that a correct statement,
Bruce? You’re bringing actions as you can, or, you’d like to?
MR. FRANK-If you want to hear the truth, what we do is initially it takes a complaint, unless I
catch somebody in the act of putting up a fence, and I know that, hey, this is brand new. It’s in
the act of going up, we have no way to determine if somebody’s fence is three years old, ten
years old, and it’s pre-existing, nonconforming, which they can maintain by Code, before the
Ordinance was enacted back in ’88 I believe. So, initially there’s probably some violations out
there. Can I prove it in a court of law? Obviously, one was mentioned that it’s in the act of
going up. I did not know about this. It’s a big Town. I can’t cover every square mile. Usually
it takes a complaint by someone to initiate an investigation and then force them to come into
compliance.
MR. STONE-And let me just build on that. This is for the whole room. You really aren’t a bad
citizen if you bring violations to the attention of the Town. You really aren’t. This is how the
Town maintains the character that we have indicated we want to maintain, citizens seeing
things and bringing it to Staff’s attention. The best way to ensure that Queensbury stays the
way it is is for everybody to be looking out for what people are doing, themselves and other
people.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, well, like what concerns me, you’ve got one person that called in a
negative on the fence. They’re a next door neighbor to the person who did the fence (lost
words) talking about, and that really disturbs me that he can say no to mine, but not to his own
neighbor. That really disturbed me. Just so you know.
MR. STONE-We could discuss that all evening, but, anyway, do you want to withdraw the
application?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, I’m just going to have to do something different.
MR. STONE-Withdrawing doesn’t?
MR. HAYES-No prejudice.
MR. STONE-No prejudice.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. They can always re-submit. They can propose to table it and then
think about it for a while, because you can always decide to withdraw later.
MR. STONE-I mean, if you want to table it, there’s no cost. If you want to re-apply, there is a
cost.
MR. FRANK-It’s going to cost you. So, it’s up to you what you want to do.
MR. URRICO-And you’d be assured of getting a full Board, because right now you only have
six.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Bruce, also if you put up a hedge and you came back five years from now
and your hedge was ten feet high and you wanted to put a fence up on the inside, I don’t know,
you know, at that point, but you can still put up a conforming fence that’s five feet high, you
know, in the interim.
MR. STONE-I would suggest you table it. You’ve got two months, and you can think about it,
and if you want to come back with a modified plan on the basis of what you’ve heard, it won’t
cost you any money to open up.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, I’m willing to table it, but it sounds to me like the only thing that’s
going to go is the five foot fence. I mean, I’m willing to table it, but I’ve got to come back to, I
can’t see where I can do anything.
MR. HAYES-Well, why don’t you check with Lowe’s?
MR. STONE-Check with Lowe’s.
MR. HAYES-And just see how much more a five foot fence really is. I mean, it’s got to be
available.
MR. FLANSBURG-Right. What I’m stating is, people are saying here that they don’t want the
Fort Apache look. If it comes out 170 feet, five feet tall, ten feet long, it’s still going to be that
same look.
MR. STONE-Well, I think you’re hearing correctly, but.
MR. FLANSBURG-It sounds like to me, unfortunately, to me it sounds like (lost word) here,
there’s nothing I can do to change it, to be honest with you. I mean, I’m willing to table it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s table it.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2003 RUSSELL & JULIE FLANSBURG,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
1 Anthony Court. For up to 62 days, so that the applicants can consider the comments made at
the hearing this evening and decide how best to proceed in the future.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-There you go. Sorry.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2003 SEQR TYPE II JIM & NANCY WHITE AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 52 ½ RUSSELL HARRIS
ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 508 SQ. FT.
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A 56 SQ. FT. EXPANSION/RENOVATION TO THE
FRONT FLOOR OF A SEASONAL DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE FAR [FLOOR
AREA RATIO] REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-454, SP 40-2003 APA, CEA
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-030
TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2003, Jim & Nancy White, Meeting Date: July 16, 2003
“Project Location: 52 ½ Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 508 sq. ft. second story addition and a 56 sq. ft.
expansion/renovation to the first floor of a seasonal dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 10 feet 4 inches (north side) and 6 feet 5 inches (south side) of relief from the 12-foot
minimum side setback requirement, 3 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement, and 1.9% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement (FAR) of the
Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. Additionally, the
applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, (7% above the
allowable 50% expansion of the existing structure and to allow an expansion that violates the
setback requirements), §179-13-010(A, E). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.):
SP 40-2003: to be reviewed by the Planning Board pending this application.
BP 2002-454: applied for 06/03/02, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood, and might
it also be interpreted no detriment to the nearby properties will occur (or because of the close
proximity to the neighboring dwellings, might a second story addition cause some detriment)?
2) Due to the narrow width of the pre-existing nonconforming lot, any expansion would require
some relief. Therefore, might it be interpreted there are no feasible alternatives?
3) Might 10 feet 4 inches of relief and 6 feet 5 inches of relief from the 12-foot minimum side
setback requirement be interpreted as moderate to substantial and moderate (86.1% and 53.5%
respectively), 3 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement be
interpreted as minimal (6%), 1.9% of relief from the 22% FAR requirement be interpreted as
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
minimal (8.6%), and the relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure (7% above the
allowable 50% expansion) be interpreted as minimal to moderate (14%), all relative to the
ordinance? Relative to the ordinance, might the combined relief requested be interpreted as
substantial?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the narrow lot width of the pre-existing
nonconforming parcel?"
MR. MC NULTY-Now, the agenda indicates that this was referred to Warren County, but I
don’t find anything in my files or the files here to indicate a Warren County action.
MR. STONE-Do you know what the?
MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. If memory serves me, it was either
approved or No County Impact, and I don’t recall which one it was.
NANCY WHITE
MRS. WHITE-No County Impact.
MR. JARRETT-No County Impact. I beg your pardon.
MR. STONE-No County Impact. Okay, gentlemen, do you wish to add to your application?
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and
I’m here representing the owners, and with me is Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineering, and
Jim White and Nancy White, who are two of the three owners of the property. What we have
sounds like a lot, but if you really look at it, and you actually look at the footage that we’re
talking about, it’s a very modest application. The problem here is that you start with a 25 foot
lot, and you start with a very small residence on there now. It’s a three bedroom residence. It’ll
be a three bedroom residence when we’ve finished with the project. They started this project in
2001, and the first thing that we said needed to be done was to look at the septic system. They
looked at it through engineers, came up with an on-site septic system. Proposed it to the Town.
It did require some variances, again, because of the size of the lot, and at that time there was
strong objection by the neighbors because they thought where we were going to place the septic
system, behind the house in a raised bed type septic system, it would interfere with drainage
from the north to the south, if I’m correct. We went back to the drawing boards and tried to
find an alternative to the septic system, and ended up designing a holding tank system. Went
back to the Town Board, recently, and got approval from the Town Board to install a holding
system for a three bedroom home on this property. That approval, I think, was obtained in
June. So they’ve been dealing with these plans for almost two years. They are the same plans
that they’ve been dealing with since they started as to the house, except that we have added a
small addition to the first floor when we submitted, and I’ll point that out to you. There are five
variances that we are asking for, and I would deal with each one. The north side variance, what
we basically are doing is not going any closer to the north boundary, but we have new
construction going up, particularly in the back of the building. So that is deemed to be a further
encroachment. Although, if you stood on the property line, and you looked down the property
line, you would not see anything different. It’s not coming closer to the property line. At
present, the existing building is now one foot eight inches off that property line. The new
building will be one foot eight inches off that property line. On the south side of the building,
it’s pretty much the same thing. Except that we do bring a part of the building, two foot by
twenty-eight feet, a total of 56 square feet, to fill in the back of the building, so the first floor in
the back of the building will be 18 feet wide instead of 16 feet wide. It just makes it more
usable. It makes it friendlier, if you will, to the owners. Presently, the front of the building is
5.7 from the south line. When we’re done, the front of the building and the back of the building
will be 5.7. Again, we’re not talking about going closer to that property or going closer to that
boundary than what is already in existence, except for that back piece, and if you look at the
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
floor plan in the back of the first floor, without that two feet, the third bedroom is eight feet by
eight and a half foot. I mean, this is not a, this is a modest proposal. The bathroom is three and
a half feet deep, and you enter the bathroom, and you can see the floor plan that’s laid out there.
You go past the toilet to get to the shower. I’m not sure how far a normal toilet projects, but it’s
not a big room. So, the thought was, if we can move that outside wall out two feet, we can play
with the interior measurements a little bit and make the rooms a little bit more usable, and
that’s why we are extending that back wall two feet by twenty-eight feet toward the neighbor to
the south. The hallway is two feet, six inches, at it presently, if we don’t add that two feet going
out that way. The shoreline setback that we talk about, we’re saying that we are, have new
construction within 47 feet of the lake. If you take a look at the front elevation of the building,
what we’re talking about is the peak portion of the building. The enclosed porch is 39 feet from
the lake. We’re not going to change the enclosed porch, but behind the enclosed porch we do
build a vaulted ceiling. Now we build the vaulted ceiling so that we can have a staircase in that
area that will get to the second floor, and if you look at the floor plan, you can see the staircase.
If you’re on the lake, that three foot encroachment is not going to be noticeable. In fact, there’s a
boathouse in front of this property, immediately in front of this property. I don’t know if you
actually are going to see much of what we’re doing there. You’re going to see perhaps the
second, the back of the building, the second story. Now that’s in compliance with the height
requirements, but you probably will see that where you wouldn’t see it now. The expansion
beyond the foot, or the area ratio, is 124 feet in change. Fifty-six feet of that is this two foot by
twenty-eight foot. The other is the, counting the floor area, if you will, of the landing at the top
of the stairs and the area next to the landing. That’s what makes up that 125 feet. We did not,
we thought, again, it was a modest request. We didn’t think it would have any impact on
anyone to have another 125 feet of floor area in the house. The expansion of a non-conforming
structure beyond 50%, and we are at 57% with this expansion, is a total of 59 feet. Again, that’s,
a good part of that is the two foot by twenty-eight feet, which is fifty-six feet, and probably part
of the landing would account for the rest of it. I mean, this is a very small house, to start with,
and although it may sound like we’re asking for, you know, a number of variances, they really
have very little impact on the community. I don’t think they have any impact upon the
neighboring properties. They certainly don’t have any impact on the character of the
neighborhood or of any of the properties in the neighborhood. We really don’t have any
alternatives, and I think Staff mentioned that in their comments. We think that the applicant
has gone out of the way to try to be compliant where they can be compliant. In fact, although
this project, because of the size of it, would be exempt from stormwater considerations, we have
put in provisions for stormwater, so that we will have better control of existing stormwater than
what’s there now, and that’s basically it. We did receive a couple of letters. I don’t know if they
are still good or not good. We received a letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Michael Shearer, which is
immediately to the north. This letter was dated back in March of 2002. I received it by
postmark of June 12, 2003. This was, I think, received after the night that we were here before
the Town Board and received a septic variance, and it would read, “To Whom It May Concern:
Our camp in Harris Bay on Lake George, N.Y. (52 Russell Harris Rd.) is located next door to the
White-Brownell camp (52 ½ Russell Harris Rd.). During the summer of 2001, these neighbors
showed us professional remodeling plans that were created in March, 2001 and intended for
their camp. After reviewing the plans, we have no objections to the White-Brownell project
going forward. Sincerely yours, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Shearer” I will note that the plans that
they looked at did not have that two foot addition on the side, although that’s on the opposite
side of them. So I don’t think it has any impact. I think we did talk about the two foot addition
on the back part of the house, after the meeting with the Town Board, and we got the septic
variance. The other letter that we have is from a Barbara Tanis, and that was also dated in
March of 2002, and actually was received in March of 2002. “To Whom It May Concern: My
camp in Harris Bay on Lake George, N.Y. (54 Russell Harris Rd.) is located next door to the
White-Brownell camp (52 ½ Russell Harris Rd.). During the summer of 2001, these neighbors
showed me professional remodeling plans that were created in March, 2001 and intended for
their camp. After reviewing the plans, I have no objections to the White-Brownell project going
forward. Sincerely yours, Barbara J. Tanis” She’s not here, but I think family members of the
Tanis family are here. So I’ll submit those to your secretary.
MR. STONE-We’ll put it in the file here. Give it to Chuck. This is the Secretary.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s basically our presentation. If you have questions, we’d be glad to try
and answer them.
MR. STONE-Well, the first question I have, how did this lot come into existence, and when, out
of curiosity?
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no idea. I take it that at one time or another, 52 and 52 and a half were
owned by the same people.
JIM WHITE
MR. WHITE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are two 25 foot lots that apparently were created a long time ago, long
before I think you had zoning in the Town of Queensbury, in the two 25 lots, by people by the
name of Campbell.
MR. WHITE-I’m not even sure of the name, but I think back in the 40’s.
MR. STONE-I hope it was before zoning.
MR. O'CONNOR-I also have some pictures, if you want to look at those, although I think most
of you.
MR. STONE-I think we’ve all. If anybody wants to look at them, I think we’ve all been there,
and we had a picture up there, Bruce did, at one point.
MR. O'CONNOR-Any other questions I should answer now?
MR. URRICO-The two letters you received are from the neighbors to the immediate north and
the south?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. URRICO-They’re the ones who would be affected by the setback relief requested.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HIMES-I have a question.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Where do you park the, or where are the vehicles parked, right I back
on the grass? When I was there, I saw wheel marks and all.
MR. WHITE-The road that you went down cuts across our property, and then the back side of
the road, we have parking there, and also parking in the front of that.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I see there was some stuff back in there, yes, okay.
MR. WHITE-And parking in front of the, you saw where the fence was. There’s also parking in
front of the fence there.
MR. HIMES-Yes. Okay. So you don’t really park inside where that fence, any further? What
I’m just worried about is the permeability. All this lot is quite long. It’s got to be out to the road
250 or 200 anyway.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MR. HIMES-So it probably wouldn’t impact. That’s all I had. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Let me ask a question about the variance you got for the holding tanks. Are you
going to put those in regardless of our decision?
MR. WHITE-We probably will. It certainly would go a long way for the approval for us to put
them in, but we would probably like to do the same thing. Right now, we think the system we
have is inadequate and we’d like to upgrade it.
MR. STONE-I’m sure it probably is.
MR. O'CONNOR-When they did the inspection to try to determine what the existing system
was, the best that they could determine was that the existing system was under the back
addition of the building.
MR. STONE-It evaporates very well back there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, that’s something that they.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We think it’s a pit underneath the structure.
MR. STONE-Just a pit.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no idea.
MR. JARRETT-We’re afraid to find out at this point.
MR. O'CONNOR-They examined it. They tried to figure out what was there.
MR. WHITE-There’s no strange smells coming from there yet, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it looks, and I don’t know the history of the property that well enough.
