2004-06-23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 23, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
PAUL HAYES, VICE CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.
AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: NIGRO COMPANIES ZONING: HC-
MOD LOCATION: 751 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 35 SQ. FT. ADDITION
TO THE EXISTING 49 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM
THE MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 84-2003, SPR 47-2003,
BP 2004-035 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3/10/2004 LOT SIZE: 6.33 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-25 SECTION: 140-6B2a
JON LAPPER & STEVE POWERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Do you want to read the tabling motion in?
MR. STONE-Read the tabling motion, and then the current Staff notes.
MR. MC NULTY-Staff notes. Okay. We had a tabling motion, “MOTION TO TABLE SIGN
VARIANCE NO. 16-2004 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Until the second meeting in April, at which time the applicant will bring a reduced size sign in
the area of 50% more than allowed by Code.
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-2004, Tractor Supply Co., Meeting Date: June 23, 2004
“Project Location: 751 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 35
sq. ft. addition to the existing 49 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 34 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum size
requirement for a freestanding sign, per §140-6(B3d2a).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
SV 16-2004: 06/09/04, request to be tabled to 06/23/04.
SV 16-2004: tabled 03/24/04, 61.5 sq. ft. of relief requested for a 111.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
BP 97-3033: 04/17/97, change existing 51.8 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
BP 97-3054: 05/22/97, change existing 49.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
Various other BP’s, AV’s, SV’s, and SP’s.
Note: no record could be found for the change of copy allowing for the existing freestanding
signage change to “Price Rite Plaza” (change occurred sometime in late 2002 or early 2003).
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install a 35 sq. ft. addition to the existing 49 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
During the 03/24/04 review the applicant proposed a 49 sq. ft. addition to the existing 62.5 sq. ft.
freestanding sign. The existing sign area was calculated from the information submitted at that
time. A field measurement taken on 06/03/04 revealed the large panel to be 49 sq. ft., with the
two smaller panels to be 4 sq. ft. each. The measured space between the two small panels and
the main panel is 6 inches, and the space between the two small panels is 4 inches (total area
between the panels is approximately 4.5 sq. ft.). Therefore, the total area of the existing sign is
61.5 sq. ft. However, a review of the history of the sign only revealed a sign permitted for
approximately 49 sq. ft. (BP 97-3033 and BP 97-3054 permitted signs with areas of 51.8 sq. ft. and
49.5 sq. ft. respectively). The applicant proposes to add a 20 sq. ft. “Tractor Supply Co.” sign to
the 49 sq. ft. main panel. The applicant also proposes to include the area below the main panel,
which includes the two small panels and the space surrounding them (15 sq. ft.). Therefore, the
total for the proposed signage is 84 sq. ft., which would require 34 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq.
ft. maximum allowed for a freestanding sign at a 15-foot setback.”
MR. MC NULTY-We did County last time.
MR. STONE-This was tabled from the March meeting in order that the applicant could make
some changes to the initial application based upon Board comments. Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Steve Powers, Vice President of
the Nigro Companies. Because of a coordination error on our part, we had intended to be here
in May, but the sign consultant didn’t get the sign in themselves. They thought we were getting
it in. So what you have in front of you, we believe, is exactly what this Board asked for at the
last meeting, a substantial reduction from what we had proposed. We came in asking that the
Tractor Supply sign by the size of the Price Rite Plaza sign, and instead it’s now the size of the
base. So it’s substantially less relief. In terms of the need for the variance, we went into some
detail last time, and I think the Board was pretty satisfied because of the remote location of the
store, and the store manager definitely feels that sales are not what they expected so far, and
they think that, because of the location, it’s important that they have signage on Glen Street,
because it is so far back. So we’re hopeful that, based upon the comments last time, that this is
what you were looking for, and that this is acceptable, and if there are any questions, we
certainly can give you more of a presentation.
MR. STONE-The first question is one, the bases I can understand, but the temporary sign
leaning against the For Lease sign kind of belabors the, it belies the fact that we give permission
for realtor signs on a temporary basis, without a permit, as I understand, and yet there was a
sign for Tractor Supply leaning against that, using that as its support, and I was just curious if a
permit had been obtained, or anything for that.
