2003-05-21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 21, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
CHARLES ABBATE
PAUL HAYES
NORMAN HIMES
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MICHAEL HILL
MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION MATTERS,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-I need a motion to come out of Executive Session.
MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s get this matter out of the way, and then I’ve got a couple of other
announcements. Would you read this resolution, please, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure.
MOTION TO PURSUE AN APPEAL OF THE WARREN COUNTY SUPREME COURT
ACTION ENTITLED DAVD & LINDA JOHNSON VERSUS THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
INTRODUCED BY: Charles Abbate
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
SECONDED BY: Roy Urrico
WHEREAS, David and Linda Johnson, Johnsons, previously commenced a CT LR Article 78
proceeding against the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking judgment to
nullify determination made by the ZBA denying the Johnsons application for an Area Variance,
and
WHEREAS, by decision and order dated March 17, 2003, Supreme Court Justice G. Thomas
Moynihan, Jr. ruled in favor of the Johnsons, and
WHEREAS, the ZBA has considered the decision and order and now wishes to pursue an
appeal of such ruling,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby authorizes and
directs the commencement and appeal of the Warren County Supreme Court action entitled
David and Linda Johnson versus the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals further authorizes and directs the Town Counsel
to file any necessary documentation and take any and all action necessary to commence such
proceeding, perfect the appeal, and effectuate all terms of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Before we get started with the formal agenda, I have two things I want to discuss.
One is the Wal-Mart application which is currently listed as the last thing on the agenda. Are
there many of you here who were here because of that application, just signify by raising your
hands. Okay. Technically, this is not on our agenda tonight because until the SEQRA
determination is taken, we can’t act on it, and, we can’t even say we won’t be Lead Agency
because the Planning Board has not made a determination that they want to be the Lead
Agency. They will be meeting on this subject tomorrow night. Tomorrow night is probably the
time for most people’s comments to be heard. The variance that we would consider is a very
limited one, and has to do with site permeability and parking, and most of the questions, I
suspect, not prejudging, but I suspect a lot of the questions that the public is going to have has
to do with Planning Board issues. So, unless somebody really wants to get their comments
heard about Wal-Mart, very briefly, I think we’ll just move on. I don’t want to take anybody,
anybody who’s come out, if you want to make comments, you can come up, state your name
about the application. Basically, as I said, the applicant is proposing demolition of the former
Ames store and a 95,217 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Wal-Mart, and the applicant seeks relief
from the permeability and minimum parking requirements. That’s the only thing that’s on our
agenda, and it’s not on the agenda because SEQRA has to be done first. So, anybody dying to
make their comments heard to the Zoning Board? Okay. Then we’ll go on. Second issue, Mr.
Michael Borgos has a request to make of the Board. He tells me, and I’ll put him on notice, he’s
going to take 30 seconds, I don’t believe it, but.
MR. BORGOS-Or less. Thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to proceed at the beginning
of the meeting, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate that. I’m here on behalf of Kenneth and Diana
Kambar. They were before this Board on April 16 with an Area Variance request. There
th
wasn’t a full compliment of the Board here that night. We’ve talked with Town Counsel and
with Craig Brown, and we’ve decided to be on the agenda for the first June meeting for a re-
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
hearing of that application. I’m here tonight on procedural grounds only just seeking the
Board’s consent to have us placed on the second meeting for that re-hearing. If at the first
meeting you agree to do a re-hearing, but for notification purposes and publication purposes,
the Staff needs to know now if you will agree to do that, and we would appreciate that because
it would save another month’s time if you do, if you granted that re-hearing. That’s it. That’s
my request.
MR. STONE-Any comments anybody, any questions or anything?
MR. ABBATE-I think it’s a reasonable request, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-I have been assured privately that there will be no added expense to the Town for
advertising purposes or anything.
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. We’ll pick up all that.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept the request?
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR KENNETH KAMBAR TO BE ON BOTH JUNE
MEETINGS FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. BORGOS-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-There you so, sir. We’ll see you next month.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2003 TYPE II PAUL KASSELMAN AGENT: JAMES W.
MOONEY PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL KASSELMAN LOCATION: 25 WILD TURKEY
LANE ZONING: WR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 252 SQ. FT.
ROCK-FILLED CRIBBED DOCK TO ADJOIN EXISTING 729 SQ. FT. DOCK. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF. BP
90-420 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/9/03 APA TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 LOT SIZE:
1.19 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-50 (4,5)
JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2003, Paul Kasselman, Meeting Date: May 21, 2003
“Project Location: 25 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 252 sq. ft. rock-filled crib dock to adjoin the existing 729 sq. ft. dock. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 252 sq. ft. of relief from the 700 sq. ft. maximum size
requirement, 13 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum width requirement, and relief from the
configuration requirement of the Docks and Moorings regulations per §179-5-050(A1, 4, and 5).
Additionally, the applicant needs relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per
§179-13-010(E).
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-695: pending, construction of a 252 sq. ft. dock.
BP 90-420: 07/09/90, reconstruction of a single-family dwelling.
AV 133-1989: denied 11/15/89, shoreline and side setback relief for an addition to the existing
dwelling.
Staff comments: Criteria considerations:
1) Being the property to the east has a dock larger than that proposed, and other docks in the
neighborhood exist with areas greater than 700 sq. ft., might it be interpreted no change will
occur in the character of the neighborhood or no detriment to the nearby properties will occur?
2) Might constructing an additional dock (straight, T, F, L, or U-shape configuration), which
would be allowed by code (being the applicant has 151 to 250 feet of lake frontage) be
interpreted as a feasible alternative?
3) All relative to the ordinance, might 252 sq. ft. of relief from the 700 sq. ft. maximum
requirement be interpreted as moderate (36%), and might 13 feet from the 40-foot minimum
requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (32.5%), and being the proposed dock
configuration is not allowed by code, might it 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 the difficulty be interpreted as self-created as there appears to be a feasible
alternative?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 9,
2003 Project Name: Kasselman, Paul Owner: Paul Kasselman ID Number: QBY-03-AV-29
County Project #: Apr03-35 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 252 sq. ft. rock-filled cribbed dock to adjoin
existing 729 sq. ft. dock., Relief requested from size and width requirements for docks. Site
Location: 25 Wild Turkey Lane Tax Map Number(s): 179-5-50 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes to construct a 282 sq. ft. dock addition to an existing 729 sq. ft. u-shaped
dock. The total sq. footage would be 981 sq. ft. where 700 sq. ft. is the minimum allowed. The
applicant has indicated that the addition will allow for safer means to boat docks in a area of
rough water. The information submitted indicates the rebuilding of addition of a new u-shaped
dock would clutter the shoreline. Staff recognizes this proposal is the least impact on the site.
Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 4/13/03.
MR. STONE-I was to apologize personally to Mr. Kasselman and his agent. I probably could
have heard it last month, but I was being very technical, and so I’m sorry for the month’s delay,
but I’m not really, you know.
MR. MOONEY-My name is James Mooney, Cleverdale, NY. I’m the agent for Mr. Paul
Kasselman. Basically, as you can see by the picture, he wants to build his six by twenty-eight
foot dock to the left of the existing dock, without a variance, but because you connect the two
into another dock, it becomes nonconforming in width and over the 700 square feet of allowable
dock. The reason why he wants to connect the two is one, obviously, his convenience. He has
young children with grandchildren that use that dock. It has whips currently, but they get beat
to heck by the north winds as you can, that’s a calm day, and he’s concerned about their safety
of walking up by those trees down the back, down the lawn again, back to the dock, (lost word)
to the other side of the boat, and as you explained also in the relief that he could also build a
whole new dock if he wanted to but he just didn’t want to do that. He just wanted to build a
simple six by twenty-eight dock to alleviate his problem with the rough waters and his children
and whatever. I guess that’s really all I had to say as far as that goes. I mean, another way to
look at it also is that the “V” is a 252 square foot relief of the 252 feet, only 84 square feet is the
“V”. Once you add the dock to it, I realize it becomes one dock, but the 168 feet is a non-
variance dock, and the 84 foot “V” is the, creates the variance.
MR. STONE-You’re talking basically the inset between the two docks.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MOONEY-To connect the two.
MR. STONE-To connect the two.
MR. MOONEY-And I asked the Town, I said, how far do you have to be from the other dock to
become one dock. I mean, could you be an inch?
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the question I was going to ask you. I mean, by saying this isn’t a
dock. I mean, it’s still a dock. It’s connected by wood that is not on the land, but it’s. I’m not
disagreeing with what your position is.
MR. MOONEY-Right. So, I mean, that’s what I’m here to apply for the variance for.
MR. STONE-Okay. Questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Mooney, there are two glaring items here that bother me. One is the
fact that the proposed dock configuration that you are suggesting is not allowed by Code in the
Town of Queensbury. Number One. Number Two, there does appear to be a feasible
alternative, and if you disagreed with the fact that there’s a feasible alternative, I’d like to here
why.
MR. MOONEY-He doesn’t want to put another whole dock on his property. He’s allowed to
build another whole U-Shaped dock on his property. He didn’t want to clutter the property up.
He didn’t want to put the docks on his property. He’s the type of man, he’s not like that. He’s
not building a marina. He’s just doing it for his children.
MR. ABBATE-Then how about addressing the fact that the proposed dock configuration is not
allowed by Code in the Town of Queensbury. How do you address that?
MR. MOONEY-I realize that. That’s why.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else? You say it’s not allowed by Code. It’s because the two fingers and
the other finger as part of one dock?
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. STONE-I mean, a straight dock.
MR. MOONEY-Is allowed.
MR. STONE-Is allowed. He could put a straight pier out from the shore out in the exact same
place.
MR. MOONEY-Right. Without a variance.
MR. ABBATE-That’s true, but his proposal, as he proposes it, to this Board, is not allowed by
Code.
MR. MOONEY-Correct.
MR. STONE-That’s correct. Anybody else? Well, hearing no other Board comments, let me
open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed to this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-I haven’t seen the drawings, the plot plan or the, is there one available?
MR. STONE-Yes. This is the dock and this is the connecting piece.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. My name is John Salvador. I have the following
comments. I believe the site plan, plot plan, should show the mean low water mark and the
mean high water mark along the property line. These are, these two lines are lines from which
we regulate, and they should be shown. Dimensions may be taken some day for future
expansion of this facility. The fact that they’re allowed to put a completely new U-Shaped dock
on the property because they have enough lakefront. Would the granting of this variance,
could the granting of this variance encumber the use of this property any further construction of
docks? A U-Shaped dock or whatever? The other thing, it’s been mentioned that the
configuration of the proposed structure is not allowed by our Code. This can be taken care of
by a simple configuration variance, and maybe the application should include that. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak against?
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, he is requesting relief for configuration that’s not
allowed, in addition to the other bit of relief he’s requesting. So one of the Board members
brought that up. It’s not allowed by Code, but he’s requesting to have that configuration.
MR. STONE-Yes, it is in Staff notes, relief from the configuration.
MR. SALVADOR-Is that area or?
MR. STONE-Configuration and area.
MR. HAYES-I think it is an Area Variance, the configuration.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s an Area Variance. I mean, it comes under that. Mrs. Salvador?
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I’m just a little confused here. It was stated that the lake
frontage is, I believe I heard, between 150 and 250 feet?
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the Code. It’s actually 176 feet.
MRS. SALVADOR-It is 176. So it isn’t. Okay, and what is going to be the width of the
proposed dock across?
MR. STONE-Six feet, according to the drawing submitted.
MRS. SALVADOR-No. I don’t mean the width.
MR. STONE-The total?
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes. You’ve got this dock out there, and then some comes in here. What’s
going to be the width across the property?
MR. STONE-Good question. We’ll ask Mr. Mooney when he gets up here.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and then John mentioned something about encumbering with your
approval tonight. What about encumbering against a future boathouse on top of this dock?
Thank you.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak for or against this particular application? I’m
going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Mr. Mooney, would you care to comment on some of the things you heard before
we ask you about them?
MR. MOONEY-Sure. Okay. The proposed width is 42 and 6 is 48 feet. That includes that dock,
10 feet between it, and 6 foot beyond that. What else did he? I’m sorry, is that all?
MR. STONE-Well, just to be actually, if you look at the in most finger, it’s a little longer.
MR. MOONEY-Okay. I’m sorry. I think it’s 36.5, 46.5, 52.5.
MR. STONE-Okay. 52.5.
MR. MOONEY-I think the allowed, it was 13 feet of variance, which, it was 12.5, which is 13, if
you round off to the nearest dollar, I guess. Is that it, I guess?
MR. STONE-Well, there’s a question that was put forward by the public, in terms of further
expansion, and possible covered or a deck boathouse, I won’t say covered.
MR. MOONEY-Mr. Kasselman, I believe, is allowed to put a boathouse on this dock, or a boat,
or a sundeck, at least, without a variance. I don’t know the, but I think he would be able to do
that, even a boathouse if he wanted to.
MR. STONE-But I suggest that you have come before us looking for some relief, and I think it’s,
if we’re so inclined, it is something we might put in as a stipulation.
MR. MOONEY-I talked to Mr. Kasselman about this, and he said to me, I said they may say to
you is no more docks being built on your property. I think he would agree to no more stone
rock-filled cribs, but I don’t think he’d agree to not a boathouse.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Wait a second. Let me make sure I understand this. The question is up in the air.
Is there a possibility that he may want more boat docks, is that what you’re saying?
MR. MOONEY-No. I didn’t say that, sir. I said, he doesn’t want to have anymore docks, and I
asked him, I said, they may say to you, no more docks, okay, and he said I don’t have a problem
with that.
MR. ABBATE-Fine. Okay.
MR. MOONEY-But I don’t think I can speak for my client, I’m the agent, not to build a
boathouse on his current dock, or a sundeck.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but the problem is going to be this, and as I said before, that the dock
configuration you’re requesting is not allowed by Code, and now you’re suggesting that the
option might be, he may very well wish to put some sort of a boathouse over it, if we approve
that, and I wouldn’t approve it without a stipulation.
MR. MOONEY-He’s not asking for a boathouse in this variance.
MR. ABBATE-No, but that would be a stipulation of approval as far as I’m concerned.
MR. MOONEY-I don’t think I can answer that question.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. ABBATE-Well, then maybe Mr. Kasselman should be here.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I think the Board needs to be careful, when you’re conditioning.
The applicant is offering up something, a fair compromise and condition. I think you’re
possibly getting yourself into some uncomfortable waters, so to speak. If you condition you
can’t have a boathouse when the Code allows him to do so, it’s not really relative to the relief
he’s requesting, and technically, just to make it very clear for the public and the Board, he could
separate what he’s proposing now so it wasn’t physically touching, and he could do it without
any relief from this Board.