The front building was built, and then the backs were built. It looks very much like this
building and the building to the south of it are very similar in construction. The back, the
building to the south of it has had an addition put on the second floor.
MR. STONE-The Board of Health, in their infinite wisdom, in granting the variance for holding
tanks, is talking about all the bells and whistles necessary to cease and desist as soon as it fills.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a double alarm system. It works on a cellanoid that will shut off the water
supply when it reaches a second alarm, which is less than, what’s the capacity of the second
alarm?
MR. JARRETT-It’s just under 100% to shut the water off. There’s a first alarm at roughly 50%
capacity, and then before it reaches 100%, the water is shut off.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-With enough free board to accommodate any tanks and the house.
MR. STONE-Good. Does anybody else have any questions? Obviously, we have some people
who want to speak tonight. All right. Let me open the public hearing, since we’ve got no
questions at the moment. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody
wishing to speak opposed? And you may speak both ways if you come up, and if you have, go
ahead. Please come on up.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GARY SAMPSON
MR. SAMPSON-I didn’t know you were going to have high tech multimedia. So I made some
pictures, and I’ll get to what I have on the first page as I speak.
MR. STONE-State your name and address.
MR. SAMPSON-Yes. Good evening. My name is Gary Sampson. I live at 54 Russell Harris
Road. It’s the adjoining property to the south to the property in question here. As a first point
of business, I spoke at length about this with my mother. She had never agreed to, either in
writing or verbally, the plan that includes the extension to the footprint.
MR. STONE-Okay. Your mother is the one who wrote the letter that Mr. O’Connor read?
MR. SAMPSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t know whether you were speaking to your mother to get solace or
what.
MR. SAMPSON-No, and in speaking with her just earlier today, I, myself, have full unrestricted
Power of Attorney on all my mother’s affairs. That Power of Attorney is recorded at the
Warren County Courthouse, and I am publicly rescinding her approval that she signed two
years ago. It’s void. It’s meaningless now. Because the plan has changed. Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes. Thank you.
MR. SAMPSON-So, that going aside, I took these pictures earlier today to try to, I don’t know
how many of you have been out there to look at it, to try to give you a feeling for just how close
these houses are. Cleverdale, in fact probably the whole Cleverdale peninsula, is an
abnormality in the whole zoning system. I mean, it just shouldn’t be there. We have a total, in
the front, of eight feet between our two structures, wall to wall, not including any eaves or
overhangs or anything else, eight feet between the walls, and in the back it’s 10 feet. I mean,
they’re virtually sitting on top of each other, and on the north side, the situation is pretty much
the same. They’re very narrow little alleys, almost, right now, going between these two houses.
Now, in their presentation they said that the addition of this two foot to the footprint on the
back half would not have any negative impact, and I cannot disagree in more stringent terms. It
will have a tremendously bad impact on my property. If you look at the picture, the top picture
on the last page, you can see where the front of the houses sort of ended halfway, and you had,
when this was done back in the 50’s by a Mr. Whitehurst, who put these houses up in the late
40’s, in fact, there were two matching camps. He had a 50 foot lot. He cut it in half and he
made a camp for his friend. A couple of years later, his friend sold it. So they weren’t friends
anymore, and then he wound up, Mr. Whitehurst wound up selling his, the blue house, which
is my house, he sold that to a Mr. Carpenella who our family bought it from in 1973. Now, it
was Mr. Carpenella, and perhaps some of you have known him from the past, he put the
addition on the back half of our house, and it’s what you would call a story and a half. If you
look at the gable end of the second floor, the side walls are only four feet high. So inside the
walls come up, and then it follows the ceiling for a few feet, and then you finally have a flat
ceiling in the middle. When he put that second floor up, and I can, last year I remember
speaking to Mr. Carpenella about, because he used to like to go on about the history of this, he
did that for a reason, because he knew if he put a, and back in the 50’s he could have put a 50
foot expansion in. There was no 28 foot limit or anything else back then. He could have done
anything he wanted, but he kept the height of our building down so it wouldn’t put the
neighbor into darkness. Because the higher you go, anybody to the north of you, they’re not
going to see the sun anymore. Because the sun is always to the south of you. We’re in the
northern hemisphere, and so he gave a second story that’s only half high out at the edges, that
lowered the whole structure, and it allowed more sunlight to come in to the White’s property,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
and one of the issues I have is that they’re going up a full eight feet for the second story. I don’t
think they should. I think they should do the same thing for a couple of reasons. One, it’ll
lessen the amount of darkness he puts on to the Shearer’s house to the north of him, and it’ll
also lessen the height of the wall that I’m going to face. That top picture, if you look at that,
halfway down the blue house, you’ll see a door. For better or for worse, that’s my front door.
It’s on the side of the house, okay, and the final page, and there’s a little overhang over that.
That’s my front door. It’s not at the end of the house. It’s in the middle of the side. I wish it
wasn’t, but it is. It was put there by Mr. Carpenella in about 1954, somewhere around there.
That was done before the addition to the White’s house, the one in yellow on the right there.
When they put that addition on, and they made it only 16 feet wide rather than 18 feet wide,
that was not an accident. That was intentional. What they didn’t want to do was have Mr.
Carpenella walking into a tunnel to get to his front door. So they said hey, let’s, instead of
making the full 18 feet, we’ll just bring it in a little bit so now at least you have a little more
room coming in, and in today’s world, I think it’s even more important when you look at things
like emergency services. If you’re going to have two two story buildings next to each other, or
one and a half and two, if there be a fire in one, I’m quite sure the Fire Marshal would like to see
a little more room between these houses so he could deal with it. The closer you get them
together, the more problems all the emergency services have, and if you bring that wall in,
you’re bringing it in right to my front door.
MR. STONE-Mr. Sampson, you’ve exceeded your five minutes.
MR. SAMPSON-I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-You can come back up. Let me see if anybody else wants to speak. We’ll let you
come back up.
MR. SAMPSON-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition or in favor?
MICHAEL SHEARER
MR. SHEARER-My name’s Michael Shearer. I’m on the north side, 52 Russell Harris. The only
comments that I do have, is he seeking, right now, if you look at the picture and you look where
his, what do you want to call it, his foundation, okay, he only has one foot four inch until he’s
on my property, and then you have the eaves of the roof. How far out are they going to extend,
and then if you put a gutter on that, he’s only got one foot four inches to work with. That
should be noted by the engineers.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, is that your letter that Mr. O’Connor read?
MR. SHEARER-Yes, which we signed, and thought about, and then when we went to the
Health.
MR. STONE-Board of Health, right.
MR. SHEARER-Board of Health, and we signed it and we gave it to him.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that is current?
MR. SHEARER-Is that current? I don’t, I’ve just got problems with some of the parts of the
design.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s okay. I just want to make sure that that letter.
MR. SHEARER-I don’t have a problem with him improving his residence.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. No, I mean, Mr. Sampson took back their letter, which is his right. You’re
not taking it back. Okay.
MR. SHEARER-No, I’m not taking back my letter. I don’t have a problem with him wanting to
improve it. I have problems, okay, where he sits so close to me that he better not come over the
line. So, is there a requirement on eaves?
MR. STONE-No, eaves count.
MR. SHEARER-On what?
MR. STONE-On the setback.
MR. FRANK-That’s not correct, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-It’s not? I thought it was.
MR. FRANK-You’re allowed to encroach on the setback by 18 inches with your eaves.
MR. STONE-I guess I’m thinking in the front because I know we had one in the front.
MR. FRANK-All eaves can encroach in any setback by 18 inches.
MR. SHEARER-What’s that mean?
MR. FRANK-That means the building is what needs to meet the setbacks, and if your building
is built right up to the setback line, your eaves can encroach into that setback by 18 inches, by
Code.
MR. STONE-In the setback.
MR. FRANK-Into the setback.
MR. HAYES-But that’s still an issue in this case, though, because there’s only one and a half feet
there anyways.
MR. FRANK-I’m just stating what Code is. He’s asking.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I apologize for being in error.
MR. SHEARER-All right. There’s one concern, and then the other concern, he wants to go 27
and a half feet up, and he’ll put me in darkness on the back side, okay. I didn’t realize how high
up it was, and if he does go with four foot walls, like the other person said, and you look across
the back, all the houses will pretty much line up for aesthetics. Do you understand my point on
that one?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SHEARER-Okay, and there’s also, nothing has been mentioned to me about a tree that is
on my property which I think will have to either come down or be substantially trimmed, to
incorporate that going up.
MR. STONE-Now which tree are you talking about? Have you seen Mr. Sampson’s pictures?
MR. HAYES-The one by the dog house?
MR. SHEARER-The one by the dog house, yes. That’s it.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-You’re talking the overhang of the tree would get interfered by?
MR. SHEARER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SHEARER-But then he has to go way up the tree.
MR. STONE-I understand. Okay.
MR. SHEARER-But I’m not against the man improving his property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. The crux of the public Board of Health approval
of the holding tank is predicated on the declaration that this would be a seasonal use dwelling,
and it’s presented here as a seasonal dwelling. The Town Code defines seasonal use. It says a
use which occupies continually a building or site for fewer than six months of the year. I think
it’s incumbent upon this Board to define and restrict the use of this dwelling to some period of
six months. It can’t float around and it’s got to be continuous it says here, and I think that
should be a condition of approval. There was great debate at the public Board of Health about
the application of the use of a holding tank to this project. They’re not allowed for new
construction, only under certain circumstances, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem here yet,
but this says expansion/renovation. That’s new construction. The present system has not
proven to have failed, and so there’s no reason to put a holding tank in, and I maintain
Appendix 75-A of the public Health Code does not allow a holding tank in this application.
Regardless that it’s seasonal.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wish to add, subtract or multiply? You can come back
again, yes. Anybody else? We’ll let Mr. Sampson come back.
MR. SAMPSON-Thank you. Let me just run through these before my second five minutes is up,
if I may. As I said previously, I really do not want to see any expansion of the footprint right in
to my front door. I’d like to keep that pathway as open as possible. So we can ingress and
egress from our house without feeling like we’re in a tunnel. When I look at it, I looked at the
design, I noticed that they had 18 inch eaves on their plans. They look like about 18 inches. If
you look at all the buildings in this neighborhood, you can see it in those pictures and almost
any picture you see, we all have about six inch eaves on all the houses there, and there’s a
reason for that. Again, these houses are right on top of each other. You have 18 inch eaves, my
God, they’ll come in two feet with the building, come in from six inches to eighteen inches,
that’s another foot. You started at ten feet, you’re down to seven now for an opening up above.
We just lost 30% of our skylight coming in the top, and it’s going to look like the dark hole of
Calcutta when I go to my front door. So I think the design should include only six inch eaves.
Just like they are now. That’s what they have. Stick with it, because it works, it helps. It’s
better for everybody. The front roof, they’re looking at I believe it’s around a seven inch roof
right now they’re looking at jacking it up to a twelve inch roof. Again, that’s going to make it
more of a tunnel between the two of us, and it’s going to cast more of a shadow onto his
northern neighbor. The rationale I’ve heard for that is that, well, they need it for the headroom
on the stairs. Then move the stairs to the back half of the house where you have your second
story. Then it’s not a problem. You don’t have to jack that roof up, and you don’t have to have
any impact on the neighbors. The second floor, as I said earlier, I think they should seriously
consider going to Halfite walls on the outside of the second floor. We make very good use of all
the available space on our second floor, even though there are only four foot walls, out at the
edges. We have no problems with it whatsoever. We make good, positive use of all our square
footage, and they can do the same. Would it be nicer to have eight foot? Sure, it would be great
to have eight foot, but you’re increasing the impact on your neighbors by doing that, and I think
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
you need to have a balance between what they’re desires are and the impact on everybody else,
and as a final item, if you look on the second page, the bottom picture, you’ll notice that the
peak, that’s like the rear peak of the house, and just to the right of that, there’s the peak of the
red house, and then if you look at the top picture on the page before that, I have the blue house,
all those three peaks, they all line up. All the houses line up there. Now what they’re planning
on doing is extending their peak all the way out above the extension that’s on the back of their
house, bringing it all the way, I don’t know what, about 10 feet past everybody else. Again,
that’s going to cast more darkness to the north, and it’s going to make it more of a tunnel that I
walk into to get to my front door. I don’t think there’s a need for it, and so what I’d ask the
Board to do is deny the request for the increase in the footprint, and the expansion of the
footprint I think should be denied. I don’t know what authority you have, as far as the eaves
and the roofs and things go, but I would also ask that you deny the request for all this extra
square footage that they’re putting in there, and say, hey, look, you have neighbors eight feet
away. You’ve got to be reasonable here. You’re not separated from everybody that you can do
anything you want with your house. I learned that 15 years ago when I moved there. You can’t
do anything without stepping on other people. So let’s be a little more reasonable, scale it back
a little bit, then you don’t have floor area requirement variances, and be reasonable, and not so
obtrusive to the neighbors. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-I have a question. Do you live at that residence year round, or is it a seasonal
camp for you?
MR. SAMPSON-No, it’s seasonal.
MR. URRICO-Do you know what the height of your residence is?
MR. SAMPSON-I don’t know exactly, but I can give you that answer in about three minutes,
because I know how big the siding is. I can count the slats. So I’ll go sit down and I’ll give you
that answer in a minute.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any other further
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence.
MR. STONE-All right. Well, let me close the public hearing. Do you gentlemen want to
comment on what you’ve heard?
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I’ll answer the easiest comments, I think. Mr. Salvador made the same
comments to the Town Board when they sat as the Town Board of Health, and the Town Board
dismissed his comments and approved the application as we had submitted it.
MR. STONE-Well, for a seasonal dwelling.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only controversy was that the Town attorney hadn’t reviewed the issue
of seasonal as to permanent, and I think Craig was present, I’m not sure who was present, but
somebody was present and said that the Town’s determination of seasonal against permanent is
whether or not you have central heat, not how long you use the dwelling. The existing building
has central heat, electric heat, and the proposed buildings will have electric heat. I think, after
the Town attorney spoke, Tom Jarrett spoke and talked about the fact that there were no
alternative methods of septic disposal on the site that would not need a variance, was of the
opinion that that would satisfy the criteria under the New York State Health Regulations that
says that you can have holding tanks, even for year round, if there are no alternatives available,
but I really think that that’s a Town Board issue, and if the Town Board has a problem with that
or with the use of the property, we’ll address is with the Town Board. I don’t think that’s a
Zoning Board issue. I’ve talked about the septic system, just to give you an idea and flavor of
the extent that the applicant has gone to try to make this compliant, to make this a property that
would not have an impact on the environment, and it would not have an impact on the Town.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
As to the issue of eaves, we certainly can look at those. We would not encroach over a property
line with an eaves, particularly on the north where it is already, the building itself, on the north,
is 1.4, let me get back to my notes, one foot eight inches. I don’t know if the existing eaves goes
beyond that or not. The measurement of one foot eight inches is from the building, but we can
have eaves that would be compliant and not extend beyond that property line. As to whether
or not we need to trim a tree to put the building in, I don’t know if we’ve looked at that, but I
think that’s our entitlement, if the tree actually comes across onto our property line. We do not
believe that we, with the roof in the manner that we propose, will block anybody’s light, either
to the north or to the south. I purposely brought up the fact that the consent letters that I had
were old, and that the people may have changed some of their opinion of it, particularly the
fellow to the south, because we added that two feet in the last four months or last three months.