MR. LAPPER-Bruce Frank was nice enough to mention that to me today, so I would be able to
look into it before the meeting, and I spoke with the store manager, and he indicated that, in
Queensbury, you can have a sign for 90 days, a temporary sign, and they did have permission
for 90 days, but that’s now been exceeded because we didn’t get back here to formalize the final
sign. So it needs to come down.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want you to be aware we do look.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-There was another question that I noticed, and apparently I just want to get it on
the record. There is a second sign for the Price Rite plaza, which surprised me when I saw it.
Can you give me the history of it a little bit? To the south.
MR. LAPPER-Give me some more detail.
MR. STONE-There is another freestanding sign, it says Price Rite Plaza, to the south, down this
way from that. It’s about in front of.
MR. POWERS-In front of First Niagara.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. POWERS-That sign has been there since we bought the property in 1985.
MR. STONE-Okay. You know, you don’t always notice things until you go looking, and I was
just surprised to see it. I mean, it can be possibly considered a directional sign, but it’s a pretty
big directional sign, by our standards. Okay. Any questions of anybody?
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m not so sure how you want to phrase it, as a question or a comment.
The applicant did come before this Board, back in whatever date it was, and we indicated what
we would prefer to see. It appears to me that the applicant has made a good faith effort to work
in the spirit of cooperation with the ZBA, and the photograph that I have here indicates
somewhat of a, the photograph I have here indicates TCS 20 square foot sign, quite frankly, in
my opinion, it’s quite attractive, and I think it adds, in a positive manner, to the overall sign,
myself. So I don’t know whether it’s a question or a comment.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Allan.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to understand what you’re going to do to the current sign. You’re
going to lift the Price Rite sign up two feet and put the Tractor sign underneath it?
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right.
MR. BRYANT-So it’s going to be two feet higher, but then everything else is going to stay the
same.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That way we don’t mess with the plantings and everything that’s there.
MR. BRYANT-And this is a reduction from your application in May?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, in March. We had come in asking that it was the same size as the Price Rite
sign, and now it’s the same size as the base, which is much smaller, and that’s what the Board
had asked for. So it’s a pretty decent compromise all around.
MR. STONE-So this has got to conform, as far as height is concerned, very, very readily,
obviously.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. There’s a 15 foot and a 25 foot height possibility, depending upon the
distance from the road. It’s 11.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments? Then let’s, I don’t know if we, did we keep the
public hearing open? I don’t remember, but anyway, we’ll open it, just to be on the safe side.
Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Anybody? Any correspondence?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Hearing no further comments, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck, since you
already started.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, it’s always, you know, it’s a good feeling when an
applicant comes before the Board, and the Board says, well, I’m not so sure that we can really
go along with what you want, then the applicant says, okay, let’s go back and let’s rethink this
whole thing, then the applicant comes back and he makes significant changes, which in my
mind, as I indicated earlier, shows a good faith effort to work in the spirit of cooperation with
the Board, I think this is noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, and I think it’s certainly worthy of
approval. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. I think the change would make the sign a little bit more
aesthetically pleasing, and you’ll still have the same exposure that you’re looking for with the
sign. When you get a new tenant in your empty space, there are no more signs. This is it. I’m
in favor of the application.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I also agree. I think this is a good alternative to the original plan. I’d be in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s a unique parcel, and it’s a unique plaza, to some extent, that the tenant
that’s the subject of the sign is backing in, and there is definitely some need, or it’s a legitimate
hardship, to some extent, not to be exposed like people like to be exposed, and I think the
change that they’ve offered is certainly a positive improvement. I think it’s an attractive sign.
So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. Obviously there is a need for a sign there for the
business. I think they’ve suggested something that’s is as attractive as you can make it. I don’t
see any better alternative. So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. You’ve done essentially what we’ve asked you to do, and I’m in
favor of it, too.
MR. STONE-I think this is a case where we thought. We commented. The applicant listened.