MR. ABBATE-Wait, the question is this. Number One, you agree that the proposed dock
configuration is not allowed by Code because you wrote it.
MR. FRANK-That’s according to Code.
MR. ABBATE-But you wrote it. Now you’re telling me we have to be careful that we can’t say
that it’s okay, we can’t use as a stipulation that if we approved a proposed dock configuration
that is not allowed by Code, we can’t have a stipulation that says, okay, we’ll approve it, but
there’ll be no future boathouse?
MR. FRANK-And I think my suggestion was you need to be careful with what conditioning
you make. You should probably make it relative to the relief being sought.
MR. ABBATE-Then you’re tying our hands. What you’re basically saying is that we have to
disapprove this then. Is what you’re saying.
MR. FRANK-I’m just saying that you just need to be careful with what you’re conditioning is.
MR. STONE-I think what Mr. Frank is merely suggesting to each and every one of us to be sure
that we’re comfortable with whatever we might do. Obviously, to paraphrase Mr. Mooney and
Mr. Frank, obviously you can put a covered boathouse on that U-shaped dock. I mean, that’s a
legitimate configuration, and he could put it on there. It would seem, and if we didn’t, if there
were no variance involved, he can do that. We all agreed, but the applicant is seeking relief
from the Town Code, and that gives us some latitude in terms of reasonable conditions. I’m not
suggesting we will or we will not, but I believe it gives us latitude for reasonable, our Counsel
who is sitting here. Do you want to say that, Mr. Hill, just?
MR. HILL-Mr. Stone, I think you said it very (lost words) any reasonable conditions (lost
words) reasonably related to what’s being sought. In this case you have a structure that is
becoming an apparently unified structure, an overall structure. If the Board deems that density
(lost words).
MR. STONE-Mike, would you just introduce yourself, so that everybody knows who you are.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, you might want to open the public hearing if you’re going to.
MR. STONE-I might. Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-It is open.
MR. STONE-No, I closed it because we were.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, he’s an attorney for the Board.
MR. STONE-He’s an attorney. He’s our Counsel. I’m asking for an opinion from the Counsel.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. I missed the closing of the public hearing.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I had additional comments.
MR. STONE-I’d be more than willing to re-open the public hearing. Go ahead, Mr. Hill.
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, my name is Michael Hill. I’m with the firm of
Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner, Counsel to the Board. I’m here this evening because the
usual Counsel, Cathi Radner, had a conflict and she asked me to attend in her stead. You
pointed out that the Board has the prerogative to impose reasonable conditions in the granting
of a variance, and that is correct. Reasonable conditions are those which are reasonably related
to the relief which is being sought, and to the project which is being proposed. In this case, the
applicant is requesting to build a boat dock and essentially, as I understand it, add it to an
existing boat dock, and if the Board, in viewing this, sees that the overall dock and the density,
if you will, of the dock along the shoreline is becoming so extensive that it believes it would be
prudent to ask the applicant to agree not to construct any structure over that, by way of a
boathouse or other structure, under the circumstances, that would seem to be a reasonable
request of the applicant.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. HILL-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-All right. Since a member of the public was unaware that I closed the public
hearing, the presence of the applicant up here would have indicated that, but I will be more
than willing to open the public hearing, re-open it, and if you have something more to say, Mr.
Salvador, please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-There’s a very strong likelihood that some day a sundeck, a boathouse, will
be built over this structure, and it could be twice the size of anything you could imagine
because it could cover this existing U-Shaped dock, as well as the new one. It could have two
entrances. Now, I dare say that you can’t do this sort of thing without being sure that the
existing U-Shaped dock’s going to support the sundeck. Gentlemen, you just don’t toenail the
columns of a sundeck to the surface of a dock. That isn’t the way it’s done. It’s an unstable
structure, and it seems, by the way, at the Planning Board meeting last night, faster than you
can believe, Mackey has just gotten approval for a sundeck. He hasn’t even built the U-Shaped
dock you approved. That’s how it works. This disjointed review on docks and boathouses has
got to cease, and it’s being done because the projects are being mischaracterized by Staff.
Somehow, some way, we’ve got to come to grips with the proliferation of these kinds of
structures that are going on. If a boathouse, if a sundeck is built on top of this, plus the other, it
would be totally out of compliance because, don’t we have a width limitation on a U-Shaped
dock in the Code?
MR. FRANK-We have an overall width limitation. That’s correct.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Here you’re going to have essentially two U-Shaped docks. You’re
going to have one in one direction and one in another direction, but you have no Code, you
have no Code limitation on the width of a sundeck, do you.
MR. STONE-Yes, we have.
MR. SALVADOR-On a sundeck?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Overhang. You can’t go well out from.
MR. SALVADOR-Out where?
MR. STONE-Over the water, I don’t believe you can.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but over the dock.
MR. STONE-I know what you’re saying. I’m not arguing that point.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. SALVADOR-So, somehow this has got to be considered, because there is a very, very
strong likelihood that this is what’s going to happen, and I insist on the mean low water mark
and the mean high water mark being put on the drawings. They are essential, because in the
future, if a boathouse, a sundeck is requested, the height of that is.
MR. STONE-319.6 is here?
MR. SALVADOR-Is it there?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Is it? That’s the high.
MR. STONE-That’s the high, and the low is not.
MR. SALVADOR-The high is 320.2.
MR. STONE-Well, this is, well, I’d have to ask the man who drew it, but it says 319.6. At least
there’s a line. That gives some indication, but I hear you.
MR. SALVADOR-320.2 is the mean high. 317.74 is the mean low. They are very exact and
precise numbers.
MR. STONE-You have told us that before. We know that. Thank you. Anything else? Okay.
Hearing no further comment, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do you want to come forward again, Mr. Mooney.
MR. ABBATE-I have additional comments, too, Mr. Chairman, I have to finish up.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mooney, by your own admission, you agree that there is
a feasible alternative. Although it may not be a desirable one, nonetheless there is. You
admitted to that earlier.
MR. MOONEY-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Now, I’d also like to bring to your attention the fact that failure to accept a
reasonable feasible alternative shall result in a denial of a request. Thank you.
MR. MOONEY-Can I make a comment?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Sure. Please do.
MR. MOONEY-I think we’re getting away from the variance. We came here tonight for a
variance for the dock, not a boathouse, and I think we need to move away from that, because.
MR. STONE-Please don’t tell us where to go to.
MR. MOONEY-I’m sorry. I don’t mean to tell you. I’m just saying, I’m here to get a variance
for a nonconforming dock. Whether Mr. Kasselman wants to build a dock tomorrow or 20
years from now, I cannot represent him at that point. Okay. There are many, many boathouses,
sundecks on Lake George that are just as big as, might be, might be here some day.
MR. STONE-The big difference here is that you are seeking a variance.
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. STONE-And as our Counsel has made it very clear, and as I’ve known prior to that, we can
put reasonable limitation. We could, for example, and I’m not suggesting to the Board what we
could say. We could say you can put, your client could put a boathouse, a traditional boathouse
over the existing dock, no boathouse over the expansion, and no further expansion. Those are
reasonable, in my mind, conditions.
MR. MOONEY-I agree with you.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MOONEY-I think Mr. Kasselman would agree with that, too.
MR. STONE-But that’s what we could do.
MR. MOONEY-He’s a reasonable man.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. MOONEY-Okay. He’s not looking to do something that’s out of the ordinary.
MR. STONE-Anybody else have any comments? Well, let’s talk about it, then. We’ll start with
Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, for me, it depends on which side you look at this. Whether it’s a
really big request or a real minor request. Looking at it, I guess technically, with it being
connected to this dock, it’s going to create a large dock complex, beyond the scope of what the
Code allows, and that can be a worrisome thing. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, if
the applicant dropped the connection between the proposed new dock, and the existing dock,
he could just go ahead and build it. So, in that sense, it also can be looked at as a minor thing,
because all he’s asking for, really, is that connection. That’s the only thing that’s causing the
variance. Sorting it all out and taking a look at the basic criteria that we’re supposed to follow
of balancing the benefit to the applicant versus any potential detriment to the neighborhood, it
strikes me that probably it’s somewhat of an even tradeoff. As the applicant indicates, you
know, I think there’s a plus in that he doesn’t want to clutter the shoreline with another dock
scattered somewhere further away from this one, and I think that’s a fair tradeoff. So I think if
the applicant would agree to some conditions on this approval, I could go with an approval for
this variance. I would like to see two conditions. One, that the applicant would agree not to
build any additional docks on his lakefront. So he’s getting his extra dock for his extra piece
here and he’s connecting it to the existing dock, but I would like to see an agreement that, or a
condition that there would be no more additional docks built on this shoreline, and second, as
Mr. Stone suggested, I think I’d like to see a condition that any potential future boathouse
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
would be built only on the existing dock and not covering the entire dock complex, because that
would make a really big boathouse, if he covered the U-Shaped dock that exists now plus the
additional one. With those two conditions, I would be in favor.
MR. STONE-All right. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but to my way of thinking, they start out with a
nonconforming dock to begin with, from the get go. You’ve got a nonconforming situation. In
addition to that now you want to add in three other variances, these being things that the Town
or Code is making an effort to restrict or eliminate when possible. So I think that the, and then
the concluding thing being there is a feasible alternative. In the face of all this, I cannot see how
I could vote approval for this variance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am partial to what my fellow Board
member just stated, and I’m also partial to the comments of Chuck about an agreement that any
future boathouse would only be constructed on the existing dock. I’m concerned, as I stated
initially, that the applicant is requesting quite a bit from the Town of Queensbury. He’s
requesting something that is not allowed by the Code, and, Number Two, by his own
admission, he agrees that there is an alternate feasible alternative and apparently does not want
to, I say you, the applicant does not wish to follow that, and as I stated, failure to accept any
kind of reasonable feasible alternative can result in a denial, and I think, based on the
information this evening, I will not support the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to agree with Norm and Chuck. I do not, I find
it troubling that someone who has a nonconforming would ask for these considerable reliefs,
and so I would be against it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m trying to look at this from the outside a little bit more, and when I look
at whether this is going to change the character of the neighborhood, I don’t see where this
change would have a vast impact at this point, but there are other alternatives that you can take
into account. You’ve chose not to, the applicant has chosen not to. So those are two criteria
which I feel sort of balance each other out. As far as the requested Area Variance and whether
that’s substantial, moderate, or whatever it is, the connecting portion is really what’s throwing
it out of whack. It seems substantial, but if that connection wasn’t there, probably there
wouldn’t be a need for a variance. So that, to me, is sort of creating, what seems an
overwhelming variance request, but it may not be as bad as it seems. Whether it has an adverse
effect on the neighborhood, I don’t think it will, because there are other bigger docks in that
neighborhood, but I do think it’s self-created, taking a nonconforming structure, self-created
from the standpoint that it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Therefore, my feeling
is what Mr. McNulty’s feeling is. I would be in favor of it with the two conditions that he has
suggested, no additional docks, and the boathouse only on the existing dock, and that’s the only
way I would approve it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I think I feel pretty much the same way as Roy just pointed out. I hate to not rule
in favor of a variance on what I consider a technical decision that promotes a fraud on the Code,
being that he could theoretically move this over two inches and build the same structure, and is
that what we’re trying to promote here, and be legal. I think that I’m wary of that in this
particular circumstance, because as Mr. Frank has pointed out, that would be a legal thing to do
in this case. I think the applicant is offering a reasonable compromise, or at least I feel strongly
that that’s the only compromise that I would be interested in, in a sense that by giving up the
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
second dock, the fact that this dock would be 260, or 252 square feet larger than it could be,
versus a feasible alternative of another whole dock structure on the shoreline, to me, the feasible
alternative is undesirable. So I think that has to weigh in our mind. Just because there is a
feasible alternative doesn’t mean that that rules against the applicant. Everybody has to make
their own decision on that, but in my opinion, in this case, the feasible alternative is less
desirable than the request that’s being made at this time, and I think, asking for a complete
prohibition on the boathouse, as Mr. Frank pointed out, I think that’s too far. I think, you know,
we’re allowed to put reasonable conditions on when requests are made from relief from the
Code, but I think a prohibition, and a complete prohibition on what would be a legal boathouse
on that existing structure is over the line, in my opinion. I think it’s too far. So similar to my
other colleagues, though, it’s not my desire to create a super sized boathouse, either. I would
only be in favor of it with the second contingency, that any boathouse that’s constructed, in the
future, would be over the existing pre-application structure. We’re not granting this relief to
add additional size to the boathouse as well, and I think Mrs. Salvador accurately pointed out
that we have to be wary of where this all could go, and keep that in mind, and I’m doing that
with the contingency that I would only be in favor of. So, I’m in favor of the application,
balancing everything out, but with those two important contingencies.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. Hayes has stated my case quite well, and so has Mr. McNulty. We
have to keep in mind, or at least I have to keep in mind, that Mr. Kasselman could have gone in
to the Town, gotten a building permit for another 700 square foot dock, somewhere on his
waterfront property. That would give dockage of about 1429 feet, if I can add 7 and 729. That’s
a huge amount of dockage, on a big lot, yes, but it’s a huge amount of dockage. He has chosen
to seek a much lesser area, but he is seeking a variance from our Code, and that gives us a
certain latitude, and I believe Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Urrico have basically said, with
the conditions that no further expansions, that this finger be built with the small connecting
thing, and that no, that a boathouse not be built on anywhere except the existing structure, if so
inclined, which could already, it could be done legally now, as we all agree. I think the balance
comes down in favor of the modified request, modified the way we have modified it, and I feel
comfortable that we have made a reasonable request of the applicant, in return for giving the
applicant the opportunity to do what he wants now, and that’s really what we’re saying. He
comes before us with an extended dock, an expanded dock, and we say okay we’ll grant that,
but, and that’s where we are. So, having said that, I think we’re in a situation where we are
prepared to approve a resolution that calls for the requested additional area, the configuration,
with the stipulations of no further expansion and a limited amount of boathouse. So I need a
motion to that effect. Do one of you two gentlemen want to try it?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2003 PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
25 Wild Turkey Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 252 square foot rock-filled crib
dock to adjoin the existing nonconforming 729 square foot dock. Specifically, the applicant
requests 252 square feet of relief from the 700 square foot maximum size requirement, 13 feet of
relief from the 40 foot maximum width requirement, and the requirement from the
configuration requirement of the docks and moorings regulations per Section 179-5-050 Part A1
Part A4 and 5. Additionally, the applicant needs relief for the expansion of a nonconforming
structure per Section 179-13-101 Part E. I don’t believe that any significant change will result in
the neighborhood based on the addition of this addition to the dock. The Staff notes have
already commented that it would not be in size tremendously or visually out of character with
what already exists in the neighborhood at this current time. Additionally, the applicant could
construct a second dock which in our opinion could possibly have a negative impact on the
neighborhood character or properties. In this particular case, I believe the Board has
determined that there is a feasible alternative. The feasible alternative is inferior to the
application as made, and therefore not necessarily being held against the applicant the fact that
a feasible alternative does exist. I don’t think the requested Area Variance is substantial. I think
it’s moderate. 252 square feet of relief in this particular case is not minor, but it’s not substantial
in the sense that it represents approximately 30% of what additionally would be allowed, which
is not an overwhelmingly number in my mind for it. I don’t believe that the proposed variance
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. I don’t believe that it will. As I’ve already mentioned, we’ve determined or it
has been suggested to us that this is not that much different than the physical environment of
that area now in this particular case. Similarly, the two contingencies that we have decided to
put on this variance will have the effect of controlling whatever adverse effect there is by
limiting the size of a proposed boathouse, in this particular case, and is the difficulty self-
created? I think this falls against the applicant in the sense that certainly he has a
nonconforming dock, as has been pointed out by the Board. He wishes to expand that dock,
and he is here for that reason. So I believe the difficulty is, in fact, self-created. This is a
balancing test, and I move for the approval based on that on balance it falls in favor of the
applicant. My motion will include two important conditions for approval. One, that the
applicant or the applicant’s agent agrees that there will be no, if this variance is approved, that
there will be no additional dockage requested for this property permanently, that this will be
essentially the last additional dockage built there. The second condition is that if and when any
overhead structure allowed by Code is ever constructed on this property, that the any overhead
structure allowed by Code will cover the pre-application structure as depicted in the
submissions by the applicant and the pictures of Staff, that that any overhead structure allowed
by Code will only cover the pre-application 729 square foot pre-existing nonconforming
dockage. There will be no structures built over what has been approved in this variance, and
therefore I move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, did the applicant state on the record that he’s willing to accept
these two stipulations?