That was not something that was on the original plans that were done in 2001, but we did it in
the sense that what is really practical. Without it, the bathroom is three and a half feet wide.
The bedroom is eight feet by eight and a half feet. We have a common easement that we both
share the walkway that goes down between the properties. We are not encroaching upon that
in any manner by what we’re doing. I really don’t think what we have asked for is
unreasonable. I’d be willing to answer questions if you have questions, but I think basically
these were the questions.
MR. STONE-When did Mr. White, when did you and your wife and sister I gather who owned,
when did you buy the property?
MR. WHITE-November of 2000.
MR. STONE-So recently, in terms of the history of the property.
MR. WHITE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-And it was the way, then, that it is now.
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MR. STONE-So one might say you went in with your eyes open, in terms of what you were
buying.
NANCY WHITE
MRS. WHITE-It’s had the same owner, the same family owned it for 16 years.
MR. STONE-Okay, but I mean, you bought it.
MRS. WHITE-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I think they went in with the reasonable expectation that they would be
able to make some improvement to it, and when you look at, we’re trying to stay within the
same footprint. We have not tried to, you know, we heard some of the same comments when
we were before the Town Board. They said, we don’t care if the septic system isn’t working,
until it fails, keep it. Don’t put in anything, and there are a lot of comments. I won’t even go to
those comments. You can look at those minutes. They were unusual comments. Change is not
something that is readily accepted, but I think you have to look at, does the change actually
have an impact.
MR. STONE-Well, the thing that’s in my thinking, and we’ll be discussing this, is that the one
acre zoning, in the waterfront of Lake George, is relatively, I mean, recently adopted, some of
the, floor area ratio and things like that. They’re still relatively new, and they were put in to, in
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
a sense, prevent overbuilding of lakefront properties. They haven’t been very successful. Don’t
get me wrong, in terms of what we’re putting up.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re overbuilding on this lot by 124.76 square feet.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. O'CONNOR-That, I can’t believe that that has a community impact, a neighborhood
impact, or any impact.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, I understand the Ordinance, and even the, you know, we’re talking
59 feet for expansion of an existing dwelling that we’re looking for a variance. The only real
variance that we are talking about here is probably the two foot by twenty-eight foot addition.
That’s expanding a footprint. That’s creating something that’s not there. That’s creating
something that’s new. I would argue whether or not that has a serious impact. Everything else
is a matter of reconfiguration of what’s there. The side walls are what they are. We’re going up
with the side walls. The front is what it is. We’re not trying to move the camp closer to the
lake, and I think from an engineering point of view, you take a look at it, do you put in a
vaulted ceiling only over part of the room? If you put the stairs in the back, and Mr. and Mrs.
White spent a lot of time trying to be compliant with the various portions of the Ordinance.
Then you lose, how do you traverse that whole, you’ve got to traverse that whole back, a
hallway through that upstairs? I mean, this was a manner in which you could get best usage
out of very little square footage.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Norm?
MR. HIMES-I just have one for Staff, if I might. It’s in connection with the Floor Area Ratio
calculations. If you went all the way back out to the other side of the road, it looks on the map,
the diagram, is the roadway included in that, the whole? It’s such a long lot, you know (lost
words).
MR. FRANK-These numbers were double and triple checked.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. The height requirement’s not on the table. There is no height
variance being requested or needed. Right?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. STONE-It’s only 27 and a half.
MR. O'CONNOR-That front building is probably, I tried to scale it the same, by photographs or
something like that, I think we came to 12 to 14 feet. We’re going to 16, maybe 17 feet.
MR. STONE-In the front.
MR. O'CONNOR-The back part of it I don’t think really is, is really that significant.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Sampson, did you come up with a number?
MR. SAMPSON-Yes.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Speak it into the mic. I’ll allow you to answer the question that was posed of you.
MR. SAMPSON-I apologize. Just by counting the ribs on the siding, I come up with 232 inches,
which is just under 20 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SAMPSON-Because we only have seven foot ceilings on the first floor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. It looks about 20 feet, just looking at the pictures. Anyway.
Roy, let’s start with you. What do you think?
MR. URRICO-Just wondering aloud, I just wonder why we bother to re-zone an area that will
never meet the zoning. I mean, to call this WR-1A just seems kind of hard to ever picture this
area as being one acre lots, but this is an unusual lot. It’s a nonconforming lot, extraordinary
circumstances I believe, and when I first drove up there, it was obvious that this needs some
work. I mean, the house looks like it needs something. It needs a lot of work, but I think
because of the physical characteristics of this environment, and the neighborhood, I think there
has to be some accommodations on both sides. I think a newer building would help the
neighborhood, but I also think it’s important that the consideration of the neighbors also be
taken into effect. I think we are talking about smaller than normal lots, and therefore the relief
sought carries with it proportionately a greater possibility of a negative impact, and I think it
has to be thought of in that light. Although I like the plan, but I think there needs to be maybe
some accommodations, assurances that the eaves won’t be very much longer than some of the
neighbor’s eaves are, in order to minimize that impact. I’m not so much bothered by the three
feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline, but I think I would like to see the floor area ratio stay
within the requirement. So as it stands right now, I think I’m sort of in favor of it, but I think
that some accommodations that hopefully will appease the neighbors.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree with Roy. When I visited the site, while probably an
expensive camp, my first impression was that it could use some work, and that there was plans
to do so, that was a good thing, for everyone included. I also agree with Roy that sometimes
this Board is getting put in difficult positions based on re-zoning, and I understand the reasons
why, but to call this WR-1A, seems to me to be a little bit of an oxymoron or whatever, being
that single family one acre just doesn’t work in this thing, and it’s not representative of anything
near what is there now and likely to stay. I’m also, when I look at, talking about the plans in
particular, the three feet of relief from the setback does not trouble me, in the sense that the
porch is already closer than that. So, essentially, this becomes a technical variance in the sense
that there is construction in that air space that’s three feet closer to the lake, but it’s not in the
footprint. I thought some work was done to include the project within the existing footprint. I
certainly would not have been in favor of, at all, expanding for the full linear, on any side or
particularly closer to the lake with any kind of new construction. I would have thought that
was just going too far, but there does seem to be some work done to keep this thing within the
existing footprint outside of the two feet, which I understand the objections by the neighbor in
this particular circumstance, but I think that’s still out on the table. As far as the floor area ratio,
I agree with Counsel’s argument that I just don’t see 147 square feet as being the difference or
somehow that that’s not a minor piece of relief. I think that it is in this particular circumstance.
That’s still relatively small in my mind, compared to the other structures that are around them.
Where I guess, similar to what Roy would say, I guess if there’s anything that I would like to see
or would help me be in favor of this application, in the overall sense, is in the designs somehow
to include or take into account what the neighbors have said, in the sense of the eaves and the
other possibly, how you design the second story addition. That would be the only thing that, at
this point, that I would like to see what can be done, but I guess in the broadest sense, I’m in
favor of the application.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, kind of agree with what Roy said. When I first looked at this, I
had two reactions. The first was, gee, that was a lot of variance requests here, but then thinking
in terms of, well, really it’s because that’s the way the house is sitting now, and actually it’s
rather minimal, and I think, taken as a total, it is rather minimal. As far as the floor area ratio,
I’ll agree with the other two Board members who’ve spoken. I think that’s minimal and that
doesn’t concern me a great deal. The setback to the lake doesn’t concern me a great deal
because it’s a minor intrusion. Listening to the neighbors, certainly we’re hearing some just
natural negative reaction to change, but, given the proximity of these houses and these lots, I
think some of their concerns are very valid, too, and some consideration needs to be given to
them, and for instance, the eaves, it sounds to me like if there were 18 inch eaves on the north
side, it’s very possible the rainwater off that roof would be falling on the neighbor’s property by
the time you follow the trajectory of the water coming off the roof. So I think there needs to be
some things looked at. As it stands, right now, considering the neighbor’s concerns, I would be
opposed. I’m hoping maybe that this’ll go back to the drawing board a little bit and have some
small modifications made that might accommodate some of the neighbor’s concerns, at least
partially, in which case I then would be more inclined to approve.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. Well, I agree with most of what has been said, I think. The
matter of some of the objections made by people in attendance here, height, for example, and
we say, well, we’re not here to consider height, but when you take into consideration the matter
of expanding a nonconforming structure, you do, some of the things I think that were
mentioned by the people who were critical of the application probably would be covered by
this aspect of limiting the expansion of a nonconforming structure to below a certain
percentage. So I put a considerable amount of emphasis of my thinking on that, that we’re
going beyond that, and I think, in connection with that, is the matter of the floor area ratio.
Certainly, the percentage, 1.9 or whatever it is, doesn’t sound like very much, but I think that,
again, you’d have to, in context of the neighborhood, when I can walk down through, between
the two, and I can just about touch both of them, that 1.9 has a different bearing on my thinking
than it does in most of the other cases where I’ve seen a floor area ratio problem. So, in
connection with that, I don’t think that I could approve this application, and I don’t know that I
would feel any differently about modifications. Maybe I would, but I would like to say at this
time you’d have a hard argument to get me, in this particular case, to agree that there should be
any expansion. I might go along with that, but the floor area ratio, I don’t know how you can
do it. I’d be willing to listen, but to be fair, I just want you to know I’d have a hard time going
with it in this particular case. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s important for us to consider this. You know, if we were down
on the south end of Queensbury, and we were in a trailer park, and somebody were proposing
this, you know, as a double wide coming in or something, I think that we’d probably would
turn it down without a moment’s notice, but I think also we need to consider the fact that this is
a WR-1 zone. It’s a critical environmental area. What are the benefits going to be if we let this
project go through? And I think that, you know, the septic thing obviously is going to be a plus
for the area. It’s probably a matter of reality before all those homes will eventually have to go to
this same type of holding system, you know, unless there’s some kind of group system
proposed in the long term. As far as the design of the house, I don’t have any problem with the
setbacks from the lake. I think that’s minimal what you’re proposing, and if you put the stairs
on the front or the back, it doesn’t matter. It’s not going to have any effect on the lake as far as
that goes. The floor area ratio, obviously, if you’re trying to put a second story up, it’s pretty
much going to mimic the amount of square footage that you have on the blue house to the
south. I would, however, make a suggestion that you go, that you change the pitch on your
roof for a couple of different reasons. With a 12/12 pitch on your roof, you know, if you have
severe winters with lots of snow, you’re going to immediately dump that off and it’s probably
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
going to go through the side of your neighbor’s house if there’s three feet of snow piled up on
the roof when it lets loose. I think you could easily accommodate modifying your plans to a
seven twelve or possibly an eight twelve pitch would give you a little bit more head room. In
looking at the house to the south, it appears to me to be about a seven twelve pitch, maybe eight
twelve. You’d have to check it out and see, but I think that if you were going to change the
pitch of your roof, I don’t think there’s any problem with getting it, I have a garage that I lived
in, and, you know, I had a four foot knee wall coming up, and then an eight twelve pitch, and it
worked just fine. As far as the eaves on the roof, I think that the eaves, obviously, are going to
have to maintain similar to what you have there now, and I think that you could, you know,
with a really strong gutter system on there, avoid having the runoff come down and splash onto
that common zone that you have there, too. Definitely I think it would be an improvement to
improve this household, and, you know, upgrade it to what you have. I think, similar, if you
were going to go back historically, it wouldn’t be any different than what you had in Boston in
Charlestown, you know, when you went from log cabins to a single façade of buildings, and it
would be nice to interpret, you know, what the whole area’s going to look like 50 years from
now, whether it’s just wall to wall apartment buildings, who knows what it’s going to be, but I
guess I would reluctantly go along with it, if you make those modifications.
MR. STONE-So you said you’re reluctant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-If they were going to change the pitch of the roof.
MR. STONE-Well, you need some accommodation, is really what you’re saying. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They would have to.
MR. STONE-Okay. First of all, I want to set the record straight, because we can always lie with
statistics. One point nine percent, I assume you’re meaning 23.9% Floor Area Ratio. Is that
what you mean when you say, 1.9% and not 8% greater?
MR. O'CONNOR-We say right on the map 23.9.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay. That’s eight percent. That’s not 1.9%. That’s 1.9% versus a ratio of
22%, and we do this all the time. We confuse the issue.
MR. JARRETT-One point nine above the standard.
MR. STONE-Right, 1.9%, which is an 8% increase over the 22%. I just want to get that on the
record, because we confuse that all the time. I’m certainly pretty much in agreement with the
bulk of the Board. I’m torn between the fact that the applicant is willing will put in a new on-
site wastewater system. That, to me, is very important. I, personally, have spent a lot of my
recent time being concerned with on-site wastewater treatment in this State, and certainly in the
area, and so that’s a very big positive that you’re going to do that. On the other hand, I have
been fairly consistent in buildings going up, like on Rockhurst, where this Board has granted,
over my objections, but they have granted relief for a number of homes in Rockhurst, and we’re
getting a Wall Street effect, and I listened to Mr. Sampson, and I have to sympathize with him
that he’s going to be walking into a tunnel. I mean, I’ll put the quotes around that, but it’s
certainly going to be different than it is now, and the fact that the most affected neighbor is
opposed, particularly because of this seemingly minor two foot width increase, but it’s going to
go right in front of where he has to walk, almost on a daily basis, into the house. I think there’s
some compromise here in my mind, and I think the bulk of the Board seems to indicate that
we’d like to see some revisions in what you’re trying to do. If you can do them now, we
certainly can re-poll the Board, but it might be, in my mind, best if you go back and review the
comments that we’ve made, because there have been a lot of comments made. There’s a lot of
concern. Certainly for the neighbor to the north, excuse me, to the south, the most affected
neighbor, and all the other things this is going to meet. Any time we have a project, and I
recognize, Mr. O’Connor, you made a very good point, very good pitch for these are all very
small things, but, nevertheless, a project that requires this, this, this, and this relief certainly gets
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
my attention. Because it says we’re really trying to squeeze something in here, and I’m just
concerned, and I would like to see some accommodation, as a number of people have, a word
that they’ve used. Is that a correct assessment that I’m making?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Lew, I think using the blue house as an example, you’ve sort of
crated a one design for the neighborhood, you know, and everything else is going to have to
somewhat emulate that design to a degree, you know, with the pitch of the roof and things like
that, as was suggested, and I don’t think that’s a major, you know, changeover from your plans.
MR. O'CONNOR-The roof that we, on the back part of it, is twelve by seven, twelve on seven.