The applicant understood what we were trying to say, and I think it’s a reasonable request, and
I think that’s the way the process works, and therefore I, too, would be in favor, and I need a
motion to approve.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2004 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
751 Glen Street. The applicant proposes a 35 square foot addition to the existing 49 square foot
freestanding sign, and the applicant is requesting 34 square foot relief from the 50 square foot
maximum size required for a freestanding sign per Section 140-6(B3d2a), and based upon our
decision to approve or disapprove, we have what we refer to as a balancing formula, if you will,
and we attempt to determine the benefit to the applicant, whether it outweighs any detriment to
health and the safety and the welfare of the neighborhood or the community if we were to grant
this variance, and in making this kind of consideration, we take into consideration such things
as whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board
members, I don’t believe there’ll be any undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood, or even a detriment in any stretch of the imagination to nearby properties will be
created, and we also take into consideration whether the benefit that’s sought by Tractor Supply
Company can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a
Sign Variance, and in this case, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe so, and whether the requested
Sign Variance is substantial. In my opinion it is not. Whether the proposed variance will have
an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district. In my opinion, again, it will not. Whether the difficulty is self-created. That’s a
perceptual thing. In my view, it is not self-created, in that I don’t see any self-inflicted wounds.
So, based upon that, Mr. Chairman, and fellow Board members, I move that we approve Sign
Variance No. 16-2004.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. POWERS-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-I do have one comment, just a quickie. Mr. Lapper said, I think it was a very
complex piece of property, or you said it, once you get in there and try to drive around, it’s very
complex. If you get into the Taco Bell and the video.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the history of that, that used to be the Carvel, before Steve’s
company bought it. So we had to acquire the parcels along Glen Street in order to make it all
work and have it tied in, and basically did the best that we could with what was pre-existing.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. POWERS-I will say that Taco Bell has told us that that is one of the top ten stores in the
eastern part of the United States. For whatever reason.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. POWERS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M. TARRANT
AGENT: THE MC KERNON GROUP, INC., J. LAPPER OWNER: J & K TARRANT
ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONVERSION OF EXISTING ONE-CAR GARAGE TO STORAGE AND PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE WITH FAMILY ROOM AND
GAME ROOM (1,760 SQ. FT.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND CONTINUATION
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 18-2004, BP 2000-827, BP 2000-828, BP 99-565
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/04 LOT SIZE: 0.52
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-72 SECTION: 179-4-030 , 179-13-010
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; J. & K. TARRANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a tabling motion from the 19 of May.
th
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-And then I guess some brief new Staff comments.
MR. STONE-This is the third up, right? The first time there was nobody here.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. Then May was the second one, and I’m not counting the one moving it
from last week to this week.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ll read the motion to table from the May meeting. “MOTION TO
TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M. TARRANT, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
338 Cleverdale Road. For up to 62 days, so that the owners of the property can comment on the
questions raised by the Board, and/or make sufficient changes in their request that variances are
not required.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Urrico”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2004, John W. & Kathleen M. Tarrant, Meeting Date:
June 23, 2004 “Project Location: 338 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to expand the existing 3,362 sq. ft. single-family dwelling to 5,000 sq. ft.,
which includes a 616 sq. ft. attached garage (the existing 274 sq. ft. detached garage is proposed
to be converted to a shed).
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement
proposing a new FAR of 22.75% when 22% is allowed by code (165.36 sq. ft. greater than the
4,834.64 sq. ft. allowed by code), per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, 329 sq. ft. of
relief is required from the Continuation code for that part of the expansion exceeding 50% of the
original dwelling’s gross floor area, and the expansion violates the FAR requirement of the area
requirements of the code, per §179-13-010(A2 and E).
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 30-2004: 06/09/04, request to be
tabled to 06/23/04.
AV 30-2004: tabled 05/19/04, same as current application
AV 30-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as current application.
BP 2000-828: 10/27/00, construction of a 630 sq. ft. boathouse.
BP 2000-827: 10/27/00, demolition of boathouse.
SP 74-2000: 10/24/00, demolition of the existing open-sided boathouse and construction of a 630
sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck.
AV 92-2000: 10/18/00, side setback relief for an 18’ x 35’ open boathouse with sundeck.
BP 99-565: 08/31/99, 248 sq. ft. second-story addition to residence.
SP 40-99: 08/24/99, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA for a 248 sq. ft. addition to
a single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to add an attached garage with additional living space resulting in the
need for relief from the 22% maximum FAR requirement. The existing 274 sq. ft. garage is
proposed to be converted to a shed by reducing the door width, so as not to provide for an
automobile access. Relief is required from the Continuation section of the code being the
expansion violates the FAR section of the area requirements, and the total floor area expansion
proposed plus the 248 sq. ft. expansion approved in 1999 exceed 50% of the floor area of the
original dwelling.