MR. HAYES-Well, we’re making our motion and voting on it, and that’s all we’re approving.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. If he doesn’t accept them, then he doesn’t build his addition.
MR. ABBATE-I would just like to know.
MR. STONE-That’s good. Well, he certainly accepted the one, and the other part is, we’re
putting on there. The only way they’re going to get a variance and a building permit is
agreeing to that at some point.
MR. MC NULTY-Could we, or should we change the words “boathouse” to boathouse or
sundeck?
MR. HAYES-I will change the words to any overhead structure.
MR. STONE-Don’t go that far.
MR. FRANK-Allowed by Code.
MR. STONE-Allowed by Code, right. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mrs. Hunt
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. MOONEY-Thank you very much.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS
OWNER: ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ.
LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD ZONING: SFR-1A APPLICANT REQUESTS
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FROM JULY 24, 2002 (AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002).
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION/OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLAND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 30-2002; FW 1-2002, UV 12-2002, AV 47-2002
TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-30
TUCKER STANCLIFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-This was an application which was approved, and because of considerations
which will be explained to us, they’re requesting an extension. In continuing with my previous
decision, because of earlier involvement with the Girl Scout Council, namely through my wife, I
am going to recuse myself, and, Jim, would you sit up here.
MR. STANCLIFT-Good evening, members of the Board. My name’s Tucker Stanclift. I’m an
attorney at Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and I’m attempting to fill the shoes of Jon
Lapper this evening, which is often a difficult task. As was stated, the applicant is seeking a
simple extension of the time period in which to fulfill the approval that’s already been given by
the Board, and the reason for the request is as you know, the Girl Scouts are an organization
with limited means, and although this approval was granted, it does cost a significant amount
of money. The good news is that the fundraiser is going quite well and a significant amount of
that money has been raised, but we’re not at the point where we can, in good faith, get the
building permit and start construction. I’m told that I could expect and relay to the Board that
construction would be expected to begin next spring. So, with that being said, I would ask that
the Board approve our request for an extension of that timeframe.
MR. HAYES-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Stanclift at this time? Okay. I guess what
I will do is take a quick polling of the Board. I recognize a lot of the people from the Girl Scouts
organization, and that’s wonderful that you showed enough initiative to show up tonight, but it
may not be necessary to go through that process. So, I’ll quickly poll. Are there any questions
that we need to ask the Girl Scouts? Are we prepared to move on this now? Bruce, we don’t
necessarily have to have a public hearing, do we? Or should I?
MR. FRANK-Well, because it was advertised, I think you do.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing, and I guess the representatives of the Girl
Scouts, to save time for the people that are here, if there is opposition that speaks on the public
record, I’ll start on the unusual sense of asking is there anyone here that would like to oppose
the extension of the approval of this application?
MR. STANCLIFT-For the record, the approval was granted last July.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. STANCLIFT-And I believe we’d be asking for an additional year extension. I’m not sure if
that was made clear on the record.
MR. HAYES-Okay. You understand that, Bruce? Is that actual request. So I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the extension of the
current variance, the (lost word) variance for the Girl Scouts. I should actually list the number
here. At that time it was Area Variance No. 47-2002.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And would someone on the Board like to make a motion?
MR. ABBATE-I’ll take the motion, Jaime.
BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT
WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT WILL BE THE RESULT OF THE INITIAL VARIANCE OR OUR EXTENSION
THEREOF, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman
Himes:
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MOTION TO GRANT APPROVAL FOR EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF AREA
VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS, Introduced by Charles Abbate
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
213 Meadowbrook Road. This request by the individual I think is a reasonable request.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest to the Board that, from a procedural standpoint,
because this was a Type II Unlisted action when it was originally considered and presumably
there was a finding of no significant environmental impact, that the Board, at this point, just
discuss that matter, the fact that there apparently was a finding of no significant environmental
impact, and I think it would be appropriate if there was a motion to that effect, after due
consideration by the Board, reviewing the conditions as they exist now.
MR. HAYES-As Counsel are you recommending that we go through the Short Environmental
Assessment Form all together or just reaffirm the rational that we had used then?
MR. HILL-I think a discussion amongst the Board members, bearing in mind the criteria that
appear on the form and whether there have been any changes at the site that the Board’s been
apprised of.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. We will do that. So I’m going to hold on the motion for the
extension, our approval, just as a matter of procedure, based on a suggestion from Town
Counsel. I’d like to suggest to the Board that our Short Environmental Assessment review that
we conducted prior to approving the variance in July of last year, that there’s no significant
changes that have occurred in the criteria associated with that review that would cause us to
change our position on our negative declaration of environmental impact. Is that?
MR. HILL-Has the Board been apprised of any changes at the site, any changes in condition,
any material changes since you granted the variance a year ago?
MR. ABBATE-Jaime, you know what we could do? We could pose that question to Counsel
and get a direct answer. Has there been any changes in the environmental impact since this last
discussion?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STANCLIFT-Not that I’m aware of, and I’m looking back at my clients and they’re all
shaking their head no.
MR. ABBATE-So at least we have it directly from the applicant.
MR. HAYES-But it also has to be in our finding, too, theoretically.
MR. HILL-As long as the Board is satisfied that you haven’t done any material changes at the
site that would cause you to change your previous determination (lost words) then the Board
should note that.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, the notes I have at the previous meetings is at that time this
was pegged as a Type II SEQRA action, and I don’t believe we did a Short Environmental
Assessment Form at that time. It was just a Type II.
MR. HAYES-All right. Well, why don’t we do one now.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-The extension is granted.
MR. STANCLIFT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-We have something that we’ve been asked to consider. This is a record of a
resolution. Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that in the interest of
conducting such complete and thorough reviews, it would be beneficial to limit the number of
items considered each month. This has been asked by Staff that we look into this. Therefore, Be
It Resolved that we find the following as modified in the following way, the maximum number
of items to be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals during a typical monthly review
period shall be 16. Applications will be considered for placement on the Board’s agenda as
follows: a. Applications tabled to a specific calendar date. b. Applications referred by the
Town Board. c. Old Business previously reviewed and satisfying submission requirements. d.
Complete applications received during the previous month but not placed due to agenda limits,
in excess of the 16-item limit. e. New applications satisfying submission requirements. 3. The
Zoning Board of Appeals agenda may be further modified at the discretion of the Zoning Board
Chairman and/or Zoning Administrator. I put this for your consideration. We have been
asked to limit ourselves to 16 applications in two meetings, it doesn’t say two meetings, but 16
applications, and if you’re willing to accept this, then we have a, well, that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-What was it, seven, before, Mr. Chairman? Or did we have a stipulation?
MR. STONE-I don’t think we really had a limit. It really depended upon Staff determining
whether we were going to be here until one or two in the morning. Any comments on the part
of the Board? It’s a recognition that sometimes we get inundated with applications and trying
to make it being able to be completed in a reasonable time.
MR. ABBATE-I would go along with it, Mr. Chairman, if the Town would, after 11 o’clock,
provide the public with some sort of buffet, what have you.
MR. STONE-So noted, Mr. Abbate.
MR. URRICO-It would seem to me that, in limiting the number of items that the Board can hear,
we’d be limiting the public, and that that would seem to be unfair to me, that items that are
submitted on time would not be heard in a timely fashion, if they come in late or get in on time,
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
they’d be pushed off to another agenda and, you know, that’s only going to push back other
items. So I’m not, I don’t like this suggestion.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. HIMES-Yes. If there would be any ways, procedurally, to move the meetings along a little
faster, I would suggested they be pursued and explored, if possible, because I think the, in
support of what Roy has said, I do agree. Whether we were going to go to more meetings per
month or what have you, I do know that once you get past a certain hour in the evening, I think
our effectiveness is a little impaired. I mean, the actual overall service to the community, and
the fact of the time that they spend here waiting as well as hours getting through it might be
impacted. That’s all. Thank you.
MR. STONE-First of all, I understand, Mr. Strough, the Planning Board adopted this similar
resolution?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. STONE-So that the Planning Board.
MR. STROUGH-It didn’t work so well.
MR. STONE-It didn’t work so well. Well, there you go. There’s a yes and a no.
MR. MC NULTY-I would agree with what’s been said, though. I think, on the one hand, it’s an
excellent idea to perhaps limit the number of cases per meeting that we handle, because, as has
been said, I think both on our parts, when we get to eleven o’clock, but also on the public’s part,
if somebody’s come to make a comment, and it’s twice as boring when you’re sitting out there
in the audience than it is when you’re sitting behind the tables here, I can tell you, waiting for
the thing that you’re interested in to come up. So I think the meetings that stretch into the wee
hours limit the information that we get from the public as well. So it’s a detriment. So I think
it’s an excellent idea to pick a number, and I think eight’s a reasonable number per meeting, but
to say that we’re only going to cover 16 variances and some of them probably will be repeats.
So we’re really only going to cover something less than 16 new ones each month is limiting the
public’s access to their right to request a variance. I think that the Town needs to find some
other way of accommodating the overflow.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. McNulty makes an excellent point. May I suggest this. If we have so
many cases to be heard, why not have three meetings a month rather than two. I don’t have a
problem with that.
MR. FRANK-I realize what you’re saying has a lot of credibility, but you also have to, hopefully
you will take into consideration our professional staff is limited, and so sometimes if you have
more than 16 applications, it puts a lot of burden on the Staff to cover these applications as
thoroughly as possible. I mean, there’s a lot of other things going on in this Town besides just
the Zoning Board. So that was one of the reasons, and if I could add to that, I think another
thing was, this happens every time, 4:30 the deadline, that some of them come in with three or
four applications and drop them down, and we tell everybody get your applications in soon,
and have them re-reviewed. We try to do everything to accommodate the public, but certain
individuals don’t tend to take notice, and I think there’s a number of other reasons.
MR. STONE-And you think by limiting the number that if somebody comes in then you can
readily say, well, you’re on time, but you’re way far in line.
MR. FRANK-Well, they do this for the Planning Board. They’re time stamped, and numbered.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-I understand. I know what you’re saying.
MR. ABBATE-But, you know, in the final analysis, we have to do what’s in the best interest of
the public. If we have to make sacrifices, so be it. That’s what we’re on the Board for. If we
don’t want to make those sacrifices, then we should get off the Board, but we have to do what is
in the best interest of the public.
MR. STONE-And I don’t disagree with you, and that’s why I do disagree with Mr. Himes. I
think we need to talk at length on some subjects. Sometimes it’s going to take a long time, and I
would never consider, as you guys know, I would never consider cutting off debate because I
think there are too many, too much interest on the part of the public, and we raise a lot of very
good questions. So, I mean, I certainly.
MR. HAYES-Can I make a suggestion?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. HAYES-I think maybe we should contemplate what’s on, I don’t know if we should make a
decision about this tonight.
MR. STONE-Agreed.
MR. HAYES-Being that we have a full agenda and obviously there’s a lot of different feelings,
and we should have time to think about that. Do you know what I mean? What do you think,
Roy? I mean, I don’t think we have a clear cut direction on this.
MR. URRICO-We’ve lived with it this long, I think we can.
MR. STONE-Yes, I agree. I would suggest that we table this resolution for our own
consideration, if you will, over the next week, or even until next month. I haven’t had a public
hearing, but for purposes of hearing you, I will allow you to come forward, but you have a
limited amount of time.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Some time around 1995, the Town faced the same problem, a parade of
variance applications, and there was great concern about the number, the length of the meetings
and everything, and so the solution seemed to be to undertake a comprehensive plan, which
was done, in an effort to, Number One, reduce the number of zoning districts in the Town. That
was paramount. We have too many zoning districts, okay, and to simplify the Code, so we
didn’t have this parade of variances. Okay. So we put a new Zoning Ordinance in place. Well,
the result has been that we have ever more applications for site plan review. This puts the load
on the Planning Board, and you’re faced with all of these applications, and we have more
zoning districts. Okay. Consider this. If you were to adopt this limit of the number, that is
defacto moratorium. That’s a defacto moratorium. Why don’t we just declare a moratorium
then. Then everybody knows.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-See, that’s an important point, and that’s why, Mr. Chairman, we should
seriously consider three meetings a month, if we have that kind of cases to be heard.
MR. STONE-That’s a possible, we’ve done it. We’ve had three meetings in a month. The
Planning Board has three, four.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think that’s what we should consider.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Anyway.
MOTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION TO LIMIT ZBA APPLICATIONS TO 16 PER MONTH,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
For 60 days, and each Board member will consider the idea and suggestions for accepting it or
modifying it or rejecting it.
Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-We’ll take it under advisement.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2003 TYPE II ALICE CASTLE, DOREEN GREEN AGENT: ACE
HOMES, INC. OWNER: ALICE CASTLE LE, DOREEN GREEN ZONING: LI LOCATION:
469 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING SINGLE-WIDE
MOBILE HOME WITH A NEW 28 FT. BY 52 FT. DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME (YEAR
2003 MODEL). SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 35-2001 TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-17 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION:
179-4-030
DOREEN GREEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2003 Alice Castle & Doreen Green, Meeting Date: May
21, 2003 “Project Location: 469 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to replace the existing 12-foot by 70-foot single-wide mobile home with a new 28-foot
by 52-foot double-wide manufactured home (2003 model). Relief Required: Applicant
requests 20 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI Zone per
§179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 35-2001: 06/20/01, same as current application (previous approval expired on 06/20/02).
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 placing the structure compliantly by rotating it 90 degrees from that proposed be
interpreted as a feasible alternative?
3) Might 20 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum requirement be interpreted as moderate
relative to the ordinance (66.7%)?
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 the difficulty be interpreted as self-created as there appears to be a feasible
alternative?”
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County referral.
MR. STONE-Is the applicant here?
MS. GREEN-Doreen Green, 39 Warren Street, Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add?
MS. GREEN-No, I think it’s all right there on the paper. I just want to put my house parallel to
the road, just like the other neighbors, and it would probably be more privacy for my neighbor
because there’s no windows on the side of my double-wide. If I had it in lengthwise there’d be
windows and like a privacy I believe.
MR. STONE-This is exactly as we approved two years ago. Correct?
MS. GREEN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Except it’s a 2003.
MS. GREEN-There you go. That’s it.
MR. STONE-Was it going to be a used one?
MS. GREEN-No.
MR. STONE-It was always going to be new.
MS. GREEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-I didn’t remember that it was going to be new.
MS. GREEN-Yes, brand new.
MR. STONE-Okay. Have you ever considered, given any consideration to moving it to the
south? Parallel to the road, but so that you minimize?
MS. GREEN-That would be fine with me, but it would still.
MR. STONE-It still requires a variance.
MS. GREEN-Correct.
MR. STONE-And I don’t know how the Board feels, but I mean that is a, you could minimize
the variance required, but require two different variances. That’s the other thing.
MR. MC NULTY-I think this came up last time.
MR. STONE-It probably did.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m trying to remember. I think there was something to do with the garage or
something at that time.
MS. GREEN-Yes. The garage is over to the left.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-I think it was something about the entry to the garage or something was
conflicting with what was proposed.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. ABBATE-Can we comment, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STONE-Please. Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-It’s my personal belief that your application is well founded. I believe that any
suggestion for an alternative, feasible alternative, is not fair to you, quite frankly, and we made
that decision in the previous application this evening. I think your request to place your new 28
foot by 52 foot double-wide home on the lot in the area that you wish is a no-brainer. I think it’s
fair, and I will support it.
MS. GREEN-Thank you.
MR. STONE-The garage is going to stay?
MS. GREEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The current trailer that’s on the property now is about 10 feet from the
property line, if I’m correct?
MS. GREEN-That’s correct, yes.
MR. MC NULTY-So really, in that sense, there’s going to be no change, other than it’s going to
go across more of the property?
MS. GREEN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And it’s brand new.
MR. MC NULTY-And it’s going to be brand new, but it won’t be any closer to the adjoining
house than it is now.
MS. GREEN-No.
MR. STONE-Any other comments before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Actually, a record of a brief telephone call from a Lorraine Troy, who’s a
neighbor. Occurred on 5/14/03, and her comments are, no objections. Anything is better than
the mess that’s there now.
MR. STONE-Couldn’t have said it better, and that’s not being a knock.
MS. GREEN-I’m trying.
MR. STONE-No, I think it’s going to be a big addition. Anyway. Anybody else? That’s it? I’ll
close the public hearing.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Okay. Let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sympathetic with the application. However, I
think the matter of whether the trailer is placed facing the road or perpendicular is maybe one
of personal taste, and I just, you know, it is a fairly small lot. I just think that that is a feasible
alternative, and the reasons given for your preference are understandable, but I don’t know that
they create such a hardship that we should overlook the Code. Perhaps you have other reasons
that you could provide, but on the basis of it, I feel that I could not support the application as
submitted, if it could be turned so that there would be no variance required at all. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I hope that Norm speaks to me tomorrow. I, quite frankly, take the opposite
point of view. I think, in these cases, if it’s possible, we should take into consideration an
individual’s personal preference. We did that in an application this evening, in a major
application this evening. I believe that where you desire to place your new home is reasonable.
I don’t see any overwhelming evidence or facts to state that it would be an absolute disaster to
the Town of Queensbury, and this is your home, and if I were in your position, I’d be seeking
the same thing, and I will support your application.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I agree with Mr. Abbate. Thinking about it, the neighbor to the
other side, instead of having 66 foot of building, is only going to have 29. I think for them that
would be an improvement, and I think it would be a big improvement to the neighborhood. So
I would approve it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I was in favor of it on 6/20/01, and I’m in favor of it today. I think, overall, it
would be an improvement to the neighborhood. We haven’t heard any objections from any
neighbors that might be inclined to think that it should be facing a different direction. I think
it’ll be a desirable change to the character of the neighborhood, not an undesirable one. The
request, in my mind, is modest, and I think this is a positive addition to the area. I’d be in favor
of it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-Well, I voted against the variance before, so I should probably be consistent. Even
though I will say that it certainly seems not to troublesome. So I’m going to vote no because I
voted no before, and that’s my.
MS. GREEN-Because it was commercial zoned, I think that’s why you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, that was my story then, so I’m sticking with it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be in favor. I think it’s a reasonable request. As has been pointed
out, it’s going to be no closer to the adjoining house than the existing trailer, and it’s going to
have the big plus that it’s not going to be the whole length of that trailer. It’s going to be 29 feet
that would be exposed to that house. So I think, on balance, it’s going to be an improvement to
the lot, not only because it’s going to be a new trailer versus what’s there now, but I think the
configuration is going to be an improvement also. So I’ll be in favor.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Let me refer to the minutes of two years ago. I asked you about the garage. Were
you going to fix it up, and you said my plans are to leave it there and fix it up.
MS. GREEN-Right.
MR. STONE-Is that still the situation?
MS. GREEN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Good. That’s what I wanted to hear, and I’m glad to hear it again. I really think
that a brand new trailer on that site, and with the attendant yard work that I’m sure you’re
going to put in, because you’re not going to put a new trailer in and let it go to the devil. I think
it’s going to be a marked improvement in the neighborhood, and I think any time we can allow
that to happen with minimal detriment to the rest of the community, I think we’re doing a good
job. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this Area Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2003 ALICE CASTLE & DOREEN
GREEN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
469 Big Bay Road. The applicant proposes to replace the existing 12 foot by 70 foot single wide
mobile home with a new 28 foot by 52 foot double wide manufactured home, 2003 model. The
relief required, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback
requirement of the LI zone per Section 179-4-030. Whether an undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be
created, and my answer to that is absolutely not. That it will be a welcome relief. Whether the
benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant
to pursue other than an Area Variance, and in my opinion the applicant has requested relief
which is reasonable. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. It’s not substantial.
It’s a moderate request. It’s a minimal request. Whether the proposed Variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district. The impact it will have, there’s no question about it, but it will be a desirable change in
my opinion, and five, whether the difficulty is self-created, possibly, but on balance, Mr.
Chairman and fellow Board members, I believe that based on the information that we should
approve Area Variance No. 33-2003.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MS. GREEN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-We’ll look forward to it this time.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2003 TYPE II JOSEPH DIDIO AGENT: N/A OWNER:
JOSEPH DIDIO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 2966 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 280 SQ. FT. STRAIGHT DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-112
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/14/03 APA TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.17
ACRES SECTION: 179-5-050 (A6)
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
JOSEPH DIDIO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2003, Joseph Didio, Meeting Date: May 21, 2003
“Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
addition of a 280 sq. ft. straight dock to the existing 260 sq. ft. dock resulting in a 540 sq. ft. L-
shaped dock. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum
property line setback requirement for docks of the Docks and Moorings regulations per §179-5-
050(A6).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None.
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 neighbor to the immediate north is in favor
of the application?
2) Might it appear no feasible alternatives exist due to the narrowness of the parcel and the way
the property line (by code) is projected into the lake?
3) Might 3 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement be interpreted as minimal to
moderate relative to the ordinance (15%)?
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 narrowness of the pre-existing
nonconforming parcel?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14,
2003 Project Name: Didio, Joseph Owner: Joseph Didio ID Number: QBY-03-AV-34 County
Project#: May03-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 280 sq. ft. straight dock. Relief requested from the side
setback requirements. 20’ is required; 17’ is proposed. Site Location: 2966 State Route 9L Tax
Map Number(s): 239.20-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a
280 sq. ft. dock. The dock is to be 20 feet in length and will be 17’ from the north property line
where 20’ is required, the south side meets the 20’ setback. The information submitted indicates
the dock will be 8 ft. wide. The width of the property is about 49 feet and narrows close to
shore. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county
impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed by Bennet F.
Driscoll, 5/19/03.
MR. STONE-Let me just add, only because we’ve not done it before, but I think we should.
There is another jurisdiction that gets involved with docks, namely the Lake George Park
Commission, and I just want to read into the record, even though it’s in our notes, a permit has
been issued for wharf repair, modification, or construction at this site by the Lake George Park
Commission, authorized by, it has to be done by March 25, 2004. I just thought we ought to
have it in the record. Mr. Didio.
MR. DIDIO-Thank you. Yes.
MR. STONE-Tell us anything more?
MR. DIDIO-No, I think that’s it. I am Joe Didio. I live at 2966 State Route 9L, and we moved in
in November as our year round home, but I think it’s all pretty much stated here. So I’ll answer
any questions.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-I have a question. To the south of you, your neighbor to the south, are those, that
dock and all those boats, are they his boats or are they rental boats? Is it a marina? What is it?
Because I’m very concerned about Class B, Class A, Class anything marinas, and it looks like a
marina. Maybe it doesn’t quack like a marina, but it looks like one.
MR. DIDIO-I really can’t answer. I really don’t know. I’ve met one set of folks that went down
there, and honestly, I don’t know if the owner has a boat down there.
MR. STONE-Who is the owner?
MR. DIDIO-Jeepers.
MR. SALVADOR-Gary Banta.
MR. DIDIO-Yes, exactly. Banta.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. DIDIO-But I don’t know. I’ve never met Mr. Banta. He’s never around.
MR. STONE-So you don’t know, obviously, whether this is an approved marina? I’m getting
shakes of heads in the back of the room, but we’re not. When I went there, I saw something that
disturbed me, and it’s not your fault, but I’ve got to get it off my chest, and I want it in the
record that there were four boats there. It was wall to wall docks from property line to property
line, and knowing that the Town has been actively looking into Special Use marina permits,
namely the Planning Board, and did some action last night, with which I, personally, was
concerned, and upset, and I’ll put it in the record and stand by it. I was disturbed when I saw it.
Not you, and it has no, it will not color my consideration of this, but I wanted to say it.
Anybody else have any?
MR. ABBATE-I wanted to say the same thing here in my notes, Mr. Chairman. When I went
down there, I was concerned, too, that it appeared to me, you know, if it quacks like a duck,
walks like a duck, it’s a duck. So the question is, is it a marina. Do they have a huge family?
MR. URRICO-We’re not talking this application.
MR. STONE-We know that. You’ve got to vent sometimes, Roy, you’ve got to vent. That’s all.
Anybody else have any comments about this? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, basically I have no objections. My name is John Salvador. What I would
like to do is try to answer some of the questions you’ve raised, the concerns you have with the
parcel.
MR. STONE-I’ve given you a forum, Mr. Salvador. Go ahead.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. That piece of land next door that you speak of is not a developed lot.
There is no principal use on that lot.
MR. STONE-There’s a house.
MR. SALVADOR-No, that’s a right of way. Between Mr. Didio and that house that’s next to the
boat company is a piece of land that is a right of way to the lake, and it is owned by the people
who operate that little cabin colony there, across the street.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-So the house has no waterfront?
MR. SALVADOR-That piece of land does not have a principal use on it.
MR. STONE-But there is a house there? You’re saying to me that’s?
MR. SALVADOR-The docks you see next door to Didio, to the south, are adjacent to a right of
way. They are attached to a right of way on which there is no principal use.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-And you know the rules. First you have to have a principal use, then you
have a dock.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Then you have accessory use.
MR. STONE-Thank you for the (lost word).
MR. SALVADOR-Now, this parcel is the subject of Mr. Boehm’s appeal. If you recall last year,
he brought an appeal before you folks. Well, before it matured, he sold, and that’s why he
dropped his appeal.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-But he was concerned about the operation of that, of a marina there. Just to
clarify.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask Bruce a question. I think it’s important that he address it. Is Mr.
Salvador correct in his statement of facts that he’s stated this evening, that there’s no principal
use?
MR. FRANK-I have no idea. When I was at the site, there was not one boat there. So I mean,
I’m not saying that what the Chairman is saying is correct. That would be hearsay, as he
accuses me of in the past, so I don’t know.
MR. SALVADOR-Can you put your tax map up?
MR. FRANK-I can do that for you.
MR. SALVADOR-Put that up. I’ll show you.
MR. ABBATE-Well, can you find out for us?
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention, is this the proper forum
this, and is this fair to the applicant? It’s got nothing to do with him, or does it?
MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t. It isn’t fair, but we’re doing it anyway.
MR. ABBATE-And I’d like to have an answer from the Town, whether this is a principal. Well,
I have no idea because I had no reason to investigate it. There’s been no formal complaint.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’re putting it on the record.
MR. FRANK-I wouldn’t have a clue.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Please consider it a formal request.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-That’s all.
MR. FRANK-There is a procedure for that, and I’ll let you know about it.
MR. STONE-Thank you. We’ll do it.
MR. SALVADOR-This is Mr. Didio’s parcel. There’s a house on this parcel, here. This is
Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, and this is the right of way. This is the right of way from this
land.
MR. STONE-I hear you.
MR. SALVADOR-This is a separate individual lot. Okay, and this is the right of way, has no
principal use on it, and yet has these docks attached to it.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I will make whatever request, I will make a formal request both as
Lew Stone and as the Chairman of the Zoning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we put it into a motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-I’ve taken more time that I should have, but I wanted to get it out. Okay. I’ll close
the public hearing, hearing no more people.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FRANK-And Mr. Chairman, I wanted to state on the record, I realize if you’re members of
the community, you sure have the right to complain about something if you think that there’s a
violation of the Town Code. The job of the Zoning Board is not to enforce the Town Code. I
know you realize that. So making a formal motion would be the wrong way to approach it.