It’s only the front portion which is over the living room that is the 12 by 12, 12 on 12. I didn’t
know if you knew. The whole pitch, that roof pitch on the back portion is probably less than
the neighbor’s pitch. Mr. Chairman, I think we’ve listened to everybody on the Board. You’ve
got other applications that are pending. Can I ask that you go on to the rest of your agenda, and
I’ll come back to you in a minute?
MR. STONE-Certainly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Or after I talk to my client, and if we can fit in after the next one, we will. I
don’t know how many things you’ve got left.
MR. STONE-We’ve got three, four if we go with Ozbay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I reserve a spot after the next one?
MR. STONE-You’ll have to talk to Mr. Lapper. Well, you certainly may. We’ll adjourn this
until later this evening at the moment.
MR. O'CONNOR-May I do that? Thank you.
MR. STONE-All right. Next on the agenda.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2003 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & JANE HOPPER ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
5’ X 34’ DECK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-01, AV 32-03, SP 21-
99, SP 27-02, SUP 2-02, AV 63-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO.
240.6-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2003, David & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: July 16, 2003
“Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 5’ x 34’ deck on the north side of the dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 2.6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A
Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-090: pending AV 63-2003 application, two-car garage.
BP 2002-1040: 12/30/02, 2157 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
AV 62-2001: denied 10/17/01, height relief for single-family dwelling.
BP 2001-638: 08/28/01, demolition of seasonal residence.
BP 2001-640: 08/24/01, septic alteration.
Various AV’s, SP’s, BP’s and SUP for the boathouse, docks, and Class A marina.
Staff comments:
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood or no
detriment to nearby properties will occur, as only 28 sq. ft. of the 163 sq. ft. deck will encroach
on the 20-foot side setback?
2) Even though the appearance would be less aesthetically pleasing, might constructing the
deck up to the 20-foot setback line be considered a feasible alternative?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 2.6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback
requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (13%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) The applicant claims the dwelling was located closer to the north property line due to the
snowmelt drainage ditch, which runs along the south side of the dwelling. Therefore, might
some of the difficulty be attributed to the existing site conditions?”
MR. MC NULTY-Now we also have an indication on this application that it was referred to
Warren County, and I’m not finding a Warren County form in this file, either.
MRS. HOPPER-It was no impact.
MR. STONE-No impact. I wouldn’t think you would be. Okay. Mrs. Hopper, do you want to
talk to us? Introduce yourself.
MRS. HOPPER-I’m Jane Hopper. I think you all know who I am.
MR. HAYES-Happy to be back, I’m sure.
MRS. HOPPER-Delighted. When we built the house, we slide her over as far as we possibly
could, and pushed her back as far as we could. There is a, as I said, there’s a winter runoff, or
spring runoff stream that runs alongside the south part of our house. Even though I didn’t get
my height variance, gentlemen, as you can see, I left as many trees on that property as I possibly
could. That was my initial thing is to blend this house right in to the mountainside, and I left
just about every, in fact I did leave every single mature tree on the south side of that house, with
the creek, with the deck, Mr. Stone was at the house, came up on the deck, and you’re actually
sitting in the treetops when you’re on the south side of my deck. On the north side of the deck,
we didn’t take down one tree on that side. On the back of the house we had to remove one, but
on the front part we did not. The deck that I’m asking for is a walkway between the front and
the little steps that go off to the side. I put a powder room in my Great Room on the north side
of the house so that people using the deck, or people in the back of the house, could just walk
up these stairs, walk in the French door, and go to the bathroom, or use it, not have to walk
through the entire house. Without this little 28 foot variance, or it’s not even 28 feet. My
property widens as it goes back towards Hanneford Road. When we went and did our
measurements to put this little corner on, we found that we were like two and a half feet over
our setback, and I got together with the surveyor to see, because I originally asked for five by
thirty-four, and what I did was I mimicked the south side, which I kind of kitty cornered the
deck. I didn’t go straight out like a square. We kitty cornered it. I did this to the same side of
the north deck now, and instead of asking for a five foot walkway, I’m only asking for a four
foot walkway. All I want is a safe walkway between the front deck and the side of the house,
and this picture I took today, we’re doing landscaping, now that the house is finished, and I
would present to the Board what the house looks like now, that we’ve, and you’ll notice I’ve
kept all the natural growth on my side of my hill, and this is costing me a great deal of money to
keep this natural look, and I’m going to be doing the same down, and I’ve already bought the
plantings to go underneath the deck part, and if the Board wants to just look at this, it’ll give
you an exact idea of what the house now looks like.
MR. STONE-Are you done?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. For the record, as part of my normal site visit, I happened to get to the
property when Mrs. Hopper was leaving, and she invited me in to look at the house. This is not
something that we normally do, nor do we look to see the applicant on site, one way or the
other, but she was very kind to show me, very proud of her new house, and so I took advantage
of that invitation, but I did not use the bathroom in question. Just a question that comes to
mind, Mrs. Hopper. Let me just open the subject, because it’s, you just recently received a
Special Use Permit for your docks, for a marina?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Is this bathroom going to be part of the requirements to have a marina permit?
MRS. HOPPER-There’s actually two bathrooms, yes, sir, one in the main house, which is the
one that is right off this deck, which they can walk right up the front, up the stairs, into that one,
or there’s also an option to use the little cottage that I also have. There’s actually two bathrooms
on our property that are made available to that, two of them.
MR. STONE-Okay, and this is going to be available, whatever the requirement is?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. If I’m not at the house, the people that rent our docks, they’ve been renting
them for years, they actually have a key to the side door. They can use that bathroom.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions anybody wants to raise? Let me open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NELSON HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-My name is Nelson Harris, and I live on the north side of the Hoppers, and I’m
not opposed to a walkway so they can have access to that bathroom, but I think five foot is way
more than necessary.
MR. STONE-Well, she said four. She’s changed it. Isn’t that right, Mrs. Hopper? Did you say it
was going to be four foot wide?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s what I heard her say.
MR. HARRIS-Well, if they made it three foot wide they wouldn’t even need a variance.
MR. HAYES-I wonder if that’s Code, though, now.
MR. STONE-That’s probably a minimum.
MR. HAYES-I think it’s got to be a certain width now, like that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s probably got to be bigger than a door.
MR. HAYES-Or bigger than a wheelchair.
MR. STONE-But it is going to be four. The survey that was presented with the application does
say five, and that’s on the basis of, that’s the relief that was addressed, but Mrs. Hopper is
saying it needs 1.6 feet of relief. The question came up, what is the minimum width a walkway
can be.
MR. HAYES-In this circumstance.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. FRANK-By New York State Building Code?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-I don’t know that answer.
MR. STONE-Okay. By the Town of Queensbury.
MR. FRANK-That would be New York State Building Code. I could look into that for you, but I
don’t know.
MR. STONE-Well, Mrs. Hopper is saying four.
MR. HAYES-Four feet, I would bet that that’s wide enough to be within.
MR. STONE-I would think so, yes.
MR. HARRIS-That’s plenty wide. I think three foot is enough.
MR. STONE-Well, we don’t know what the Code is.
MR. HARRIS-I’m not opposed to three foot, but I am to four.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-There’s no zoning requirement for minimum or maximum width of a walkway,
and that’s New York State Building Code.
MR. STONE-Right. No, I agree. I mean, we just don’t know what it is, but you don’t like the
fact that, you have a problem with four feet, too.
MR. HARRIS-Well, you’re getting more than a walkway now. Now it can become other things.
Other than a walkway.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-I’m not opposed to a walkway to get back to their bathroom. I mean, they should
have thought of that in the beginning, but that’s beside the point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to guess if it’s a marina, Lew, it’s got to meet handicap
standards. So it’s probably got to be well over three feet for that.
MR. STONE-I suspect so.
MR. HAYES-What is the handicapped standard, Bruce, for like a?
MR. HARRIS-How would you ever get handicapped up that hill to go to the bathroom to start
with?
MR. HAYES-It might not have anything to do with practicality.
MR. FRANK-That’s New York State Building Code again, by the way. Handicapped
requirements are New York State Building Code, and I’m not familiar with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right, but you’re saying, even the four foot wide.
MR. HARRIS-The three foot is maximum that I would.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Okay, and three foot, as you correctly point out, wouldn’t require a variance.
MR. HARRIS-I don’t believe it would.
MR. HAYES-Yes, it requires six inches.
MR. STONE-Six inches, point six feet.
MR. HARRIS-Well, no, I wouldn’t object to that.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay.
MR. HARRIS-But the only thing I’m saying, when you get to five feet, and things, now it’s more
than a walkway. It’s becoming a, not a deck maybe, but it’s approaching that. A walkway, fine.
I have no objection to a walkway, but they have a deck in front, and a deck on the south side,
and I just don’t think they need any more deck. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I have a business in North Queensbury, and I’m a
resident of the Town of Lake George. I would first like confirmation that I do have standing to
appear here tonight and to speak on this application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, you always have standing before this Board.
MR. SALVADOR-Not always. Not always.
MR. STONE-Usually. You have standing as I say so, and if I don’t say so, you don’t have
standing.
MR. SALVADOR-You were absent when I was denied standing. Seriously, this application is
more than what it appears to be. What you have here is a mixed use on this property. You
have a residential use and you have a commercial use. The commercial use being that of a Class
A Marina. They’ve just obtained their permit from the Lake George Park Commission as a
result of having a Special Use Permit granted by the Planning Board. The crux of being able to
obtain a Class A Marina permit was to be able to demonstrate that they could furnish the
following. These are the general conditions on the Class A Marina permit. I read you
Paragraph 17. Environmental protection marina operations. Restrooms, including toilet
facilities, for the use by customers, shall be available at all times from May 1 to October 31 of
stst
each year. Where I’m going with this is the wastewater system on that property has been
approved and installed based on two bedrooms. Two bedrooms is the size. The discharge is
approved to 220 gallons per day, average discharge per day. That’s in the application for the
wastewater system. That’s what’s been approved. Mrs. Hopper, I think, certified to the Lake
George Park Commission that she had three bedrooms. Since you inspected the home, Mr.
Stone, maybe you could verify.
MR. STONE-Informally, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-You didn’t get to the bedrooms?
MR. STONE-Yes, I got to all of them. I believe there were three rooms that could be considered
bedrooms by certain definitions, I believe. I really didn’t count them. I don’t know, our
definition doesn’t require covers, does it, like Lake George does.
MR. SALVADOR-That definition is included in the size of the wastewater system.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. SALVADOR-You’re not permitted to have anymore bedrooms than the wastewater system
will support, but on top of the, whatever number of bedrooms, you have the incidence of use
from the marina. Now that’s a, restrooms including toilet facilities, for a use by customers shall
be available at all times, 24 hours a day, May 1 to October 31. The wastewater system on this
stst
site is an Elgin system. That’s what’s been approved, and this was the presentation made to the
Park Commission. I’ll go on with the Park Commission permit says that permitted activities are
limited to those listed on this page. Any change which alters or expands the number or types of
services or recreational activities will require a modification of the permit. This is required to be
posted at the marina. This facility is required to maintain restrooms to be available at all times
for all marina customers between May 1 and October 31. The other thing that has been
stst
overlooked in the description of this facility is that it is located in a Critical Environmental Area,
and nowhere, in any of the paperwork, produced, presented to this Town, is recognition that
this is a Critical Environmental Area and we’re supposed to take special precautions. In fact,
we could determine that it’s a Type I Action.
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, I don’t want to cut you off, but I will. I will insist that Staff make the
minutes of this meeting available to both the Town Board, the Board of Health, and the
Planning Board, and the Park Commission, if necessary, so that your comments, which are good
comments, they’ll be aware of them, but it is not in our jurisdiction, I wish it were, but it’s not in
our jurisdiction, to get involved in this thing. The bathroom exists. As far as we’re concerned,
it’s a legal bathroom.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m getting to that point, okay.
MR. STONE-Okay, but all Mrs. Hopper wants is a deck so that her guests can get to it.
MR. SALVADOR-All right. Let me cut to the chase, then. In 1989, we had to go to site plan
review for the installation of a deck, and the purpose of that deck was to access bathrooms. We
had to change the configuration of the bathrooms at our marina so that we could have this 24
hour service, necessitated reorganizing, had to tear the bathrooms apart, put exterior doors in,
and key them for our customers. It involved the construction of a deck. The deck is there today.
You can see it. My application was tabled until I went to the Glens Falls Independent Living
Center and got a determination from them as to whether or not these bathrooms had to be
handicap accessed, okay, because I’m a commercial facility. Commercial. And I received this
letter back. I am writing in regards to the Dunham’s Bay Lodge project. My concern would be
access for the handicapped to the bathrooms proposed. I understand, according to the Lake
George Park Commission, these premises must be available 24 hours a day to the public. As far
as I can determine, there has been no mention of access for the disabled. The handicapped
cannot be excluded from the use of the proposed bathrooms. A ramp is needed in this instance
to make these bathrooms accessible, and we had to do that. This deck that’s being put in, and
the access to this deck, any handicapped people, for whatever reason, including their
employees, not just their customers, it includes your employees, must have barrier free access.
To that end, in 1989, the architectural and transportation barriers compliance board
promulgated these regulations. When the requirements for ADA came out early on, they
addressed themselves to accommodations facilities, and after they got the accommodations
facilities under cover, then they promulgated regulations to address recreational facilities, and
they talk about such things as, I won’t read the whole thing to you, but boating facilities, the
term “boat slip” is defined as the area where a boat is tied to a dock or a pier for purposes of
embarking and disembarking. They talk about, this Section applies to each boating facility
provided within a site, and requires compliance with the applicable provisions of 15.2.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Salvador, we’re getting a little off base. I would ask you, and I will
make a formal request that the minutes of this meeting and anything that you would like to
append to them is distributed to the Board of Health and the Town Board. I mean, that’s the
best I can do.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. SALVADOR-The wastewater permit that was issued by this Town, I’m looking for it, the
building permit issued by this Town, is for an Elgin system, and I have here the Elgin In-drain
design installation manual. The Elgin system is predicated, it’s use is predicated on certain
parameters. There are three significant parameters. One is the design flow is 110 gallons per
day per bedroom, depending on the type of water fixtures installed in the residence to be
served, to the toilets.
MR. STONE-We are faced, this Board, with existing toilets, and I’m not going to go on any
further, because it’s valuable information, but you’re speaking to the wrong people.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, in any case, they have to be barrier free.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that.
MR. SALVADOR-As a commercial operation, they have to be barrier free.
MR. STONE-And unfortunately, there are many things with which I agree with you on this
subject, personally, but we’re taking the Board’s time, and I don’t think we should be going on
this way.
MR. SALVADOR-The Elgin system.
MR. STONE-You’re not listening. You keep going.
MR. SALVADOR-I do.
MR. STONE-Well, then I will pull the five minute rule and I will say we’ve got to go on. We’ve
got other things to do. I mean, you’ve made your point, as far as I’m concerned, and I think
we’ve all heard it, and as I say, the minutes will be, I will direct the minutes, by this statement,
that the minutes be distributed, with comment, to the Town Board and the Board of Health.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I would request that you deny this application based on the fact that it
is a commercial use, in a residential zone. It represents an expansion of a Class A Marina, and
serious consideration hasn’t been given to the fact that this is in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Mrs. Hopper, do you have anything you want to say, from what you’ve heard both
from your neighbor and from Mr. Salvador, any comments?
MRS. HOPPER-My house plan was built by a reputable builder here in the Town of Lake
George, Kevin Maschewski. It’s on record, see how many bedrooms, how many bathrooms I
have. I have no problem with you sending these minutes to anybody. The Park Commission
walked, saw the bathrooms, had no problem with them. My system, septic system was put in
per Code by a reputable septic man. I have no problem.
MR. STONE-Code for what?
MRS. HOPPER-For exactly what it’s for, my home and the cottage, and I needed to provide a
bathroom for the marina, and I did. I’m asking for a four foot walkway, not an extension of my
deck, not to put furniture on it. Not to play volleyball on it. I want to walk from the front deck
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
to the French door to go to the bathroom, period. That’s all I want to do. I don’t want to do
anything other than use it as a walkway. I thought four foot was an adequate walkway. I have
a four and a half month old grandson that I have in the stroller a lot of the time. It makes it a lot
easier for me to be able to stroll him around the deck. Three foot wide is not going to get me a
stroller, as easily as four foot will get Jake and I around my deck. That’s another reason, but
that’s all I have to say on the little walkway.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions anybody has? Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with
Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, Mr. Salvador has brought up certainly some
interesting points, and anybody who’s had experience with the ADA and those type of issues
knows that that can sweep into a lot of areas. There’s simply no arguing that fact, but I’ll have
to agree with the Chairman in the sense that we’ve got a test, an Area Variance test, that strictly
applies to this particular circumstance, and then the applicant is asking for 2.6 feet of relief.
MR. STONE-1.6, she’s actually saying.
MR. HAYES-Yes, you offered to shrink it.
MR. STONE-You offered four feet.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-All right. So that would make it 1.6 feet of relief, which, on a 20 foot setback, is
really, I guess if you take everything off, these other issues off to the side is minimal, I think, in
this particular case. I don’t see there being any real negative impact on the neighborhood or
community for this walkway. The other issues are other issues. So I guess, sticking strictly to
what we’re charged with, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I think there’s
been reasons given why this deck is needed or wanted, and I guess I would support the
application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can basically echo what Jaime said. Looking at the narrow thing that
I think we’re supposed to be looking at tonight, the question of the deck, I think it’s a minimal
request, especially for four feet. There seems to be definite benefit to the applicant, and I don’t
see any real detriment to the neighborhood. So for that part I’d be in favor, and I am assuming
that Staff is going to pass the word on about these other factors which I think are important,
potential commercial use of this property, and the question of whether or not the septic system
was designed for this kind of use, but that’s beyond us tonight.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, agree, with what Jaime and Chuck have said,
and I think that all the comments brought up might indicate connection with commercial use
and limitations of the septic and so on may all be very, very true, but I do think that what the
applicant’s requesting for the use as stipulated by the applicant may be not limited to that use,
but the need for family use, to me, seems to be something reasonable, and on just the basis of
that, that it meets the needs, a family use need, I would tend to go along with the application as
submitted, and modified by the 2.6 relief to 1.6 feet of relief. Thank you.
MR. STONE-All right. Jim?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement with what everybody else has said so far,
and I would also point out that it’s only that very front part of the deck that’s intruding into
that, needing that relief. It’s not the whole side of it. So I have no problem with it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with everybody else regarding this specific variance
request.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I certainly agree on the very narrow. Yes, sir.
MR. HARRIS-The only thing I say, can you put in there that it’s to be used strictly for a
walkway and not for any other purpose.
MR. STONE-Mrs. Hopper, are you willing to stipulate that?
MRS. HOPPER-I have absolutely no problem with that at all.
MR. HARRIS-Okay. Then I don’t have a problem.
MR. STONE-Good. Thank you, sir. I mean, I certainly agree with the rest of the Board. Mr.
Salvador is to be congratulated for his zealousness on this issue because I certainly, I’m very
sympathetic to what he’s saying. I’m not against marinas, but there are rules and regulations.
In this particular case, I’ll get on a soap box and say I think the Planning Board was wrong, but
I’m not on the Planning Board. I’m on the Zoning Board, and unfortunately it’s not in our
purview. In this particular case, this deck, for the purposes stated by Mrs. Hopper, it is minimal
relief for this particular project. Again, I thank Mr. Salvador for bringing it to our attention, and
I will write a note, when the minutes are published, making sure that the Town Board, the
Board of Health, and the Park Commission and anybody else I can think of is made aware of the
statements that have been made tonight. Having said that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2003 DAVID & JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
35 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes construction of a four foot by thirty-four foot deck
on the north side of the dwelling. They’re requesting 1.6 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum
side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030, and again, that would just be
on part of that deck, not the whole thing. We would put the stipulation in that this deck not be
used for sitting or any other use other than accessing that bathroom on the north side there,
and, other than that, I guess that’s it.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MRS. HOPPER-Can I ask the Board one question?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MRS. HOPPER-Right now, Mr. Harris, I have my dining room table and chairs sitting in the
corner. Can I keep it in that corner?
MR. HARRIS-In what corner?
MRS. HOPPER-Right now, as you look at the front of our house, my dining room table with my
umbrella sits next to your patio. It sits right there in the corner. Is it acceptable to just leave that
in the corner?
MR. STONE-You mean on the existing deck?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MRS. HOPPER-On the existing deck. Is that acceptable? I don’t want any problems. All right.
That sits there now. Is it all right to leave it in the corner.
MR. STONE-But the area that you are going to construct, you’re stipulating.
MRS. HOPPER-It’s nothing but a walkway.
MR. STONE-That no furniture will be put on it.
MRS. HOPPER-That side will be nothing but a walkway going from the bathroom to the front
deck.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you. I just don’t want any problems.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2003 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & JANE HOPPER ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
24’ X 26’ DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-01, AV 32-03, SP 21-99, SP
27-02, SUP 2-02, AV 62-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 240.6-
1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRE SECTION: 179-4-030
JANE HOPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2003, David & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: July 16, 2003
“Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 24’ x 26’ detached two-car garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15
feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 10 feet of relief from the
20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030 Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-090: pending this application, two-car garage.
BP 2002-1040: 12/30/02, 2157 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
AV 62-2001: denied 10/17/01, height relief for single-family dwelling.
BP 2001-638: 08/28/01, demolition of seasonal residence.
BP 2001-640: 08/24/01, septic alteration.
Various AV’s, SP’s, BP’s and SUP for the boathouse, docks, and Class A marina.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood or no
detriment to nearby properties will occur being the proposed garage will occupy the same
location of the previous garage, but with a greater side setback?
2) The survey provided reveals sufficient room is available in which to locate the garage
compliantly. Therefore, might locating the garage compliantly be considered a feasible
alternative?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 15 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback
requirement be interpreted as moderate (50%), and might 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot
minimum side setback requirement be interpreted as moderate (50%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the applicant’s desire to locate the garage as
proposed in order to utilize the existing driveway, which the applicant claims will allow for on
site direction changes and not having to back out onto Hanneford Road.”
MR. MC NULTY-And again, I have an indication that this was referred to Warren County, and I
have nothing in any of the files to indicate what they did.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you continue, also, this is a Type II Action. I just noticed
that, and so was the last application.
MR. STONE-Thank you. The next time we’ll have those in Staff notes. So that we don’t goof.
MR. FRANK-We’ll try to do the best we can. It was advertised as a Type II. So Staff notes
failed to put that on there for some reason.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mrs. Hopper, anything you wish to add?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, sir. This was a variance I shouldn’t have had to go for, because the garage
should never have been taken down. That garage, if you look on my application and my
demolition permit, is was for the residence only. The garage was not to be removed. The
demolition, we were in Florida. The demolition company removed the garage without my
permission, without my consent. I have a letter stating, from Mr. Jackson, who is the President
of Jackson Demolition, who is a very reputable demolition company, they’re the ones that just
took down Colonial Manor, which is putting up the new Lake George Forum. They’re renown.
It’s not a fly by night operation. It was an accident. It should not have come down. That being
said, now I’m faced with the problem of where do I put the garage. When I got back from
Florida, when I finally figured out where the garage was supposed to go with the new setbacks,
I was horrified. It now would sit in the middle of my lawn, basically. I left all the trees, minus
one, as they stood when this property was starting, when the house went up. I brought pictures
of what the old house looked like, where the garage was, and the condition of the garage, that
you will see it was not by any means a tear down. It could have been re-sided, new door put on
it and made perfectly good, working garage that I could have used. So I had no intentions of
taking this garage down. This old garage was three feet, two inches from Mr. Harris’ border. I
have asked for a 10 foot setback, which is an improvement on what the old garage was, and it
was exactly 15 feet from Hanneford Road. Where the old garage was is exactly where I’m
asking for the new one. If you give me my variance for the garage, there is a little bit of a gap.
There always has been, where you can see there’s a gap there. There were never any trees in
that area. There were always, well, there was a scrub tree there, granted, that was a scrub tree.
It wasn’t one of these pretty trees. I would plant trees all along there to give even more of a
blend in. It would be done in the same brown cedar siding that the house would be done in. I
don’t think it would have any effect on the neighborhood. I went out today and I took pictures
of all of Hanneford Road, to show you gentlemen exactly where the outbuildings and the
garages are located. There is not one garage that I could find that is not located along
Hanneford Road. In other words, there’s none that have a house and then the garage sitting
somewhere in the middle of the property. That would look out of character with this particular
road, and I tried to do it as best I could, so that you could get a feel. This is the old house. This
is where the garage is, right here. So you can see the proximity. Here’s what the garage looked
like. I kept my classic car in that garage. So obviously it was a garage you could use. If you
enter Hanneford Road, you would be coming, turning on to Hanneford, and then it would
proceed, just like you’re going down the road this way. This is my neighbor’s, Mr. Hansen’s,
garage, and building right here. Mine would be here, and then you would go further down.
This is Mr. Harris’ garage on the other side, which sits next to my cottage, and Mr. Harris’
garage. That’s my little cottage with my Jeep parked there, and again, this is parking, if you’re
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
coming back up Hanneford Road, this is the other side you would see. So you can see all the
garages line up right along the road. Mine would not be out of character.
MR. STONE-Question, Mrs. Hopper, just out of curiosity, are you seeking some satisfaction
from the demolition company?
MRS. HOPPER-I haven’t, I’ve never sued anybody in my life, Mr. Stone, and I don’t intend to
start now. This was not something that Mr. Jackson did deliberately. I understand, through my
conversations with Mr. Jackson, that his son was operating the machinery, okay, and what am I
going to do?
MR. URRICO-Were there any cars in the garage when I was removed?
MRS. HOPPER-No, thank God. No. I have a ’63 Ford Galaxy Convertible. Thank you, Lord, it
was not in the garage. A few of my lawn equipment was in that garage, but, that being said.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m sure Mr. Lapper, sitting behind there, would be glad to know. He’s
shaking his head. He doesn’t need the business.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s just not something I would even entertain. I’ve walked my property. I
cannot put it on the side where the creek is. That would put it, if you look at the picture, right
in the middle of where the drive would be now, which would be right practically in front of the
house. If I try to slide her back, let’s say I take her from Hanneford Road and I push her back,
then I would have to take down two of the trees, which I so carefully tried to save, so that it
doesn’t look like one of these clear cut places. I’ve got trees sporadically throughout the back of
the house. I’ve got two propane tanks there. I’ve got the, on the north side. I’ve got two trees
on the north side. I’ve got the storage tank for the septic system there, and per your question,
Mr. Stone, I called Dave Bolster and asked him the question you asked me, where do they
measure it from, the middle of Hanneford Road, or from the side of the road.
MR. STONE-Well, it should be from your property line.
MRS. HOPPER-You betcha. It’s that big, thick blue line.
MR. STONE-Right.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s where they measure it from.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what he’s got there. Okay. Anything else?
MRS. HOPPER-I don’t believe so. I think that covers it.
MR. STONE-Any questions?
MR. URRICO-What about moving it further away from your neighbor’s property line?
MRS. HOPPER-If I do that, sir, the first thing is I’m going to have to take down some of my
trees, which I don’t want to do. I don’t want to take them down. I would like to leave that as
it’s been, that nice little clump of trees, and I would like to add more trees. I’m going to have to
change the way I pull in and out of Hanneford Road. When the water comes down off of
Hanneford Road, there’s a storm drain on the other side of Hanneford Road which is almost
directly in front of Mr. Beal’s house. It comes down Hanneford Road. It goes underneath the
road. It comes between Mr. Hansen’s property and mine, and then if, for whatever reason, that
stormwater drain pipe which now has got problems which I’m sure the Town of Queensbury’s
going to have to look at it, the State or whoever does this, that water comes pouring down my
driveway. If my garage is sitting anywhere in that area, and that thing overflows, it’s going to
go and flood my garage. As it is, Dave and I are going to a great deal of expense, with the
landscaper that we have hired, not only to do the whole front hill, but at my expense we are
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
going to line that whole creek going all the way down to Pilot Knob Road to try to contain this
stormwater, and as next spring, when we’re on the property, we might have to do even more
stormwater management as it comes down Hanneford Road, I don’t know, but I know what I
saw this spring, when they were building our house, and that water was halfway in the middle
of my front yard or back yard or whatever that’s classified, and that’s another concern I have,
never mind that the garage would sit right there, almost in front of the house, and when you go
on the second story, I have a big eclipse window with three that go across. I would be looking
right at the roof of this garage, and as I said, when I put this, built this house, designed this
house, I didn’t put a detached garage on it. I didn’t think I’d need one. I had a garage, “had”
being the operative word.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NELSON HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-Number One, is that if the setbacks were adhered to, we would, we could
continue, if you could put it back in the corner, well, if you moved it out 20 feet, did you have
that other shot? The one you had in the beginning. They have it now 10 foot off the line.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HARRIS-You had a picture in the beginning.
MR. STONE-Yes, he’ll get it.
MR. HARRIS-Okay. From that property line, up near that white truck, where that fence is to
that first tree is about 31 foot. Now the tree line you see there, from that tree to the, not a
mailbox, where the paper box is 36 foot, then the other 31 foot is from there over to the property
line that they now use for a driveway. So if they moved it out 20 feet, and then the garage is 26
feet, that leaves 54 foot in front to come in the driveway, they have 33 foot, but they have a total
of 46 foot from the property line over to the front of the garage, which should be enough to
come in and make a turn without any problem, and the farther back you push it north, the more
is going to show in the road. If it would 30 foot off the line, it would all be behind that row of
trees. So I don’t agree with some of this. There’s no need to remove any trees by putting it 20
foot off the line, and they would still have 54 foot, the driveway is 33 foot, to come in and make
a turn and get in their garage, and if they have to they could back out and back down and drive
out, if they, but they wouldn’t have to remove any trees the way it is right now.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question, sir. Don’t take this prejudicial one way or the other. This is
going to be better than what you had before, though.