MR. STONE-I agree. We’re not making a formal motion. Okay. Read that letter. I’ll leave the
public hearing open until you read that letter.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter that actually was addressed to the Lake George Park
Commission, but it’s germane to this issue. It’s from Allen W. Strack, located at 2964 State
Route 9L, and he says, “I am the next door neighbor to Mr. Didio, to the north. I have reviewed
the proposal for the modification of his dock (wharf) and I have also discussed the matter with
him. I heartily endorse this project, and strongly recommend its approval. Sincerely Allen W.
Strack”
MR. STONE-Thank you. Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other, nothing for you to add, I don’t think, because we haven’t addressed
anything toward yours, and I ask the indulgence of my Board for my vendetta. Let’s talk about
it, very quickly, Chuck, let’s start with you.
MR. ABBATE-This is a year round home, and I believe, I truly believe, that Mr. Didio’s request
is reasonable. I often try to place myself in the position of the applicant, and I would be
suggesting or requesting the identical thing that you are doing. I have no problems with that at
all. I’m in favor of your application, and I’d like to plagiarize some of the Staff notes. No
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
detriment to nearby communities. No feasible alternatives exist. Minimal relief. No adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. Based upon these notes in itself, I
will support your application.
MRS. HUNT-I agree. I think this is a reasonable request, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of it as well.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. This is a balancing test. The benefit to the applicant versus the detriment
to the neighborhood or community. I really don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood or
community, and you’ve explained your benefit to you, and I’m satisfied with that.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what’s been said. it’s actually a relatively minor
variance because it’s only the end of the dock that really needs the variance. Reasonable
request. No reasonable alternative. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I support the application for the reasons given by my fellow Board
members. I have nothing more to add. Thank you.
MR. DIDIO-Thank you.
MR. STONE-If they were all this easy.
MR. DIDIO-I was scared to death coming.
MR. STONE-Well, yes, we are pretty tough on docks, but this is one you don’t have one. You
have this little stub here where you get the sun, and you’re certainly entitled, being on the lake,
to have a dock, and I think this is as good as you can do on that particular piece of land. So I
need a motion to approve.
MR. HIMES-All right, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2003 JOSEPH DIDIO, Introduced by
Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
2966 State Route 9L. The applicant proposes addition of a 280 square foot straight dock to the
existing 260 square foot dock, resulting in a total 540 square foot L-Shaped dock. Relief
requested, applicant requests three feet of relief from the twenty-foot minimum property line
setback requirement for docks of the docks and moorings regulations per 179-5-050, A6.
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created, and I think we’ll all agree that no to that
question. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method
feasible for the applicant to pursue, and I don’t think that any of us have felt that there is that
kind of an alternative. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. No, it is a very
minor amount of variance, and Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions used in the neighborhood or district. No, it
is not. It is not any greater than nearby, actually less than some of the neighboring docks in the
vicinity, and whether it’s self-created, I don’t think that that is a factor here. So, given this, I
move that we approve the application as submitted.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
MR. DIDIO-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2003 TYPE II DONALD A. MILNE OWNER: DONALD A.
MILNE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 25 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WOODEN STAIRWAY FROM EXISTING DECK
TOWARDS GLEN LAKE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE AND THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 28-2003; BP 96-572; BP 90-135; BP
93-498; AV 96-1996 TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-22 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030
DONALD MILNE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2003, Donald A. Milne, Meeting Date: May 21, 2003
“Project Location: 25 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 68 sq. ft. wooden stairway from the existing deck to the lakefront. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 8.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement, and 2 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement for the
WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. However, the side setback scales to 16.25 feet on the site plan
submitted, which would require 3.75 feet of relief. The applicant has indicated a legal survey
will be provided the night of the meeting depicting the actual amount of relief needed for both
setbacks.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 28-2003: to be reviewed 05/22/03, construction of a wooden and stone walkway within 50 feet
of shoreline.
BP 96572: 11/05/96, 236 sq. ft. gazebo and covered walkway.
AV 96-1996: 10/23/96, setback relief for a 236 sq. ft. gazebo and covered walkway.
BP 93498: 08/30/93, 2-car attached garage.
BP 90135: 04/17/90, septic alteration.
Variance #564: 06/21/78, relief to construct a dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a town
road.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in character of neighborhood or no detriment to
nearby properties will occur being the stairway will be screened from the adjacent property by
the existing dense evergreen trees?
2) Even though it appears utilizing a new stairway will provide for a safer access to the
lakefront, might utilizing the existing path be considered a feasible alternative?
3) Relative to the ordinance, might 8.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline
setback requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate (17.5%), and might 3.75 feet of relief
from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement be interpreted as minimal to moderate
(18.8%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the desire to have a safer access to the lakefront
other than the existing path?”
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Milne?
MR. MILNE-Thank you. My name is Donald Milne. I’m the applicant, 25 Fitzgerald Road.
Queensbury. In a test of this, first of all, you now have the legal survey, and Bruce has it. We,
as I see it, we don’t need the side setback anymore, but we need our 12.5 feet from the lakeshore
instead of the 8.75. Is that correct, Bruce?
MR. STONE-Do you agree, Bruce, since you’ve looked at it.
MR. FRANK-I agree. I don’t think the side setback relief is needed. It doesn’t encroach on the
20 foot side setback, but I thought we agreed that it was 38.5 feet?
MR. MILNE-Right.
MR. FRANK-And so that would be 11.5 feet of relief needed from the shoreline.
MR. MILNE-11.5.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MILNE-Being a Physicist, I can’t add and subtract.
MR. STONE-So it’s 11.5 feet of relief from the shoreline.
MR. MILNE-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MILNE-In terms of benefit to us versus detriment to the neighborhood, which I think is the
test that you have to make, when some of you visited the site, I don’t know if all of you were
there, but I know Mr. Stone was there when I was there, and he happened to call over the deck,
and I was working down below, and I crawled up the path. It’s rather steep, and grabbing on to
the birch tree and going around, as we approach those later years of life, it’s a little bit difficult.
We also have a lot of grandchildren, and we should have done this stairway years and years
ago. If we had done it when we built the house, originally, we wouldn’t have needed any kind
of a variance for it. In terms of, so there’s a great benefit. Is there an impact to the
neighborhood? I maintain there is not because of the trees that you saw alongside, and it’s not
going to be any closer, it’s not going to affect the side yard variance. In addition, in terms of the
lakefront, since the stairs will turn and go underneath the existing deck, they will be no closer to
the lake than the existing building is. So that minimizes that impact there, and I, in case you
need it, I have taken a group of pictures of houses around Glen Lake showing this kind of stairs.
So it doesn’t change the character of Glen Lake or the character of the neighborhood, and by
putting in the retaining wall and the stormwater retention, it’s actually going to improve and as
we do the stairway, we put in retaining walls as we go down. I think some of you that visited
the site could see what we had done on the side. So that’s basically it. A tremendous benefit to
us, but I don’t think there’s any detriment to the environment or the surroundings.
MR. STONE-I’d certainly agree with that last statement. I do, however, question the survey, in
that it does not show the improvement. It’s not made, but it’s not even sketched in. Mr. Frank
has shown me that he has in fact sketched it in, and he agrees with the fact that it doesn’t need
side setback relief. I mean, he’s scaled it in to 20. thing, but it’s technically not a survey for that
part of it. The survey is of what’s existing right now.
MR. MILNE-Right, but you can see where.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Well, he’s assuring me, as we take from Staff, that whether a variance is required,
and he’s saying it’s not, but he is doing it not by survey, but by scale. Is that a correct
statement?
MR. FRANK-Well, that’s correct, but this is not uncommon. This happens a lot, where
someone, just to let you know. I just want it to be put on the record. That’s what we’re doing
here.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. FRANK-This is not uncommon. This happens a lot.
MR. STONE-Right. We advertised it in the Staff notes that there would be a survey showing,
and it’s not, and I have no problems with it, but I just wanted it in the record. That’s all. Any
questions of Mr. Milne?
MR. ABBATE-I just have a small comment, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know how objective I can be,
because I was moved emotionally when Mr. Milne stated when we approach the later years of
life.
MR. HAYES-Me, too.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Jaime.
MR. STONE-Anybody else? Any other comments? Hearing none, let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any
correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We do have some correspondence. We have a fax from Chic and Hal
Rathbun, and they say, “This is in response to the above Public Hearing Notice regarding a
variance application submitted by Donald A. Milne for property located at 25 Fitzgerald Road.
The following are our issues and concerns: That the project proposed by Mr. Milne to construct
a wooden stairway from the existing deck towards Glen Lake in no way is detrimental to or
negatively affects the Lake; Our legal road, right-of-way, to our property is across and over the
Milne property, bordering the Lake shore in front of the Milne house: That road has been used
and in existence since approximately the year 1879. Deed dated December 3, 1919 and recorded
December 11, 1919 between Brown and Davis states: “….Also granting unto the parties of the
second part, the right-of-way for themselves, their tenants, servants, agents, heirs and assigns of
the property above described, or any part thereof, over and across the premises now owned by
the parties of the first part and also premises now owned by Russell and Connors, which as
been traveled as a road for forty years or more, to the highway….” Deed dated September 14,
1926 and recorded October 5, 1926 between Davis and Pike states: “…Together with a right of
way for ingress and egress over and across the property of the party of the first part bordering
on the lake shore…” Deed dated June 5, 1970 and recorded June 8, 1970 between Pike and
Rathbun states: “….Together with a right of way for ingress and egress over and across…” We
need to have the assurances by this Board that the proposed construction will, in no way at any
time, affect our legal road, right-of-way in an injurious manner. The follow, e.g., but not limited
to: Altering the road Narrowing Destroying or degrading surface Creating a blockage
Producing any restrictions of passage, more than already existing Overhead obstructions We
trust that our concerns will be given full consideration prior to a decision by the Board and
would appreciate receiving notification of said decision. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. Sincerely, Chic and Hal Rathbun” And we have a note from Aileen Kane. She says, “I
am a neighbor of Donald Milne on Fitzgerald Road and I have no objection to the construction
of the stairway. I think the variance should be granted. Yours truly, M. Aileen Kane” And we
have a note from Dr. and Mrs. Hyung Kim, regarding Donald Milne public hearing, “We have
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
no objections to the projects proposed by Mr. Donald Milne Thank you, Hyung Kim & Eleanor
Kim” That’s it.
MR. STONE-That’s it. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Would you comment on the first letter, Mr. Milne?
MR. MILNE-The project will not impede on their right of way at all. In fact, you can see that in
the drawings. Okay. It stops at the retaining wall.
MR. STONE-So you’re providing the insurance that he sought?
MR. MILNE-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right.
MR. MILNE-That would be maintained.
MR. STONE-The ball is in your court, as they say.
MR. MILNE-Dr. Kim is the neighbor to the south.
MR. STONE-West or south, or whatever you look at it.
MR. MILNE-West, yes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? The other question I have is how long have
you been struggling over that path and nobody’s broken anything?
MR. MILNE-Well, you know.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Answering the question, does the benefit to the
applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community by granting the Area Variance, and I don’t think there will be an undesirable
change produced. I think the benefit to the applicant could not be achieved by any other way,
and I think the request is minimal, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. Taking it through the test, there would be no change to
the character of the neighborhood. The current path could be utilized, but I don’t know if I
would want to continue doing that. I think you’ve been lucky so far. I hope you’re lucky in the
future. The 11.5 feet of relief, that’s what I understand it is now, from the 50 foot minimum
setback.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-I consider that minimum to moderate, and as the Staff notes indicate, I mean, and
the fact that it’s coming in under the building, I don’t think that would be a big problem. I
don’t see any adverse effect to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood,
nor do I think that there’ll be some difficulty attributed to this by having a safer access to the
lake from the existing path. I think this is an improvement that’s necessary, and I think it’s a
good project. I’d be in favor of it.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MILNE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, this is a balancing test as the applicant adequately pointed out.
Being no detriment to the neighborhood or community that I can put my fingers on, I think the
only consideration is whether there’s a legitimate or proper benefit to the applicant, and I think
he has pointed out one that I would think is important. So, I’m in favor of the variance.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. Certainly there’s a benefit to the applicant, and given the fact that
it’s not going to intrude on the lake any more than what the existing deck does currently, I don’t
see that there’s going to be any real impact changing conditions or anything. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what my fellow Board members have
stated, and I, too, would support the application and have nothing further to add. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree that this is a balancing act, and I do not believe that there will
be any change that will occur that would place it out of character with the neighborhood. I
believe that there’s no detriment to any nearby properties. As a matter of fact, I believe two or
three of your neighbors are in support of your application. I don’t believe there would be any
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. Having said that, adding
one other thing, and the benefit to the applicant, I do agree. When we approach the later years
of life, these things are quite important to us, and I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-After hearing from the old man, I certainly agree. First of all, I think Chuck said it
well. It’s within the deck, the overhanging deck. I mean, so, yet, technically you’re building
new construction. You’re building more than 50 feet, but you’re also building something very
low down to the ground, and if it were just plain concrete, it wasn’t a last step, there wouldn’t
even be a variance needed. It wouldn’t even count. Certainly the balancing test is all in your
favor. The only real concern was the first neighbor or the first user of the right of way, and you
have assured us, and that’s the most important thing, you have assured us that his concerns will
not be, not that they’re invalid, but they will not come into play at all, and that’s the most
important thing. So I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2003 DONALD A. MILNE, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
25 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 68 square foot wooden stairway
from the existing deck to the lakefront. In taking this through the criteria, the test that we’re
asked to weigh this against, I would think that there would be no change that would occur to
the character of the neighborhood or no detriment to the nearby properties. That in addition to
that, while there might exist a feasible alternative utilizing the existing path, that path, in my
opinion, is deemed dangerous and this would be a better alternative. The Ordinance relief
would be 11.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, and I
interpret that, or I think we’ve interpreted that as being minimal to moderate. There should be
no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions to the neighborhood,
and the difficulty of this situation is attributed to the desire to have a safer access to the
lakefront, other than the existing path. While it was advertised that side setback relief was
needed, examination of a newly prepared survey and interpretation thereof showed that no side
setback variance was required.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
Duly adopted this 21 of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Now, Mr. Milne, would you promise, or your partner over here, that you will do
this as quickly as possible, and not procrastinate?
MR. HAYES-She wants that on the record.
MR. MILNE-Also, I know the hour is late here, you have others to consider, but I just have to
make a comment about one, thanking and the work you do going out to the sites. That’s very
important, but I also want to commend the Staff. Bruce helped me meet your requirements, and
he sat down with me, and he didn’t say, you have to do this, you have to do this. He didn’t
make it like, we’re going to make you jump through hoops kind of thing. It was like, I’m going
to help you to do this the right way, and I really appreciate that.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2003 TYPE II TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT:
DAVID STOCKMAN OWNER: TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION LOCATION: 9
HUNTERBROOK LANE, CROSSROADS PARK SUBDIVISION ZONING: PO
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. BY 40 FT. ADDITION TO THE
FRONT OF EXISTING BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 24-94; BP 96-529; BP 94-449 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES
SECTION:
DAVID STOCKMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2003, TCT Federal Credit Union, Meeting Date: May 21,
2003 “Project Location: 9 Hunterbrook Lane, Crossroads Park Subdivision Description of
Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. addition to the front of the existing structure.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback
requirement of the Planning Board approved Crossroads Park Subdivision.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 96529: 09/09/96, 224 sq. ft. commercial addition (drive-through canopy).