MR. HARRIS-Yes. That thing was, yes, anything was better than that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-But this is going to be a two car garage, 16 foot high, 10 foot off of my line.
MR. STONE-Okay. No, I understand your concern. That’s all right. I’m not passing judgment
on your concerns or what Mrs. Hopper, at this point in time. I will, but I’m not now.
MR. HARRIS-Yes. I don’t see how they possibly could have saved it, but, no that’s all I’m
saying is I don’t agree with all of these statements that they’d have to remove any trees and that
they couldn’t use the same driveway and so forth.
MR. STONE-Okay.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. HARRIS-Now the reason I believe is because it’s going to wind up right in front of their lot.
That’s their back yard. That’s not their front yard.
MR. HAYES-No, on the Code
MR. HARRIS-Well, it’s their garage. It’s not mine. I don’t want it, you know, 20 foot is
reasonable as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t see why they still couldn’t use the existing
driveway and not cut down any trees and so forth.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-So, I’m opposed to it, and as far as the setback from the road, I have no comments
on that at all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak on this subject? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Mrs. Hopper, I think you’ve made your position fairly clear. If you want to rebut
what Mr. Harris said, you may, but I think you’ve addressed, obviously you don’t agree with
him and you think it’s better.
MRS. HOPPER-I just think if the garage is put where the setbacks allow it to be, it’s going to
look awkward. It’s going to change how I enter and access my property, and there are stones. I
think Mr. Harris probably also is referring to the stones that are in our driveway, and it’s not a
driveway. That was a large load of stone that was dropped when they were building the house.
They had more stone than they knew what to do with. We had an awful lot of rain, and the
water kept coming down and coming down. So they put that there, and that’s what I said to
you gentlemen, I’m going to have to address stormwater issues on this property. It’s going to
have to be addressed one way or the other, and I really have concerns if I have to put a building
in the middle of that lot right now.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, Chuck, let’s talk about it. We’ll start with you.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The request seems reasonable to me. It certainly is an improvement
over what was there, and I’ll agree with the applicant. When you go down Hanneford Road,
the norm seems to be a garage very close to the road in the corner of the lot, for almost every lot
down through there, and I think it’s somewhat of a unique situation. So I think the request is
reasonable. She’s not asking to put the garage right on the lot line or even where the old garage
was. It’s at least 10 feet off the lot line. It’s back from the road a reasonable amount, and I’ll
agree, I think in general, if it were put in a compliant position, I think it would be a detriment to
the neighborhood, just simply from the appearance. So I think that the request is certainly a
benefit to the applicant because she can put it where she wants, but I think it’s also a benefit to
the neighborhood in general. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel, too, that the matter of the garage being the back, you know,
it’s not like it was being put out in front looking over the lake where, you know, some
neighbor’s view of the lake is going to be impaired and so on. We hear a lot of that kind of
thing. Looking back into the woods, I feel it’s a little bit different story. As the pictures show,
and any of us that have been up there can readily attest to, there are many structures, garages,
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
what have you, that are right on top of the road, as you drive down through there, that have
been there a long time, and I think that this garage where it’s going to be put is a little further
away from the neighbor’s line than the other one, although I do agree it’s a larger structure,
again, it is looking out towards the back where I don’t think that the impact on anyone who just
doesn’t like something close to their line is the same as it would be anywhere else on the lot,
and I agree with what Chuck said that we all might think that putting it pretty close to the
center of the lot, in front of the house, wouldn’t look right. So I don’t think there’s any
detriment to the community or neighborhood, going where it’s proposed, and I would be in
favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree with my two fellow Board members. I think it’s an
improvement over the original one that was there. You’ve increased the setback, and I
wouldn’t want to be up the creek without a garage.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I would also be in favor of it for the same reasons given by my fellow Board
members.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the things that the Board has said. I think, at the end of the
day, when I look at this project in its entirety, it’s been a long process.
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you. I hope you gentlemen approve of it and like the looks of it.
MR. HAYES-That the house and the garage, even where it’s proposed to go, ultimately appears
to me to be a good project, a compliment to the neighborhood, I would say, in the end, as
difficult as the process may be. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-I am, too, but I am troubled, and you’re going to be surprised when I say this, I’m
troubled by your architect or your surveyor who thinks the Town of Queensbury is in the
County of Washington.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, talk to Dave Bolster about that.
MR. STONE-I’m saying, and he ought to be told about this. He submitted a fraudulent
document, Mr. Frank.
MR. URRICO-It used to be the County of Washington.
MR. STONE-But it’s not. I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2003 DAVID & JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
35 Hanneford Road. Applicant proposes construction of a 24 by 26 detached two-car garage.
Relief required, the applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement and 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-
1A zone, 179-4-030. The reasoning for the motion is that there’s no negative impact to the near
neighborhood or certainly for the community in that regard, in connection with the fact that the
garage is going on approximately the same, certainly in the same general area of the property as
the previous garage. In connection with feasible alternatives, to put the garage in a compliant
location would probably look a little different from a lot of the other properties around there, in
terms of the relationship between the garage and the property lines portion, you know, and the
aesthetics. So it would actually create, as one of our Board members I think said, a difference by
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
putting it in the middle, and certainly I think would be an unattractive obstruction to the view.
A very nice job that you’ve done on the back, or front, however you want to look at it, that
house looking at it from the Hanneford side. I don’t think that the relief requested is
substantial. It’s moderate only, and it’s a little further from the, considerably further from the
neighbor’s line than the original garage, and again, the matter of the impact on the neighbor
who is not in favor of this is, I think, going to be very moderate because it is just a bit of a
replacement from what was there before, but I think the benefit to the applicant far outweighs
any detriment to the neighborhood or the community, and I would be in favor of the
application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2003 JIM & NANCY WHITE (CONT’D)
MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, you’re on. Has the jury reached a verdict?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve worked at it.
MR. STONE-You’ve worked at it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me try to be concise. We listened to the Board. We listened to the
neighbors. I think a good part of their concern was the effect of the height of the back portion of
the addition. We can live with six foot side walls, instead of eight foot side walls, as we
proposed, which would reduce the height at the peak to 25 foot 8 inches, as opposed to the 27
foot 8 inches, and basically it’ll make the roof shallower, as it is at the edge, by doing that. We
would keep the same pitch on the roof that we had, 12/7. We would make the eaves the
minimum that we can and have adequate ventilation. We think that we can do it within a foot.
We might be able to do it less than a foot. This house is built tighter. It’s built with more
insulation and everything else than the old houses, and I think you need to have a good vent
strip on it. So whatever will accommodate the ventilation of that upper part is what we will do,
as far as the eaves of it, and in fact, if we can ventilate it other than off the eaves strip itself, and
maybe make the eaves piece narrower, we’ll do that.
MR. HAYES-So you’re saying a foot or less, then.
MR. O'CONNOR-A foot or less, yes.
MR. HAYES-That’s worst case scenario?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We are willing to give up our request for the expansion of the footprint
on the south side of the structure, which was two foot by twenty-eight feet. When we did these
plans initially, two years ago, we showed a cantilever on the second floor, so that we would get
a width on the second floor of the 18 feet. What we tried recently was to get the 18 feet on the
first floor as well. They’re going to live with it. Okay. It’s going to make, as I said, it’s going to
make the bedroom on the first floor eight foot by eight and a half. It’s going to make their
bathroom three and a half feet wide, and the hallway 2.6, but that’s an accommodation to try to
make this as compliant as we can make it.
MR. STONE-So you’re coming out the two feet on the second floor.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that we had shown on the plans before.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-But with the combination of making the roof shell or we think that we, and
making the bottom look a little bit wider, we think that we’ve accomplished some of what was
requested of us.
MR. HAYES-So that’s going to change the floor area calculations a little bit, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’re just barely over the standard now. We’re over by five percent.
We’re at 2.231, the .22. We’ve come down from .239, .239 is what we had going in this evening.
We’ve come down to .231, and the standard is .22.
MR. HAYES-So it’s one.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s 1.1 times about roughly four and a half. That’s where the eight percent
comes from. So this would be a little over five percent.
MR. JARRETT-Five percent over the standard.
MR. STONE-Over the allowed. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And then we also have come back on the variance request for the expansion
of the nonconforming structure. I was, we were at 69 feet before. We are now at 13 feet over
and above that figure.
MR. JARRETT-Over the 50% expansion.
MR. O'CONNOR-Over the 50% expansion.
MR. JARRETT-We’re at 51.3 in percentage.
MR. STONE-Is everybody following this? Because I don’t want.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re seven twelve pitch the whole length or just the back half?
MR. O'CONNOR-Just the back half.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re still 12/12 on the front.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Which is a lower roof, though, quite a bit lower.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because of the six foot knee wall.
MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing so that we can hear from the neighbors, who are
still here. They were involved in your discussion, to some extent?
MR. O'CONNOR-To some extent.
MR. STONE-Okay. I understand to some. You didn’t bring them in to talk about everything. I
know.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-No. They made requests of us. We thought about them. We tried to respond
where we thought we could reasonably live with it. There’s probably some.
MR. STONE-Bruce, have you gotten this down?
MR. FRANK-I think I got everything, but I wasn’t sure about the first, what was the first
concession offered?
MR. JARRETT-Dropping the whole roof.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And six foot knee wall.
MR. FRANK-So 45 feet 8 inches, that was your first?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Then I have it all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak again? Come
up, Mr. Sampson.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
GARY SAMPSON
MR. SAMPSON-Hello, again. When I was up here earlier, I had five issues that I had presented
along with the pictures. It looks good on Issue Number Two, use the minimum roof we can.
The front roof being a 12/12 slope, that really affects the northern neighbor, not me very much at
all. I have no worries on that. We’ve reduced the height of the second floor from eight foot side
walls to six foot. That brings the whole thing down two feet. The only other two was, one, is
that they’re bringing that rear peak all the way back over the rear porch, which is beyond the
line of all the other houses there that you see. You can see that if you look at what I give you on
the bottom picture on the second page. The existing peaks on all the houses along that row all
line up, and they have this rear porch that sort of sticks out where their whole peak is going to
come out now. Again, that really affects the neighbor to the north a lot more, Mr. Shearer a lot
more than me. Do I think it’s a good idea, no, but I’m willing to say, yes, go ahead and do that,
for my purposes. The only thing that really concerns me, tremendously, is this 56 square feet
where they’re bringing their wall in, right into my front door.
MR. STONE-No, they’re taking that out.
MR. SAMPSON-Excuse me, sir, they’re taking out the first floor.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SAMPSON-But they’re not taking out the second floor. So when I go walking into my
front entrance, I have this two foot overhang over my head now. I still have a tunnel again. I
would like to see 16 feet up. No cantilevers, no anything. That’s the one thing that I’m very
hard on. I need some openness to get to my front door, and I don’t think they have shown any
hardship by doing that. Not providing the variance, they have two, if I remember the plans
correctly, reasonably large bedrooms on the second floor in their plan. Well, they’re not going
to be quite as large if they do this. Well, I’m very sorry. They’re not quite as large. They have a
second bathroom on the second floor. They will be the only house on that street that has two
bathrooms that I know of. Everybody else has one. I only have one. I don’t have a bathroom
on the second floor. So maybe they have to give up something on the second floor. Maybe they
can’t get everything they want. They have not shown any hardship by them coming out that
two feet, by denying that. They can re-design and live with it, and that’s what I’m asking to be
done.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak. John? Mr. Salvador, I’m sorry, it’s
getting late. I called you by your first name.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. O’Connor made reference to the Town dismissing my comments
concerned Appendix 75A. That’s unfortunate. I based my comments on that subject on the fact
that the Town received a letter confirming and upholding Appendix 75A, and this letter was
addressed to the Town attorney, because he was instructed to seek an opinion from the
Department of Health. I FOIL’d this letter. I was denied it under attorney/client privilege, but I
got a copy of it through another source. Now I can tell you, the New York State Health
Department, the Public Board of Health, does not agree that we issue permits for the utilization
of holding tanks for residential development, residential construction, seasonal or otherwise.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-And I will produce that letter for you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Well, let me re-close the public
hearing, close it again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-You heard the neighbor. Any comment?
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a reasonable attempt to try and modernize that house. The 18 feet on
the second floor is not exorbitant in any terms, and I really got pulling hairs and everything
else. If you look at the second floor, if you’ve got your print there, I probably can tell you that I
meet the floor area ratio. There’s an area up above, at the top of the landing, which we included
in our calculations, which would be developed as a closet in the future. It’s really not
developed as living space right now. It would make the, it would square that off, not square
that off, but if you took that out, I mean, the variances that we’re talking about are minimum. I
don’t mean to get into that. I’ll confuse the issue, and I try not to do that, or I’m trying not to do
that.
MR. STONE-Let me poll the Board on our understanding of what you said, and see if you’ve
convinced anybody to change where they were, and there’s no pressure to do so, guys. They’ve
made an effort. Well, let’s start, as we did the last time, with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I guess we didn’t hear from the neighbor to the north. Can I assume that you’re
okay with the new plan?
MR. STONE-Neighbor to the north?
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, do you want to re-open the public hearing?
MR. STONE-You’d make no comment? He’s asking if you wanted to make comment.
MICHAEL SHEARER
MR. SHEARER-No, I don’t want to make any comment.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you have no opinion you’re going to express to us?
MR. SHEARER-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. URRICO-Then I’m okay with the new plan.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I’m fine with the new plan. I think we asked for some concessions, and it seems
like we got them. I mean, certainly the floor area ratio now is down to where it’s relatively
inconsequential, along with the amount of expansion of a nonconforming structure, both those
things are down to very low percentages in my mind, to the point where they’re not troubling
at all. So, the fact that they’re not increasing the footprint, again, you know, in the overall sense,
I think that’s the only thing we’re still really talking about, and I’m okay with it, I think, you
know, this is an attempt to modernize a facility or a home that needs to be modernized, and I
think this is a reasonable approach.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think they’ve made an attempt to accommodate the concerns of
the neighbors, and I think it’s a reasonable attempt. I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, yes. I applaud. I think a valiant effort has been made to modify the
application and make it more palatable, but I’m very sorry to say that I just, under the
circumstances here, cannot see approving the application because of the nonconforming and the
floor area ratio. I just think, in this case, that it can’t be exceeded at all. I’m sorry to say I would
not be in favor of, in spite of the good efforts made.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s two points to consider. If we didn’t allow anything to
happen, the camp would still be there as it is, and it’s just as close as it is, you know, essentially,
with the modifications that you proposed most recently, I think that the, you know, the effect of
their being an alleyway through there is not going to change by being one or two foot narrower
or wider, to any great degree, and I would think the mere effect that you’re up on Lake George,
you’re going to be spending most of your time on the forefront of your property down on the
lakeside, and these changes to the house aren’t really going to affect that at all, all right. It’s
going to be an improvement to the neighborhood, and so I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Well, I think the applicant and his agents are to be complimented in listening. We
don’t always get listening. Certainly we get changes, and I’m certainly pleased by the fact that
if we allow you to make these changes you do have to upgrade the septic system, whether it’s in
conformity with the Department of Health, and I’m not going there. I understand where Mr.