BP 94449: 08/25/94, 1200 sq. ft. office building.
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) Even though there appears to be ample area to add a 10’ x 40’ expansion to the rear of the
building, the applicant claims the addition will be partly converted to a reception area, which is
why they propose to expand the front portion of the building. Therefore, might it appear no
feasible alternatives exist?
3) Might 3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement be interpreted as
minimal relative to the subdivision requirements (10%)?
4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the location of the building on the lot?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14,
2003 Project Name: TCT Federal Credit Union Owner: TCT Federal Credit Union ID
Number: QBY-03-AV-36 County Project#: May03-39 Current Zoning: P O Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 10 ft. by 40 ft. addition
to the front of existing building. Relief requested from the front setback requirements. 30’ is
required; 26.1’ is proposed. Site Location: 9 Hunterbrook Lane Tax Map Number(s): 289.15-1-
3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. addition to the existing TCT
Federal Credit Union on Hunter Brook lane. The addition is to be located 26.1’ from the front
property line where 30’ is required. The information submitted includes elevations and lot
layout. The addition will include an existing vestibule and be consistent with the existing
building style. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/03.
MR. STONE-Do we have a spokesperson?
MR. STOCKMAN-I’m David Stockman. I’m the contractor.
CURT CHECKAL
MR. CHECKAL-I’m Curt Checkal. I’m the CEO of the Credit Union.
MR. STONE-Can you tell me what TCT stands for?
MR. CHECKAL-It stands for TCT. It used to stand for Tri-County Teachers Federal Credit
Union, years ago.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CHECKAL-They just truncated it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add to your application, before we ask some
questions?
MR. CHECKAL-No. I’m just here to answer questions.
MR. STOCKMAN-The only thing I would specify or point out is that the three feet of relief that
we are looking for is basically affecting one corner of our addition. It’s not across the whole 40
feet of the addition. It’s basically one corner. So it appears even more minimal.
MR. STONE-Can you, there’s a reference in these notes, in your comment, that you want to put
a reception area where? On that side, on the road side? Or how are people going to get into the
building?
MR. STOCKMAN-People get in the building from the front door. It’s going to open up to a
lobby area. Right now the lobby area is very contracted.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CHECKAL-So when the members come in to do business, especially at heavy times, there’s
very little room in the lobby for them to stand and wait until they get to the counter. Also, we
need to open up the areas. We’re putting booths there so we can service our members more
privately for their loan business.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Okay. Are there any plans, so the proposed addition, that’s where the front door
is now, that’s still going to come in that same way. Is there any plan to put a canopy, a weather
canopy, out further from the building?
MR. CHECKAL-Not as of now. What we have are the plans there.
MR. STONE-I mean, because if you added something, you might get out further than the end of
the building, the offending end, if you will, might. I don’t know that.
MR. CHECKAL-You’re talking like a roof over the front door?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. CHECKAL-Right, and there’s nothing in the plans for that.
MR. STONE-Okay, and as long as it’s within that, the setback that we might grant you, then
that’s okay, but you’re going to have to be aware that if you did, you might have to come back.
Okay. Any other questions of anybody? Well, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing
to speak in favor of this thing, 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 Roy.
MR. URRICO-That certainly has become a busy corner, compared to what it used to be. I
would be in favor of it. I think there would be no change in the character of the neighborhood.
I don’t see any detriment to any properties nearby or the location, other locations, the houses
nearby. You satisfied my curiosity about not putting the addition to the rear of the building. I
think, if I were in your shoes, that’s where I would put it, and I think that’s the best location for
it. I think the relief is minimal. I’m not thrilled that it’s heading in to that buffer area, but the
fact it was only three feet mitigates my concerns. As far as adverse impact on the
neighborhood, I don’t see it, and I think this difficulty is probably due to the location of the
building and the pie-shaped property. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. Three feet, while a small number, is not always inconsequential or non-
determinative, but in this case I think it is. I think that it’s a minor encroachment. I think
you’ve given me, or to my satisfaction, reasons why you need to improve your store. Certainly,
as Roy pointed out, that area is growing. There may be some need for some increased capacity.
If that’s good for business, that’s great. I don’t think that what you’re proposing will have any
real adverse impact on that neighborhood or that pocket of businesses there. I mean, it’s a small
commercial area there, and that’s really what you’re proposing to continue to do there, and I
don’t think the difficulty is entirely self-created because of the unusual shape of the lot in this
particular case. I mean, I think the Planning Board came up with a good plan here, and it’s
proving out because it’s getting tenants and stuff, but I don’t think it’s entirely self-created. So
I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MC NULTY-Well, kind of like where I don’t know as I’m overly enthused about the
proposal, but, and I think mainly because with the building that Denise Buher’s building now,
you’re going to stick out closer to the road and it’s going to show a little more than with her
building being where it is, but on the other hand, once I realized that, as you pointed out, it’s
only a corner of the building really you need relief for. The rest of it here, you’re in compliance.
So really the relief you’re after is minimal, and looking at that, balanced against the benefit that
you’re going to receive from not having to tear up the whole back end of the lot to put an
addition on the back, I think the balance clearly falls to the applicant in this case. So I’d be in
favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the positive comments that have been
made, and I would only add a small item that really it’s just a fraction, I believe, of the 400
square foot addition that it needs the variance, and, at that point in the construction, it’s
towards the central part of the lot, from one side to the other, which mitigates any visual impact
that might be observed anyway. So for those reasons already given, I would support the
application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you. I also support the application. I think the request is minimal. I
think it’s reasonable. I haven’t heard, nor have I read, any adverse impacts if we were to
approve the application, and I agree with the rest of the Board members. So I will be in support
of your application.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I agree with the rest of the Board, and having been in the bank
today, though it’s three feet of relief, which is minimal, it’s going to be a maximum relief you
see I’m sure.
MR. CHECKAL-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with my fellow Board members. Just a couple of words of
caution. One, if you put a canopy in, recognize that it might become offending. Also, the sign
has to stay where it is, because you’re right at 15 feet, and if you moved it toward the road, then
you’d be back in here for a Sign Variance. So, with those two, just caveats, I need a motion to
approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2003 TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
9 Hunterbrook Lane, Crossroads Park Subdivision. The applicant’s proposal is to construct a
400 square foot addition to the front of the existing structure. In doing so he requests three feet
of relief from the thirty foot minimum front setback requirement of the Planning Board
approved Crossroads Park Subdivision. In building this, the criteria considerations under
consideration show that there will be no change that should occur with the character of the
neighborhood. While the addition, the 10 by 40 foot expansion to the rear of the building could
have been placed in another area, this has been deemed to be the best area under the
circumstances. Three feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum setback is minimal relative to the
subdivision requirements. We don’t see any adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in this neighborhood, and that this difficulty may be attributed somewhat to the
location of the building on this pie shaped lot. I move that we accept this motion.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. CHECKAL-Thank you very much.
MR. STOCKMAN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2003 TYPE II HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH AGENT:
VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER: HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH LOCATION:
RIDGE & CLEMENTS ROADS ZONING: RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES A
BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE CHURCH OWNED PARCELS
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
CREATION OF A 2.32 ACRE LOT.
DAVE MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself from consideration of this project.
MR. STONE-You certainly may. Mr. Underwood?
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2003, Harrisena Community Church, Meeting Date:
May 21, 2003 “Project Location: Ridge & Clements Roads Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment between the church owned parcels resulting
in a 2.32-acre parcel with the remaining 1.52-acres consolidated with the other lands of the
church. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2.68-acres of relief from the 5-acre minimum size
requirement of the RR-5A Zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2000-428: 06/23/00, 300 sq. ft. porch.
BP 93057: 03/26/93, addition and alteration to building.
Staff comments:
Criteria considerations:
1) Being the majority of the neighborhood is comprised of smaller residential parcels, 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 appear no feasible alternatives exist?
3) Might 2.68-acres of relief from the 5-acre minimum requirement be interpreted as moderate
relative to the ordinance (53.6%)?
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 desire to obtain a mortgage on the proposed
lot to finance repairs on the church?”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14,
2003 Project Name: Harrisena Community Church Owner: Harrisena Community Church ID
Number: QBY-03-AV-37 County Project#: May 03-32 Current Zoning: RR-5A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between the
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
church owned parcels and seeks relief from the minimum lot size requirements for the creation
of a 2.32 acre lot. Site Location: Ridge & Clements Road Tax Map Number(s): 266.03-1-59
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between 3
parcels owned by the Harrisena Church. The proposal will create one parcel of 2.32 acres and
another parcel of about 4.74 acres. The zoning for the area is Rural Residential where 3 acres is
required. The Harrisena Church lands include the cemetery. The applicant has indicated that
this boundary line adjustment will allow them to obtain a mortgage for a vacant parcel. Staff
does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren
County Planning Board 5/19/03.
MR. STONE-Sir.
MR. MICHAELS-Good evening. My name is Dave Michaels, and I’m the Trustee with the
Harrisena Church, and I’m here on behalf of the Church. From the standpoint of being a
Trustee, I’m very involved with the finances of our Church and improvements that are required
for the Church, ongoing maintenance, replacing driveways, etc., and the Church is really at a
point where we need to be able to get a loan at a good market rate, and as you know, lenders,
any area bank, is skeptical to really lend to a church because in the event that the church ever
got in financial trouble, it’s pretty hard for them to consider a foreclosure action. So with that,
as to the Trustees, the parcels that are owned right now, that map doesn’t totally show it, but I
brought this to clarify it a little better. We have Ridge Road here and Clements Road, and right
now the parsonage home that Bonnie lives in is right here, with the parking lot that’s shared
with the parking lot for the Harrisena Community Church, which is located right here. Right
now, it’s set up, there’s two separate tax parcels. Parcel One here, backwards, is where the
Church is. Parcel Number Two, the parsonage, forward, is the balance of the property, and
what we’re proposing to do, what originally we asked zoning to consider, actually zoning the
three parcels, to consider breaking out the parsonage and the lot, and it was suggested by him,
that because of the parsonage tied to the Church, and for simplification, propose the variance
whereas the parsonage, we just move the lot line here down to this point, include the parsonage
acreage with the Church property, and thereby create a corner lot at 2.22 acres that would be
marketable and considered as collateral for us in the purpose of a loan. Now we’ve talked to
different lenders. They felt very comfortable with this as a plan, and as far as the lot itself, I’m
in the building business so I was able to look at the lot. It’s a very marketable lot, very good
buildable lot. It’s a very prime lot for this part of the Town, and we presented the fact that we
would, if this lot was ever something done with it or a home was to be built on it, that there
would be a driveway off Clements Road, instead of off 9L. It’s 2.32 acres, right across the street,
opposite all the lots on this side are all two acres. Some of the lots are less than two acres.
We’re building some homes on Fox Road right now, and a lot of those lots are one acre or less
than one acre as an example. So the five acre zoning, as was said by the Staff, there’s a
significant number of houses in the area that aren’t five acres, but anyway, the Church’s plan
right now, we don’t want to preclude the idea, if the Church was ever in a financial situation
and they had to sell the lot, that we don’t want to preclude that as a condition because we feel
we need that flexibility, but it’s in no way our intent, at least as far as the Trustees right now, to
do that. All we want to do is have a way to get, especially the current mortgage rates as low as
they are, and for the capital needs that we need going forward with the Church and our
finances, we feel this will allow us to provide good security and get a good mortgage loan. So
that’s pretty much what we’re asking for, and take it from there.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Clear something up for me. The proposal you submitted to us was
recommended by whom?
MR. MICHAELS-By the Church, the Trustees.
MR. ABBATE-The Trustees?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MICHAELS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Not to sound offensive, but why not have the parishioners pick up the
loan?
MR. MICHAELS-Well, right now, as any church goes, it’s difficult enough now to just get
adequate pledges enough to just run the day to day operations of the Church, and to go to the
entire, you know, Church Staff and ask them to pick up the balance of the loan, that’s not that
easy of an undertaking.
MR. HAYES-What’s the sever ability of the loan? If there was a default, who would pursue,
you know, if members were still there, if they were not there?
MR. ABBATE-Are you supporting the application?
MR. HAYES-No, I’m just saying, from a banking perspective, they’d look at you like.
MR. ABBATE-The second portion is that you don’t want any stipulations, in the event that we
were to approve this, you indicated you don’t want any stipulations because you want the
Church to have flexibility?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We feel that this is a marketable lot. It’s a means for the Church to have
collateral for a loan, but it’s also an asset of the Church for down the road, and it’s to benefit the
Church and help them. If ever, in the event down the road they needed to do something, from
a financial standpoint, they would have that flexibility. Right now it’s in no way a priority for
the Church or congregation to want to do anything with this, but they are in need of doing
something for our capital operations.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So the primary purpose of your request, then, is to obtain a mortgage
on that 2.3. is that correct?
MR. MICHAELS-The primary purpose is, that is the primary purpose, yes, to obtain a
marketable mortgage, at the current loan rates.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I mean, I hear Mr. Abbate’s question and I hear what you’re saying.
Obviously, you want to create a mortgageable asset, is what you want to do. It is not your aim,
although we can’t, probably couldn’t put a condition on that you couldn’t sell it, but what you
do is you want to create a substandard lot, even though it’s a large lot. Is what you want to do.
I mean, that’s the bottom line. I, personally, don’t have any problem with it, but I just wanted to
get it out on the table. That’s what it is. You’re creating a substandard lot in a neighborhood,
basically, of substandard lots. At least that’s what you’re telling us.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and even the two existing parcels as they currently exist are
“substandard”, because the total acreage is seven, combined, and the current parcel’s 3.8, that
we’re looking to move the lot line on or the balance of the property is 3.8. The balance of that is
4.2. So, they’re both substandard parcels.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Any comments? I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? Mr. Urrico, you can if you want, but you don’t have to.
I’m not putting you on the spot. Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not opposed, but I have some questions.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Please come forward.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and this is another perfect example poor zoning.
The pre-existing conditions are a lot about two acre lots, and we’ve got five acre zoning. The
zoning doesn’t reflect the existing conditions, and that’s poor. That’s why we’re here tonight.