Salvador’s comments come from, and I certainly share them on a number of occasions, but the
point is we’re going to have a better system. It’s going to have the bells and whistles to make
sure that there is no leakage, no spillage on the ground, and I’m sure Mr. Jarrett will insist on
that. As the designer, I know he will do a good job. Having all that, and the willingness of the
applicant to make the changes that they’ve made, plus the fact as I understand it, the eaves are
going to be less, so this cantilever is still not going to, it’s going to be out, but it’s not going to be
as much as it might have been if it was all the way around, if I’m correct in understanding
eaves. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve the revised application.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you make the motion, just so it’s clear what relief you’re
granting, I have a question for the applicant.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. FRANK-When you re-crunch the numbers in the floor area ratio relief, did you include the
dead space on the second floor above the closet?
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we did.
MR. FRANK-You did include that? So do you need to include that is the question, I guess.
MR. O'CONNOR-I could argue that we don’t need to include it, because it’s not living space,
but I don’t want, if they decide that they’re going to put a closet in after building four sides of it.
MR. FRANK-So you’re offering to include that in the calculation?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would want them to be able to do it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that, you’ve got the numbers.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why would you build a dead space in your house?
MR. STONE-Because little kids can wonder what’s in there.
MR. FRANK-Also, you made a comment about the pitch of the roof changing. Could you make
that clear? You said the height would be 25 feet 8 inches, but a 12/7 pitch, correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FRANK-And a 12/7 pitch is what was proposed originally. So there’s no change in the
pitch.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct.
MR. HAYES-So the motion is correct, why don’t we just review the relief.
MR. FRANK-I think that’s a real good idea. If you could, Tom, do you want to run through it
again?
MR. HAYES-Mr. Jarrett, if you can make sure that it’s right, because you’re going to have to live
with whatever the motion is.
MR. O'CONNOR-The concessions that have been offered is that the side walls on the north and
south side of the back addition on the second floor will be six feet in height. The overall peak
height of the back portion of the addition or structure, will be 25 feet, 8 inches. The eaves that
will be constructed will be at a maximum one foot. Whatever allows adequate ventilation
under one foot will be utilized.
MR. HAYES-Is that for the whole, for additions in both parts?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll minimize the eaves extensions all the way around the house. Maximum of
one foot.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s for the entire project, then, essentially?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Now, in the floor area ratio, what’s the exact calculation, what’s the exact amount
of relief?
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. JARRETT-.231 is what we calculated, and the relief is .011, which is five percent.
MR. STONE-Would you talk in terms of whole numbers instead of decimals. Don’t you mean
23.1, numbers the way we normally use them.
MR. HAYES-It’s supposed to be 23%, it’s going to .23.
MR. JARRETT-It’s supposed to be 22%, and it will be 23.1%.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-All right. Now as far as this dimensional relief, now, do we still want the three
feet of relief from the shoreline setback. That hasn’t changed.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Now, as far as the dimensional relief on the side. The north side is the
same. How about the south side.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s the same.
MR. HAYES-Because it’s cantilevered, but it’s still going to be.
MR. JARRETT-And the actual minimum is the pre-existing structure anyway.
MR. HAYES-Well, I understand that. I just want to make sure that, I wasn’t sure what the
cantilevered thing still qualified as a dimensional relief, but I guess it does.
MR. FRANK-Well, the minimum relief needed, I believe that portion that’s cantilevered doesn’t
encroach as much as the end of the structure to the west. Is that correct?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s going to encroach identically.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be identical. It’s going to fill the second floor that’s not there.
MR. JARRETT-The relief is the same as the existing.
MR. FRANK-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The setback on the south will be six feet five inches, which requires relief of
five foot seven inches. The setback on the.
MR. HAYES-No, I think you just got the one on the south wrong.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s five foot seven inches with a relief of six foot five inches.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and the setback on the north is one foot eight inch, and the relief is ten
foot four inches.
MR. FRANK-Right.
MR. HAYES-Right. Now the last one, then, of course, would be what’s the percentage above
the nonconforming structure, the relief there?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. JARRETT-We are at 51.3% expansion, one point three percent above the allowed.
MR. STONE-Over the 50.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll make the motion. We got everything, I think.
MR. STONE-Well, go, and we’ll listen.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2003 JIM & NANCY WHITE,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
52 ½ Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale. The applicant proposes construction of a 508 square foot
second story addition to their dwelling. I guess we’re eliminating the 56 square foot to the first
floor. Specifically, the relief required, the applicant requests 10 feet 4 inches on the north side,
and six feet five inches on the south side of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback
requirement. Also the applicant requests three feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum
shoreline setback. In terms of floor area ratio, the applicant is proposing 23.1% Floor Area Ratio
when the requirement is 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement, which is relief of 1.1% of the Area
and Bulk Requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant
requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant is proposing an
expansion of 51.3% when 50% is the maximum relief, a total of 1.3% from Section 179-13-010 A
& E. The applicant has stipulated in the relief and in their presentation that the sidewalls of the
back portion of the addition will be six feet high with a total roof height of 25 feet 8 inches. In
addition to that, the applicant has indicated that the eaves for the entire project will be 1 foot at
a maximum, and efforts will be made to reduce that total, if proper ventilation can be obtained
through alternative means. The sidewalls on the second story addition in the rear will be six
foot in height. The criteria for considering a motion to approve in this particular case, I believe
that could the benefit to the applicant be achieved through other feasible means? I don’t believe
that they can. I think that this seems to be a good plan, using the existing footprint, and that
there has been discussions with the neighbors and with the Board, and the applicant has
modified their plan in a way that they seem to have entertained feasible changes to the means
that they’re trying to accomplish and have done so. Will an undesirable change be produced in
the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created? I don’t
believe so. The camp to the south has a second story on it now, and that’s what the applicant is
proposing. The applicant is not proposing to exceed the height requirements of the Town in
this particular case. I believe a positive change will result in the fact, as Mr. Underwood
pointed out, that along with this project, there will be a large gain to the critical environmental
area by the compliant septic system. Is the request substantial? Certainly cumulatively I don’t
believe it’s substantial, but I do believe it’s not minimal. It’s, I would say, moderate, based on
initially I would say it was substantial, but the number of the requests that were made have
now been reduced significantly, very near requirements by the Town. So I don’t believe that it’s
overly substantial, the requests that have been made. Whether request will have an adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,
again, I don’t believe so. I believe that the upgrading of the septic system, an argument could
be made that upgrading the septic system will be have a positive on the physical environment.
Is the difficulty self-created? Certainly the fact that they want a second story and additional
space is self-created, but I believe that in an overall sense it is not self-created, in the fact that
this is a 25 foot lot with a pre-existing home and the dimensional relief that’s being required,
which is most of the relief, has to do with the nature of the lot and the pre-existing structure, not
necessarily what’s being proposed. Considering those facts, I think the test falls in favor of the
applicant, and I move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-Some place in the beginning of your resolution, you talked about this being a
seasonal residence. I think that falls or stands by the definition of the Town Code. It’s not part
of our application.
MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly can live with the Town Code being the measuring stick of that
particular part of the application.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Staff is saying. Is that how it’s on the assessment rolls?
MR. FRANK-I don’t know. I know we did discuss this with the Zoning Administrator at the
pre-application conference, and nothing else has come of it.
MR. JARRETT-The motion that was made by the Town Board, in approving the septic variance,
did not mention seasonal residence. It just mentioned the property.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the problem is the residence defies the definition.
MR. STONE-I see that. No, I see what you’re saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-Because the definition, as I understood from Mr. Brown, was that if you don’t
have central heat, it’s seasonal. If you have central heat, it’s not. It’s considered year round. So
I just don’t want that to become an issue later on.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All dwellings are considered year round, new construction. It doesn’t
matter.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I’m not sure that that’s worth confusing the issue, I mean, unless other people
on the Board feel.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d just ask you to delete the word “seasonal” from your resolution.
MR. SALVADOR-I just want to make one comment. Appendix 75A does not address use. It
addresses construction. It’s the physical residence. It does not address use. It doesn’t address
heating plan.
MR. STONE-The important thing is that the variance for the septic has been given on the basis
of whatever it is right now, and that’s the most important point. So we can take seasonal out. I
mean, you’re just reading what Staff put in.
MR. HAYES-I’ve spoken to other people on the Board. Chuck, is that a critical issue for you to
have that in the?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think so.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’m going to remove it, then, because it’s based on the consensus of the
positive votes anyways.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-So I’ll remove that from the wording of my motion.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, and thank you for your patience.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS
FALLS AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25 A LOCATION: AVIATION
MALL, 558 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF MALL
PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DEPARTMENT STORE TO THE
EXISTING MALL. RELIEF NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK, LOT SIZE, AND
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002,
SPR 44-2002, WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-92.11; 302.05-1-92.4
LOT SIZE: 37.01 ACRES, 3.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2003, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Meeting Date: July 16,
2003 “Project Location: Aviation Mall, 558 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 56.52-acre parcel of the mall property into two
parcels (47.96 acres and 8.56 acres) to facilitate a new major tenant’s requirement, which
includes the construction of a new 127,550 sq. ft. department store to the existing mall (74,150
sq. ft. addition to existing building). Relief Required: 8.56-acre parcel:
1) 16.44 acres of relief from the 25-acre minimum requirement.
2) 130 feet (approximately) of relief from the 800-foot minimum lot width requirement.
3) 11.6% of relief from the 14.5% minimum permeability requirement.
4) 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides.
5) 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement.
(1-5, per §179-4-030 for the ESC-25A Zone).
6) 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement, per §179-4-090.
47.96-acre parcel:
1) 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum front setback requirement.
2) 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides.
(1 and 2, per § 179-4-030 for the ESC-25A Zone).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Numerous BP’s, SP’s, and AV’s
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood and no
detriment to the nearby properties will occur?
2) Might it be interpreted, there are no feasible alternatives?
3) Relative to the ordinance, the combined relief needed may be interpreted as substantial?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the new major tenant’s requirement that it own
the department store building pad and its associated parking lot?”
MR. MC NULTY-And again, I have an indication that this was referred to Warren County, and I
have no record of what they did.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-No County Impact.
MR. STONE-No County Impact. Okay. I’m going to ask, I don’t know what your presentation
is going to be.
MR. LAPPER-I’m going to give you the short presentation.
MR. STONE-I want the very short presentation, and I want assurance that, with this moving of
the building, that basically nothing has really changed. I assume that’s what you’re going to tell
me.
MR. LAPPER-That is the short presentation. For the record, Jon Lapper. With me tonight is
Eric Goetzman from the Pyramid home office in Syracuse. Bob Orlando, the Mall Manager who
usually who usually would be with Eric and I, is on vacation for two weeks in California.
MR. STONE-We have a new Manager?
MR. LAPPER-No. I’m talking too fast. Eric’s from the main office in Syracuse.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-Bob is in California.
MR. STONE-Bob, that’s the one.
MR. LAPPER-It would usually be the three of us you’d be dealing with. Bob’s away. You will
recall this Board approved the nearly identical application about a year ago, and what’s
happened, in order to, Eric’s the one who’s negotiating the deal, and we had to move the
building 130 feet, as I explained in the cover letter, to accommodate the final architectural
design of the building, and this major anchor’s needs. This time they’re really ready to build it.
There are no impacts whatsoever because the reciprocal easement agreement, but with the map
that I put up, rather than the subdivision map, is the map that just shows what the Mall will
look like with the new department store, and for anyone driving into the Mall, any trucks
delivering goods, any customers, any employees, it’s going to look exactly the same. You can
park anywhere you want and go to any store. This particular national retailer requires that they
own their own sites, and so in order to get them to come into a mall site, we had to work out
this deal, which as this Board knows, is becoming more and more frequent with the larger
stores that are able to have that kind of leverage, but in terms of the community, using the Mall,
it functions exactly the same, regardless of who owns the store and that part of the parking lot.
That’s what it’s going to look like, and it’s really identical to what you did last time, because the
size of the store is to the square foot identical.
MR. STONE-You’re assuring us that, so we can use the kind of things that we said before.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Let me just take two seconds. Because this is an opportunity I don’t get very often,
as also the Chairman of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Queensbury, I want to
remind the applicant, that the recent agreement with the courts for the reduction does not apply
to this new parcel. This 8.56 is independent, and I am told by the Assessor and everybody else.
So this minimum raise that’s going to be done on the bulk of the thing does not apply to this
new parcel.
MR. LAPPER-Eric and I are not directly involved in that.
MR. STONE-I understand. I just wanted to get into the record.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-I guess just very simply, because this has been talked about in the media. All that
Pyramid’s doing is the same as you and I and any other property owner in the Town can.
MR. STONE-Of course.
MR. LAPPER-Challenge the assessment, and if the Town and the School district have elected to
settle, they must think that that’s a fair settlement.
MR. STONE-We have a gentleman in the room, when he had property in Town, did it every
year.
MR. LAPPER-And plenty of people do.
MR. SALVADOR-I still have property in Town and I’m still doing it.
MR. STONE-You’re still doing it. Of course.
MR. LAPPER-But the bottom line is that this is a large investment in this site, and it’s only
going to serve to increase the assessment.
MR. STONE-Of course it is. I hope Target is aware that it’s a new ballgame, and apply to their
land, as far as the Assessor is concerned.
MR. LAPPER-The new major tenant knows that taxes will have to be paid on their parcel.
MR. STONE-Okay. Good. Anybody have any comments? I mean, you’ve assured us that if we
take the motion we made the last time and indicate that it’s been moved 120 feet, that
everything else is the same.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Anybody have any questions that they want to raise?
MR. URRICO-I have no questions of Mr. Lapper. My only question is, since this keeps coming
up, regarding property centers, regarding Home Depot and Staples and now this property, does
the Town Board need to review the zoning for these areas? Because we’re continuing to
basically prescribe variances for areas that are not prescribed for what they’re being used for,
and I think there needs to be something that this needs to be addressed by the Town Board, and
not left to us all the time to make the decision.
MR. HAYES-Based on earlier cases, though, I don’t know if we want a re-zoning anyway.
MR. STONE-Right. I think, basically, Roy, what’s happened here is, as I understand it, they
want zero, is that they just want zero setback. They want the buildings (lost word) the same,
but they want to have control of the asphalt underneath.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-No. I understand where they’re coming from.
MR. LAPPER-I can give you the legal answer to what you just asked. Even though, on some of
the major shopping centers it’s happening, it’s not like it’s happening all over Town. So in
terms of whether it needs to be handled on a re-zoning basis versus an individual variance
basis, I would make the argument that an Area Variance is still the appropriate way to go. I
would also tell you that I’m familiar with other Town Codes, and I’ve been involved in drafting
provisions for other enclosed shopping malls where we had an enclosed shopping mall
exception to the subdivision reg’s that talked about major tenants of over 50,000 square feet. So
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
it can be codified in the law, in the code, but there’s nothing wrong with doing it this way,
because it’s not like it’s happening every day.
MR. URRICO-So either way is okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Talking about this, though, I had a concern, too, because like you say, it’s
coming along. I think we’ve got another one coming up next week, to review, and the thing
that bothers me about it now is we, we’re changing the zoning. We’re saying you no longer
have to have the permeability that’s required. You no longer have to have the setbacks, and
you no longer have to have the parking that’s required on this property, and we’re relying on a
separate legal agreement that has not involved the Town, saying, but we’re going to operate
the properties just like they were one property, but that’s a separate, private legal agreement
that can be changed later after we give the variance.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s a condition of your approval that there is a reciprocal agreement.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it has to be, I think, in our approvals, because otherwise we’re just
relying on a separate legal agreement that we don’t have control of.
MR. URRICO-I think it’s worth bringing it to the Town’s attention that that may be something
they need to address.
MR. MC NULTY-I agree.
MR. LAPPER-For the whole site, too, it does, the parking permeability at all is the same for the
site. It’s just on these two, the individual parcels when you cut them up, they don’t match, but
when you look at the whole site, which is really the impact on the Town.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. That I understand.
MR. LAPPER-But if you do decide to talk to the Town Board, I have language that I can supply
if they want to go change the Code.
MR. MC NULTY-The thing is, you know, we can say it always has to operate this way, but I
don’t think we have the power to say you can never sell those parcels to someone else and let
them ignore it.
MR. LAPPER-Well, here we are talking about selling it, but it’s still, the condition is that it has
to be open to all public employees and deliveries the same. That you can’t restrict somebody.
MR. STONE-Yes. The permeability doesn’t bother me. It’s not going to change. It is what it is
for the whole, the way it exists now.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-And all they’re saying is that I own the land under my store, and yes, I’ll have
some permeability somehow because you’re talking just some relief, not total relief.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-But the whole property won’t have any, but it’s a good point to raise.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, because, you know, still take the extreme case. You give Target
permission to exceed their permeability or not have adequate parking, but there’s nothing here
that says Aviation Mall can’t be sold to somebody else and just leave Target sitting there with
that one little parcel and no longer have the ability.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-But when you take the two together, the Mall and that building, it still complies
with the permeability. So as long as the Mall didn’t come in and say they wanted to, you know,
build something else and pave something else over, even if it was in separate ownership, it still
works.
MR. HAYES-So the bottom line is we can include reciprocal agreements, as a condition of our
approval.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Does anybody else have any other questions? Let me open the public hearing.
Does anybody wish to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Just a question. Will this eventually be the subject of a subdivision approval
by the Planning Board?
MR. LAPPER-Next week, and it actually was approved by the Planning Board last year.
MR. STONE-Right. The same way we did it.
MR. LAPPER-It’s just a modification request.
MR. SALVADOR-Now the subdivision will be the subject of an HOA document. That’s what
you’re talking about with reciprocal easements.
MR. LAPPER-It’s like an HOA.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s called an HOA with a diminimus interest.
MR. LAPPER-No, no, because an HOA is governed by the Attorney General when you’re
selling to consumers, to the public, and this is not an HOA. It’s a reciprocal easement among
two commercial. So it’s not HOA. It’s very similar. It’s an easement agreement.
MR. STONE-All right. Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. STONE-I did.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Have you looked at the motion that we made last month?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-If you were sitting here, would you make the same motion?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s our legal advice for the night.
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-There was one change. There was something that we didn’t catch last time that
had to do with the lack of frontage on the public road, which the Zoning Administrator asked
us to add this time. So there was one other variance request at this time.
MR. STONE-There was.
MR. LAPPER-The same exact project, just in terms of relief.
MR. STONE-Is that in here?
MR. FRANK-Actually, Jon, you agree with the relief that I’ve listed.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Because the lot size (lost words) with that lot width also.
MR. STONE-All right. You agree with what’s on Staff notes?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I do.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we, whoever’s going to do this can fill those numbers in as we do them.
Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. We don’t have to re-do the SEQRA. We have to put this in to the motion,
according to Staff. It’s a, whereas the requirements have been considered and the Planning
Board previously adopted one, they do not result in any new or significant. So we’ll put this in
the motion. Just in the interest of time, does anybody have any objections to doing this? I
mean, I could poll you all, but I’m just trying to be a little quicker. Okay. I need a motion to
approve the Area Variance, which includes all of the numbers that are here. These are the
language we used the last time. We can make sure they’re in there. We also have to add a
suggestion by the Zoning Administrator acknowledging that SEQRA has not changed from the
last time. So this has got to go in there. We need to get all of these things in, and most of them
are there, except this, just saying the 40 foot minimum is.
MR. LAPPER-I think I’m wrong. It was the acreage because it’s not a 25. It’s the ESC 25 acre
zone, and this one is 8.56.
MR. HAYES-So the Staff notes are correct on the relief, and then I’ve got to throw in the lack of,
the fact that the SEQRA’s not changing.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly.
MR. HAYES-All right. I can do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2003 PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS
FALLS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Aviation Mall, 558 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 56.52 acre
parcel of the Mall property into two parcels, 47.96 acres, and 8.56 acres respectively, to facilitate
a new major tenant’s requirement, which includes the construction of a new 127,550 square foot
department store to the existing mall, which amounts to a 74,150 square foot addition to the
existing building. Specifically, the relief required, on the 8.56 acre parcel, which is the new
parcel, is 16.44 acres of relief from the 25 acre minimum requirement. The second point of relief
on that parcel is 130 feet, approximately, of relief from the 800 foot minimum lot width
requirement. Three, 11.6% of relief from the 14.5 minimum permeability requirement. Four, 30
feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. Five, 30 feet of
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement, which is Sections One through Five
per 179-4-030 for the ESC-25A zone. Six, 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road
frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090. For the parcel that will remain, which is 47.96, the
first piece of relief is 40 feet relief from the 40 foot minimum front setback requirement. Two, 30
feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. That’s One and
Two per Section 179-4-030 for the ESC-25A zone. The criteria for considering such a variance is
the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood. On whole, I do not
believe there is any negative impact on the neighborhood or greater community. All the
requirements for the two parcels, as if they were combined, have been met. I think there’s a
benefit to the community, as the applicant and their agent have set forth, that the necessity to
attract or obtain a new tenant, which would be a benefit to the area. They have the requirement
of owning their own parcel for their own reasons, but I believe that, on the broadest sense, that
the chance for the Mall to obtain a positive tenant, and a tax paying tenant in the community,
outweighs any detriment, and the benefit to the applicant is clear there, attracting a financially
positive tenant for the operation of the Mall. Feasible alternatives I think are limited, in the
sense that it’s clear from the applicant’s agent that this new tenant in particular and other
tenants of this large size now, in some cases, require to own their own pad. So I guess there
really is no feasible alternatives in this particular case, other than creating this new parcel. As a
condition to the approval, the Board is stipulating that the reciprocal easement agreements be
obtained between the two parcel owners are obtained and maintained, and filed in the County
Clerk’s Office where they can be examined. I think the applicant understands that means that if
somehow, based on Chuck’s concerns, that those would have to come back before the Board if
you wanted to have those changed. Whereas the requirements for the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board did a Full EIS on the original
project, and the Zoning Board is determining in our motion that the proposed modifications do
not result in any new, or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further
SEQRA review is necessary by this Board. Having said that, I think the test falls in favor of the
applicant, and I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES-Whereas the requirements for the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered, and the Planning Board previously adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration,
the proposed modifications do not.
MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t a Neg Dec. It was a Findings Statement, after a Full Environmental
Impact Statement.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s what we were given.
MR. LAPPER-Because they did a Full EIS.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. FRANK-I know, that’s what I was given at the end of the day. I came in, with no time to
review.
MR. STONE-Just say.
MR. HAYES-This is what I’ll propose. That’s the applicant’s agent. If he’s not correct, then that
would be a thing he would have to rectify.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We did a Full EIS on this.
MR. HAYES-It would seem like they would have.
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And the Planning Board was the Lead Agency.
MR. STONE-Right. That’s what this says.
MR. HAYES-All right. So it’s not a Negative Declaration.
MR. STONE-A review of the Full EIS resulted in whatever it says there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The findings, and that this project is substantially the same as what was
previously approved.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2003 SEQR TYPE II Y. OZBAY, USA GAS PROPERTY OWNER:
SANDRI REALTY, INC. AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT.
LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A GAS
STATION WITH REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF-SERVICE GAS/CONVENIENT MART WITH
TWO (2) NEW COVERED GAS ISLANDS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, AND THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ADJACENT
USES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-02, SP 34-02, SV 58-02, SPR 37-2003 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302-07-1-32, 31 LOT SIZE: 0.14 AC., 0.20 AC. SECTION:
179-4-030, 179-4-060 (c) , 179-8-050
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Now, we have received a request from the Planning Board to both New York State
DOT and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury, and let me just read in the
Staff comments so that, we all read them, but let me get it into the record. “A comment letter
was received from the NYS DOT regarding the Ozbay/USA Gas application. They indicated
that the work proposed would require a highway work permit. Therefore, the DOT would be
an involved agency with regards to SEQRA.
This means a Coordinated Review for this project will be necessary. Being the Zoning Board of
Appeals, Planning Board, and DOT are involved, only one SEQRA finding is needed.
The Planning Board will request Lead Agency status Tuesday night, July 15, 2003.” And I have
a note from the Zoning Administrator to the Zoning Board, The Town of Queensbury Planning
Board has received Area Variance and Site Plan applications for a parcel located at 651 Upper
Glen Street in the Town, and more completely described on the attached materials. A copy of
the referring resolution is attached. The Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the
Lead Agency for SEQRA purposes, and also desires to conduct a coordinated review. Please
find attached a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form prepared for the project and
a site location map. Please sign and return the attached consent form to our office within 30
days. Now this is a resolution, a thing that is given to me, to our Board. I will sign this, giving
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
them, acknowledging they will have Lead Agency Status unless we have violent opposition
from the members of this Board.
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS
TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA EVALUATION, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-Now what that means, Mr. Jones, is that we’ll listen to you if you want to talk.
MR. JONES-No, it’s late.
MR. STONE-We certainly appreciate that. We recognize that it is late, and we appreciate that
and we will obviously get this when, next month or so on, whenever they get done.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STONE-You could introduce yourself, I’m sorry.
MR. JONES-Yes. Richard Jones, architect, representing the project owner, USA Gas.
MR. STONE-Okay. For further business, do you want to comment, very briefly, please. Okay,
Mr. Salvador.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Mr. Stone was kind enough to give me an answer today of my letter of
February 21 concerning zoning district boundaries. I note on here that he has copied members
st
of the Zoning Board. I trust you all have your copies? Okay. I take issue that Mr. Stone can
find no reason to convene the Board or whatever is necessary to undertake this review, and I
refer to the attachment that he has to his letter, wherein the issue was addressed previously,
but that was addressed in a very, very narrow sense, and applied only to Tax Map parcels 4-1-9
and 4-1-11, and my concern now is that the same confusion exists on all other tax parcels in
North Queensbury, not just these two, and this resolution of adoption, the motion adopting the
resolution, concludes that the northern limit of theWR-1A zone in the Dunham’s Bay area is the
Town boundary. So it’s only the northern boundary of the two tax parcels mentioned in the
project for that appeal, and it’s only the northern boundary. Dunham’s Bay area has an east and
a west boundary.
MR. STONE-Read the other section, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Which other section?
MR. STONE-The Town Zoning Code.
MR. SALVADOR-What the Town Zoning Code doesn’t do is quantitatively define both the
Town boundary and the Zoning District boundary. Neither one are quantitatively defined, and
in law, they have a definition. We define quantitatively the mean high water mark. It’s very
specific, down to the tenth of.
MR. STONE-Hundredth.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Point two, tenth of a.
MR. STONE-The Floor Area Ratio is 22%, as listed in the Code, not .22.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s .22 expressed as 22%. The ratio is .22. In any case, I will prepare an
answer to this, but fundamentally, that’s what I’m thinking, and you were very careful in that
previous determination, very, very careful, to limit it to just our tax parcel.
MR. STONE-Because you were the one who was appealing that time.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s true.
MR. STONE-But if you take the two together, in my interpretation, if you take the two together,
then the Town line and Zoning Districts, as far as we’re concerned, and that’s basically what
we’re saying, is they’re one in the same.
MR. SALVADOR-Fine. Then what we need, we need them on a map. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. STONE-That’s the point you’ve made, and I can’t comment on that.
MR. SALVADOR-Why not?
MR. STONE-Because I don’t make a map. We don’t make maps.
MR. SALVADOR-The Planning and Zoning Department, as a part of the Zoning Ordinance, a
zoning ordinance, it requires a map.
MR. STONE-Okay. You notice on the bottom of that thing there’s a carbon to the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-He is aware of what I said, and certainly would be interested in your comments.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, I’ll prepare my answer to you.
MR. STONE-I’m sure you will.
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, the subdivision ordinance does require HOA documents, and
believe me, believe me, reciprocal agreements filed at the County are unenforceable, and this
Town knows it, and this Town has said it many times. They are unenforceable. I’ll give you a
classic example of a deed encumbrance. All those motels on Canada Street, north of Shepherd
Park, all those motels, they are sitting on land encumbered from commercial use. I mean,
you’ve got to have an interest to bring an action to make a determination. Well, if they all agree
to do the same thing wrong, then nobody’s interested in, and that’s where we are, but that’s, I
mentioned to Jon Lapper, there is a provision in the General Business Law, Section 359E, that
allows an applicant who’s syndicating property, that’s what they’re doing, they’re syndicating
property for sale, and they’re selling property that’s going to have shared ownership
responsibilities. So you’ve got to make disclosure, and disclosure is done through a disclosure
document, frequently referred to as a Homeowners document. Now, if you think you have a
diminimus interest that is going to be sold, you can make application for an abbreviated form of
an HOA. You don’t have to put out a document that thick. It can be a very short document, but
it has to be done, first you get permission to file for a diminimus interest and then you do it.
That’s all. The procedure is there, but it’s all regulated by the Attorney General for the State of
New York, General Business Law.
MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned.
68
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/03)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
69