The other thing is, except for the fact that this land is in the APA, these people could proceed
with an administrative subdivision. Is that correct? Except for the fact that it’s in the APA, they
could do an administrative subdivision, a two lot?
MR. HAYES-Don’t you have to have conforming lots when you do that, though?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. They’re creating a nonconforming parcel. So, no, you could not do
an administrative two lot subdivision.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I can give you two examples of the Adirondack Park Agency issuing
subdivision permits for two acre lots, excuse me, for two lots. In one case, one of the lots
created was substandard in this Town, and did not meet Town review. Almost in your
neighborhood, okay. This Board didn’t get into it and this Town didn’t get into it. They simply
went to the APA, they applied for a two lot subdivision, one of them substandard, got approval
that’s filed at the County. That’s in the Town of Queensbury. In the Town of Lake George, the
APA issued a two lot subdivision of a lot in a subdivision approved by the Town of Lake
George Planning Board, on which there was a restriction, no further subdivision. On file at the
County proceeding. Sold the land, everything is moving. Now, procedurally, things just don’t
fit. It’s just incredible that the Board and the Church is put in this position. Maybe the thing to
do is to get a zoning change. Get a zoning change to two acre zoning. That may be the avenue,
and then.
MR. STONE-The only comment I would make, Mr. Salvador, is that we are guided by Staff, in
terms of what we consider. Our consideration is our own, and we make our own
determination, but what we consider is brought to us.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You are here to consider appeals of Staff’s
determinations. Okay.
MR. STONE-That is true.
MR. SALVADOR-And that’s all.
MR. STONE-That is true.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. You’re not guided by Staff.
MR. STONE-You’re correct, and if they make a decision, we would sit to hear the appeal if so
asked, but in terms of normal variances, that’s all the point I’m getting at, is that we do what is
asked of us to consider, and then we consider it to the best of our ability.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, in the absence of approving this plan, I would recommend that
the applicant proceed with a request to the Town Board for a zoning change, and that might
benefit the whole neighborhood. I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sure the applicant thanks you for the advice. And you say there was
correspondence, or no?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There was one piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter from William Lee Richards, at 1593 Ridge Road. “The officers
of the Harrisena Church are proposing a variance to change the RR-5 zone in which the church
is located to allow the development of a 2.32 acre property for mortgaging and for future
construction and sale of a residential building. I have strong objections to this variance’s
approval, despite the claim that the money will be going to church rehabilitation and repair.
The potential for a sale of the total property in this area can be as high as 300,000.00, which
covers a lot of rehabbing. I see nothing but the destruction of a small wooded lot containing a
number of mature (and maturing) trees, which, with a little care could become actually park-
like (several years ago, a neighbor-a former congregant, and I proposed to clean up the brush on
the property, using this effort as a boy scout merit badge endeavor. Our offer was refused,
despite that fact that we had offered to accomplish this at no cost to the church). I would
withdraw my objection to this variance of the church officers provided that they would not
build on the lot for at least ten years, and would abide by a landscaping plan that would save
most of the wooded area when the building was erected. This area is fast becoming overbuilt
and any small piece that remains in its natural state adds to the enjoyment of the whole area. I
oppose this variance in the strongest terms. William Lee Richards”
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Could you comment on anything you heard, particularly that last letter, or would
you comment?
MR. MICHAELS-Well, to comment, like I said, I feel that, just across the road, probably his lot
very well could be less than two acres or more. I feel the fact that we’re proposing 2.32, the fact
that the current two parcels that are owned by the Church are already nonconforming, I think
this makes a lot more sense.
MR. ABBATE-The thing that bothers me is this. You’re asking something from the Town, but
you’re not willing to give anything up. I asked you if you would go with some stipulation such
as no subdividing, etc., and you said no. So you’re not willing to accept any type of alternative
or stipulations. Is that correct?
MR. MICHAELS -Well, as Trustees, if there was a stipulation such as this, that this lot could
never be sold, then there would be no collateral value to a bank.
MR. ABBATE-How about a stipulation, no subdivision?
MR. MICHAELS-Of this lot?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MICHAELS-Further subdivision of this lot? Of the 2.32?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MICHAELS-We’d have no problem with that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me tell you, that’s a positive.
MR. MICHAELS-Okay. That never came into the thinking that somebody would even consider
that, but if it’s, being on the Zoning Board, you’ve probably seen a lot of different things. Okay.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-If you can think of it, we’ve seen it, is what it boils down to. So, you’re saying, in
response to Mr. Abbate’s concerns, that the Church would agree that the lot is 2.32 acres, and
that’s what it’s going to stay, but it’s buildable, and we can’t tell you you can’t build. That, I
don’t think, we can do. That would be an unreasonable.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if you’re going to ask the applicant to condition it that it wouldn’t
be subdivided, maybe you might want to add that the zone should remain five acre zoning. If
at some point in the future if they were going to change it, across the street is one acre zoning.
If they were to change it, I’m just saying, would you want to consider that?
MR. STONE-That’s a good point.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s fair. That’s a fair comment.
MR. STONE-Sure. Okay. Any other comments you want to make? Any comments anybody
wants to make? Then let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, first of all, I think problems are created, when we go through and rezone
areas of the Town, which has happened several times since the Church was built, if not many
times, I think that problems can be caused, in the sense that increasing the density can
essentially make all the properties in that zone noncompliant, which means that any activity
would need variances, and Mr. Salvador pointed out at times that can cause a lot of variance
applications in and of itself if not done properly, if not given consideration. I’m not alluding to
the fact that maybe this shouldn’t be five acre zoning, but five acre zoning is a very low density
use. I don’t know for sure, because I don’t have any paperwork in front of me, but I’m sure the
Church probably pre-existing almost any zoning in this Town, and I think that there has to be
some consideration given to the fact that the Church wasn’t intentionally creating a parcel that
is a little bit unusual. At that time it was probably much more than was required for lots or
acreage in this particular case. In considering the benefit to the applicant, which is part of our
test, I have pretty extensive real estate, banking experience, and I can testify to the fact that
when it comes to trouble collateral or no collateral, which a church really amounts to, lending
institutions are simply not going to step forward and provide funds for any task, whether it be
good, bad or indifferent, because it’s not something they could foreclose on or market,
probably, successfully. I think that, I think the applicant has give, what I consider to be a true
reason why this boundary line adjustment has been suggested by the Trustees of the Church,
and whether this will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don’t think so. I
think the Church and the continuation of it has probably been a part of this neighborhood for
generations and the fact that this is, I don’t think that creating this lot, if you will, is going to
change a 2.32 acre lot, which is a very large lot, even with the five acre zoning, I think 2.32 acres
is a very good sized lot in this Town, probably reflects the, still would reflect the rural character
of Ridge Road, in this particular case. Is the relief requested substantial? I think it’s moderate.
I think if we were talking about creating a lot that was less than an acre or, you know, a smaller
lot in an area that the Town has deemed to be, they want to keep more rural in character, I
would think that would be more significant, but as I have already commented, 2.32 acres is still
a good sized lot, in my mind. Is the difficulty self-created? The fact that the Church needs to
have repairs and these other things are a financial vehicle to do so, to me, and they have this
existing parcel and this is how they’re managing it, it’s self-created in the sense that you want
the money, but is it totally self-created? I think you could argue that either way. I think this is a
pre-existing lot, nonconforming structure here and you’re creating another lot that’s
nonconforming, and I guess that’s probably self-created, but on balance, I think that what’s, the
benefit to the applicant would outweigh any detriment to this neighborhood, and I don’t agree
with the correspondence that somehow this lot would be worth $300,000, or that would be the
Church’s underlying agenda. I don’t see that here. I think it’s a pretty straightforward case. So
I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can agree with Jaime. I don’t think that lot’s going to be worth
$300,000, but beyond that, I’m going to take the other side, I think. I don’t know. I’ve been
struggling with this for a few days now, but, thinking about it in terms of, if it wasn’t a church,
if it was somebody else, would I approve it. I think Mr. Salvador has hit the nail really on the
head. That this is another one of these cases, like maybe our three acre Waterfront around part
of Lake George, that was created knowing that there were one acre lots in the whole area, but
presumably it wasn’t somebody doing something with blinders. It was somebody doing
something with the hope that this is what it really ought to be, even though it’s not now, and I
think this is the case, or the tact I’m going to take here, that we just re-did our zoning just
recently. So this isn’t something that’s been hanging there for years. Somebody deliberately
made the decision knowing there were one acre lots across the road and there were two acre
lots in the area, looked at this area and said, it ought to be five acres, and I presume, I hope, they
had a good reason for that, and as I say, when I think about it, if it were somebody else, if it
were a commercial business, if it were a private residence, I think I’d immediately say, no, the
zoning is five acres, that’s it, and I think I’ve got to do the same thing with the Church. At the
same time, I think the answer, you know, if really there’s a lot of smaller acreage in that area, is
to get the zoning changed, but if I were to approve this for this instance, I would have to
approve it for everybody else that came along that had something that they wanted to
subdivide into something less than five acres, and then I’m changing zoning. So I’m going to be
opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sympathetic with all the comments made so
far. However, I’m feeling that I am not in support of this application. I’ll jump to the feasible
alternatives. Try the zoning. You may not get any satisfaction there either. That’s out of our
hands. The main reason I’m looking at this is the open space initiatives, and maintaining
ruralness of Queensbury, which I think there’s a considerable commitment throughout the
population of Queensbury supporting this, and I don’t see breaking down larger lots into
smaller ones, such as what is proposed here, whether they’re already substandard or not, it
doesn’t make any difference, is in support of that at all. As a matter of fact, I think it goes in the
opposite direction, and I think this is of a paramount importance to this Town, for what’s left,
and maybe addresses what Chuck had said in connection with assignment of a five acre zone to
that area and so on around the Town, in the face of the fact that there are lots that are smaller. It
seems to me that this is one reason to maintain what little is left, that we appreciate it, from the
standpoint of, call it open space, open space in regard to the open space that’s out there, which,
in time, will no longer exist in that lot. Sooner or later there’s going to be something on it,
because, well, for those reasons, I am not in support of this application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, I agree with Norm, but more importantly I agree with Mr.
McNulty. I think he hit it right on the head. There’s a reason why we have a five acre
minimum. I’m quite concerned that, had this not been a church, let’s say an organization or a
corporation, we have to be careful that we do not discriminate in favor of particular groups.
What concerns me most of all is the fact that, approving this application, in my personal
opinion, would in fact be subsidizing, financially, a request for a zoning change, and I think
that, indeed, would be on dangerous grounds, and as a result, I cannot be in favor of the
application.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with Norman and Chuck and Charles. I don’t like the idea of
allowing a 2.6 acre relief in the five acre zone. So I’m against it.
MR. STONE-Jim?
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to take a little bit different tact here, and I think that one thing
we have to concern ourselves with is that, you know, the realities of today are not what they
were in the past, and they’re probably more going to reflect what the future is, and I think many
church congregations have faced the same, you know, bandwagon that we’re seeing here. They
reach a point where their numbers have dwindled down. The money is no longer there to
maintain the churches, and especially churches that are, you know, whatever denominations
they happen to be, a lot of time they’re forced into folding up their tent and that’s it for them,
and I believe, wasn’t there an Anglican church at one time out there? I don’t know what it was.
MR. URRICO-It was a Presbyterian church.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think it’s nondenominational now, isn’t it? Is it still Presbyterian?
MR. URRICO-No, it’s Christian, nondenominational.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think the Harrisena Community Church has been a fixture on
the scene up there, for time immemorial, you know, it’s been there forever, as far as the
community is concerned, and I think that, and we have to reflect upon, you know, what
happens in this day and age, and that is that if they don’t have the money to maintain the
structure, you know, you can’t expect that they’re going to go to the parishioners with deep
pockets and have them, you know, reach in and come forth with the money at the same time. I
think their attempt here is reasonable from the standpoint of, you know, they’re using it as
collateral for the loan as they specified. I don’t think there’s any dire, under the table plan, to
sell that lot. I would think that would be a last chance, last ditch effort. If the Church really
were going to fold, that they would have to be forced into that position to do that, but I think,
you know, Norm is right, too, you know, there’s, in a sense, green space is important out there,
but the reflection of that neighborhood is that there are two acre lots, there are smaller lots in
the neighborhood also, and I would think that, you know, this lot is being created, if we do
grant permission to create this lot, it’s going to be created strictly to preserve the Church and to
come up with the money to do the renovations necessary, and I don’t see it as a chance to make
money on the side and do it that way, too. So I would be in support of it. I think it’s something
to consider for everybody else, too.
MR. STONE-As I consider this, and I’ve listened to everybody, and there’s some very, very
good arguments. I also heard a very good argument by the member of the public. I think this is
a matter for our elected officials. I think it really comes down to that. I think that we can, I’ve
always been careful, and I’ve always asked Staff, to tell me when they think the Board is going
off in a particularly uniform position, going way away from zoning. I mean, we can do that.
We can look at lots of things and we can give variances here, and all of a sudden, instead of
being here, we’re over here. I am certainly in sympathy. I’m involved with another religious
organization which has many of the same problems. I wish we had a lot that we could get a
mortgage on, but the point is here that we’re taking, we’re destroying zoning. Whether it’s
right or whether it’s wrong, it is a five acre zone. I think it’s been said by a couple of people,
this was recently concurred to by both committee and by the Town Board. The Town Board is
an elected group. I hear elected people say many, many times, well, I’m elected. I’m only
responsible to the people. Well, I think here’s a case where they better be responsible to the
people, and considerate, and, you know, while I’m in sympathy with the Church, and I would
like to think the Town might see it, maybe we should rezone. Maybe we should make these lots
smaller. I don’t think it’s our purview in this particular case to do it, because I think we’re
taking a five acre lot, and we’re cutting it in half, and I think it’s just too much. So, reluctantly, I
would deny this application, with the recommendation that, and with the encouragement, at
least of me, that they do go to the Town Board and say, we should rezone this. You should look
at the zoning in here, so that we don’t need variances for this lot and the next lot up the road,
because eventually we have something different. Norm?
MR. HIMES-When you’re finished, I’d just like to supplement my comments.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Sure. I’m basically done. As I say, it’s a reluctance on my part, but as I consider
everything I heard, and of course I have the benefit of, in a sense, hindsight. I’ve heard
everybody speak, and I’ve come down on one side. I’m not really comfortable with it, but I
think it’s up to the elected officials to take care of this. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. Just a couple of things, one that I intended to include, and it got
out of my mind, is that in connection with the matter of the loan and whether or not the
property might ever be sold, if the Church is in financial difficulty, in my mind it might be
saying, well, with a loan, even with a pretty good rate, where are the funds going to come from
to pay off the loan? And then on from there let your imagination come to what conclusions, the
other being that if they can pay off the loan, what about the alternative of having a fund where
the money would accumulate, where maybe in the past proper management would have tried
to do something like that. If it could pay the loan, it could put the money somewhere and let it
grow, and pay as you go kind of thing, so the maintenance and so on, so I’m a little more
skeptical about the whole idea. The other thing, I’d just like to comment that I hope that the
Town would not change the zoning because my feeling of the open space thing, that I think the
zoning there is correct, and in spite of the fact that there are lots there that are under five acres.
MR. STONE-And I don’t disagree with that, but I think it’s up to the, the other thing, we’ve
heard a lot tonight, and some of the Board members are particularly concerned about feasible
alternatives. Well, you’re asking for 2.68 acres of relief. It seems to me that you could ask for
less relief. You could get up closer to the parsonage, and make that lot bigger. I’m not
suggesting that you do it now, but that is a feasible alternative. However, you are faced with
approximately five votes against.
MR. MICHAELS-Could I have at least one chance to respond?
MR. STONE-Absolutely. Surely.
MR. MICHAELS-I heard the arguments, but I think there’s one basic premise that’s lost in the
way you’re looking at this, and that is that we’re not looking at this entire Church (lost words)
it’s just one piece of the land, owned by the Church. They own two separate distinct pieces of
land here, and both of these pieces that they own are both nonconforming. Okay. All we’re
talking about is basically moving the property line and maintaining two separate parcels. I can
very much understand, if the Church only owned one parcel, seven acres, and they came to the
Board and said, we own seven acres but we want to create another lot, and we want to
subdivide and create a 2.32 acre, and maintain the balance of it for the Church. Well, that
definitely has justification, from the standpoint of, you’re going against the zoning, wahtever.
This is different. We have two separate parcels, both owned by the Church, both
nonconforming. That is a fundamental difference in how you’re looking at this, in my opinion,
and all we’re really asking for is just moving this property line that separates the two adjoining
contiguous Church owned properties, and, credence should be given to the Church. The
Church has been there since 1866. It’s one of the real historic beautiful structures in the Town.
When the Church was located here, when the cemetery plot was here, you know, the Church
was not understanding of what zoning changes and things that would be down the road. I’m
here on behalf of the Trustees, trying to help the Church from the financial standpoint, and I
truly feel, because there’s the two separate parcels, that this zoning variance, under that
premise, is worth consideration, because the two current pieces already don’t conform. They’re
both less than five acres, and all we’re really doing is requesting the zoning consideration of
moving a lot line. We’re not saying this is saying, this is one parcel, that’s all we own, and we
want to subdivide that into a 2.32 acre piece.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I clarify something, or ask the applicant. You keep claiming
there’s two parcels. Our records show there’s three, and the application as presented is
conflicting with what our records show. So I’m showing you up there now. What two parcels
are you referring to?
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MICHAELS-Well, the two parcels are, yes, where the Church is and the other piece, I was
under the understanding, from the surveyor and the Church, that the Trustees, the Church
property and the other property were all as one.
MR. FRANK-Has it been consolidated?
MR. MICHAELS-It’s been consolidated. Correct.
MR. FRANK-Okay. So, I’m not here to defend the.
MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood thinks can lend some clarification to this thing, as a member of the
Board.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Urrico.
MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico
ROY URRICO
MR. URRICO-I’m Roy Urrico. I’m Co-Chair of the Trustees. There are three parcels, but two
are under consideration tonight. The third parcel is east of the current, it’s behind the Church,
and there’s an education building behind the Church. In 1993, we added a parcel to expand the
Church. That’s the education building. As long as we’re going to go into it, let me go into the
whole story of that.
MR. FRANK-Okay.
MR. URRICO-At that time we took out $150,000 mortgage to pay for that education building,
due to the expansion of the congregation. We’re now within about $50,000 away from paying
off that mortgage. So in eight years we’ve paid off about two-thirds of that, but it was an
unsecured loan. It was not a mortgage, and in order to try to get better rates, we need some
collateral to show to a bank that will allow us to get the rest of the loan paid off at a reasonable
amount. Everybody’s refinancing at 5.5, and the best we can do is about 7.7. So, this is the
consideration we’ve had. Now, there’s several things to consider, and I know you guys have
already made up your minds, but I just want to put things into perspective. This Church was
built in 1865. It was built by Phillip J. Harris. He’s the great-grandson, or the grandson of
Moses Harris, who was one of the founders of this area. Harrisena was one of the original areas
in Queensbury. The Church was not used for I would say about 50 years, until the late 40’s, the
Presbyterian Church in Glens Falls took it over. They had services there once in a while,
usually in the summer, and it wasn’t until the late 50’s that the Community Church took it over,
and since then it’s shown a lot of growth. Yes we’re reaching a time right now where the
finances are a little helter skelter. So this is why we considered moving the plot line, it’s not
going to change anything, as far as the way the Church operates. For the record, I’ve been on
the Trustees, this is my second go around. So I’ve been there for six years out of the last nine,
last ten, plus I’ve been on the Church Council for a lot longer, and I can say, I’ve never heard of
Mr. Richards’ proposal. I don’t know where that came from, but when he said he was going to
come in and clean up the lot, I don’t know where that came from, because I’ve never heard that,
and I know of all the Eagle projects that occurred up there for the Boy Scouts. On that piece of
property, there is a foundation. There was a house that existed there. My point is that the
Church pre-dates any zoning . It pre-dates any zoning, recent zoning, and the fact that it’s five
acres, due to the recent adjustment, could be just an oversight. Just like the recent, just like the
tax maps don’t indicate, don’t give an accurate depiction of where the Church is. I think it was
just an oversight. I don’t think it was given proper consideration, and the fact is, we’re not
doing anything different with the property. We’re going to have two nonconforming lots if you
don’t approve it, and we’re going to have two nonconforming lots if you do approve it. It just
gives us some flexibility in reassessing our finances.
MR. STONE-You said your loan was unsecured.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. URRICO-It was an unsecured loan.
MR. STONE-The parsonage is a house.
MR. URRICO-Is a house.
MR. STONE-Is that free and clear?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you could have a lot, to get a loan on, that included the parsonage, as a
home, or already built home, and?
MR. URRICO-They don’t want a parsonage on it. They don’t want.
MR. STONE-But it’s a home.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but it’s a minister’s home. Nobody’s going to take a mortgage out.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I have a comment here?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-You have every right to testify, but I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that you
have a vested interest, and just prior to our voting, you had decided to come and testify, which
is your right, but I think there’s a question of judgment here, and I am uncomfortable with the
fact that a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to come up and testify on behalf of a
project with which he has a vested interest.
MR. URRICO-I’m a citizen of the Town of Queensbury. I have a right to my opinion.
MR. STONE-But, in his defense, I mean, I certainly invited him. He is not a voting member of
this Board for this particular application.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-And what’s my vested interest? I’m a member of the Church. I don’t stand to
gain from anything that happens here tonight.
MR. STONE-Well, everything I’ve heard, I mean, still says I think that I would like to see the
Town Board tackle this thing, because I don’t think that we should tackle it at this particular
point in time, because I do think, it’s okay if we have a lot that’s 1.8 acres, and it’s a two acre
zoning. I’m not uncomfortable with that, but we’re talking a lot that’s half the size of the
zoning, and I think this should be looked at, in terms of the overall context, whether, as Mr.
Himes says, he wouldn’t be comfortable with that, but then that’s all of us to go to speak to the
Town Board and say, hey, we’d like you to leave it alone. We’d like you to keep the open space.
That’s an opportunity that each one of us has, as a citizen of Queensbury, and we should do
that. The alternatives that I’ll present to you, as I hear it, we can vote. I mean, I can ask for a
motion to deny. Since your basic alternative is to go to the Town Board, you can just pull the
application for the moment, leave it there, and go make a zoning change request. Or we can
table it, if you want to do some more thinking about it. Obviously, I mean, this is a five to two,
people, for various reasons, and there’s no uniformity among the five of us.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-We all have concerns, and we’re just not happy with the total result.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. MICHAELS-Just to summarize, like I said, when I heard most of those of you that are
against it, I really think that the premise that you’re looking at is you don’t want to set a
precedent from the standpoint of looking at a single person parcel owned property, and then
creating, within that parcel, an additional lot that doesn’t meet the five acre zoning. Like I said,
I think the consideration here really should be that we have the two distinct parcels. We’re
talking about moving the lot lines of really two nonconforming areas, and I think that is
definitely what we’re proposing, but it wasn’t really presented that way in the reasons for
feeling not comfortable with it.
MR. ABBATE-Let me address that. I think your premise is wrong, as far as I’m concerned. The
Town of Queensbury has recently revised it’s zoning, and included in that zoning is five acres
for that particular area. Now you’re saying you want to move a boundary line, but this is what
you requested. You requested 2.68 acres of relief from the five acre minimum size. That’s it, cut
and dried. You’re asking this Board to go against a recent change in zoning in the Town of
Queensbury, and I agree with the Chairman. I don’t think it’s our position to do this. I think
you should go to the Town Board and have a zoning change. I think Mr. Salvador was correct,
and for the various reasons, and it’s ironic, five of us are against this, and there are five different
reasons why we are not comfortable with this, and I can assure you, none of us discussed this
prior to the meeting. Trust me.
MR. STONE-So, the ball’s in your court. I mean, I can call for a motion to deny, which places,
well, you can come back to us, but you have to be markedly different, and we have to totally
agree, all seven votes, or you can pull the application, or we certainly can table it for two
months, so that it doesn’t cost the Church any more money for, if you want to modify the
application. I agree, am I right there when I say if they modify it, it wouldn’t cost any more
money?
MR. FRANK-No. They’d have the opportunity to submit something new as part of the current
application.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just as a point, by doing this subdivision as they propose, would they not
be making the one lot more conforming, the one with the Church?
MR. STONE-Yes, they would. I’m glad you mentioned that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a consideration also.
MR. FRANK-The application doesn’t clearly show what the break down of the acreage is, and
that’s what I was trying to get at, before we got onto the other subject. So it isn’t my job to
defend the applicant, but if it would help the Board clarify what actually was taking place,
that’s all I was trying to.
MR. STONE-I don’t know what the total acreage is that the Church owns. I mean, and that’s
something we need to know.
MR. FRANK-Well, that wasn’t provided, as far as the application.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. FRANK-Our tax records show one thing. If you want to trust the tax records. So I was just
going to give you what the actual break down was, if that helped any of the Board members.
MR. STONE-Well, I heard seven bandied about.
MR. MICHAELS-It’s really closer to seven for both areas.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-For all three parcels.
MR. MICHAELS-If you look at it out of the three basis, it’s seven.
MR. STONE-And you want to create two out of those three, one at 2.32, so the other is a little
less than five, probably. So they’re both still nonconforming.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right.
MR. STONE-But we don’t know that. It’s up to you.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, I think at this point we might as well just table it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-And then we can report back to our group.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MICHAELS-Because I’m just here as an ambassador of goodwill.
MR. ABBATE-And it’s nothing personal. I hope you understand that.
MR. STONE-All right.
MR. SALVADOR-The public hearing will remain open?
MR. STONE-I will do that, yes. We’ll leave the public hearing open. As to next time this comes
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2003 HARRISENA COMMUNITY
CHURCH, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
Ridge & Clements Roads. For a period up to 62 days, so that the applicant can confer with his
fellow Board members, Board of Trustee members, to decide how they wish to proceed in light
of the fact that it appears the majority of the Board is in opposition to granting the variance.
Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. Let me poll the Board. Mr. Salvador has asked for five minutes.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. No. The public hearing on this application has been left open. I
have a couple of questions.
MR. STONE-I see. Well, you have the same five minutes.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t need five minutes. You know that. The application talks about a
boundary line adjustment. There’s no such thing as a boundary line adjustment. We have two
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
terms that we use interchangeably. One is a lot line adjustment. A lot line adjustment is
allowed to be granted by the Planning Board that has already established an approved
subdivision, and during the development of a subdivision, there seems to be need to adjust an
interior lot line, not a subdivision boundary line. It’s an interior lot line. It’s called an
adjustment. A boundary line change is a deed transfer. A surveyor cannot, a board cannot do a
boundary line change. That takes a deed, a granting, one way or the other, and then you have a
new boundary line between two adjacent owners.
MR. STONE-But you can’t create an illegal lot.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, understand, but the terms that are used.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a good point.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it’s an excellent point.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other thing, I understand that on the west side of Ridge Road is
one acre zoning.
MR. STONE-So Staff says.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, to have, and by the way, this is Rural Residential.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-And the days are long past when it is practical to sustain five acre residential
zoning. I mean, that just doesn’t match today. We all understand the enormous costs of
infrastructure when you have five acre zoning. It just doesn’t make sense. The other thing is
that between one acre zoning and five acre zoning, we have no transition? We butt five acre
right up against one acre? It doesn’t make sense. You need a transition zone.
MR. STONE-There’s a road. Well, that’s what I’m looking at here. There’s a road. Okay.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you end the meeting, Wal-Mart was scheduled to speak,
and after I spoke with you and I conferred with them, they were under the impression they still
were going to have the opportunity, and I told them that you said, well, I think I offered that to
them and they declined.
MR. STONE-I did offer that to them.
MR. FRANK-Okay. Well, there was a little misunderstanding, but then they said, is there any
reason why we should stick around here, and I said, well, the Planning Board has to, tomorrow
night, make the motion.
MR. STONE-We have nothing to do, and I made that very clear.
MR. FRANK-That’s what I told them. I didn’t want them to stick around for all this time to find
out that., just to let you know that they were given the opportunity.
MR. STONE-I appreciate that. They were definitely given the opportunity. Do you all agree,
Board members, that when I said that we were going to do, that I gave everybody a chance in
the room to speak on the subject?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. FRANK-They thought you were doing that for the benefit of the public.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/21/03)
MR. STONE-Well, they’re the public, too.
MR. FRANK-Well, again, it doesn’t make one bit of difference to me. I’m just telling you why
they were still sitting here.
MR. STONE-If I didn’t say it exactly, you know, they have a hand and a mouth, and they can
ask.
MR. ABBATE-Exactly.
MR. SALVADOR-One question. I sent you a letter some time.
MR. STONE-It’s being worked on, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-And who’s doing the work?
MR. STONE-Me.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Do you have any questions?
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Do we all know what the subject matter is?
MR. STONE-Yes. I have agreed to work on a letter that will be passed around to everybody. I
mean, the Town Counsel. We don’t want to get into any misconceptions.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. When can I expect an answer?
MR. STONE-John, it’s on my list, and it’s driving me up the wall, because I think about it every
day. I’ll get to it very quickly.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anyway, we could do minutes, but I think everyone wants to go home. I move
that the meeting be closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
53