Original dwelling floor area: 3,114 sq. ft.
1999 expansion: 248 sq. ft.
2004 expansion proposed: 1,638 sq. ft.
Total expansion: 1,886 sq. ft.
50% of the original dwelling: 1,557 sq. ft.
Relief required: 329 sq. ft.
Note: the application was incorrectly advertised as requesting relief from the side setback
requirements. The applicant did not request relief from the side setback requirements (this
relief is not needed).”
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, may I assume that you have read the minutes, and our comments?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Kathy & John Tarrant. First of all, the Tarrants
wish that they were here. Their architect, I think, did a nice job of designing, and I hope you’ll
agree, of their proposed addition, but he couldn’t answer all the questions in terms of why they
needed the additional space and just what their plan was. So there were two things that I read
in the minutes. One was the issue of the fence and whether the fence, which is nonconforming,
whether that was permitted, and the Zoning Administrator has now determined that that was a
pre-existing fence, and so that issue was a legitimate issue for question, and if they had been
here, apparently four years ago, that whole thing came up in ’99, 2000, and they would have
been able to address that, and unfortunately they weren’t. So that was a legitimate issue for
tabling, and I think that Bruce, on behalf of the Zoning Administrator, can confirm that that is
not an issue, the fence, and just in terms of the relief that they’re requesting, certainly I’ve been
here personally with a lot of applications over the years, on Cleverdale and Assembly Point for
floor area ratio. The 22.75% relief that they’re requesting, or, you know, seventy-five one
hundredths of a percent, on the 22% requirement, is relatively modest, from other things that
we’ve seen on the lake, and the increase over the 50% by approximately 329 square feet is also
relatively modest, as an application goes, but I think, more focused on this application, what’s
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
really going on here is that the new garage, they’re asking that the space above the garage be
able to be used as a game room, and what that means is that they can heat it, and so it will be
indoor space, and as I understand the Code, if they left that as unheated space, it could look
exactly the same, be exactly the same size. It would be called storage space, but in terms of the
benefit to the applicant versus the burden on the neighborhood, I don’t think that there would
be any burden, any additional burden with what we’re asking for because the exact same space,
to my mind, can be built. It’s just that technically it wouldn’t be considered living space
because it wouldn’t be heated, and if I’m correct about that, then there really is no detriment
one way or the other, and the attribute is that they really went out of their way to design
something that would fit in with the existing house, and just because the relief that they’re
requesting is very minor, compared to other relief that’s been requested in the area, they’re
really trying to respect the size of the house to the piece of property. In terms of that 22%, it’s
really just slightly over that. Another factor to consider is that, in the calculation of what went
into Floor Area Ratio, I’m sure that you were all at the site, and you might have noticed the
storage area on the lakeside, which is, I believe, only six feet high under the deck, which they
use, it’s certainly not finished space, and I’m not exactly certain why that was considered in the
Floor Area calculation, but I know that it was, and that’s really just unfinished, outdoor, open to
the elements storage space for things that you use on the lake.
MR. HAYES-That’s over to the left of that picture. That’s right there.
MR. LAPPER-So that’s my attempt to explain what’s going on, and Kathy and John can tell you
exactly why we’re asking for this.
MR. STONE-If you want, please do. It’s your nickel right now.
MRS. TARRANT-I’m Kathy Tarrant. The upstairs portion, we can use part of it as unheated
storage, but we’d like the upstairs other first half, kind of under the gabled area is an attic room,
just to do hobbies. We tie flies. If anyone does that, that’s a big mess. I just need a room where
we can kind of leave a bunch of junk out and nobody’s going to be walking through there, and
we have two teenagers, and we just kind of wanted to use that for a good, out of the way space.
MR. STONE-One of the things that, Mr. Bryant, I notice, in the minutes, brought it up at the last
time. Our Code is not as clear as it should be on storage area, and that’s one of the things that’s
on the list, I think, to take a look at, when this living document that we all claim is a living
document, gets resuscitated, or something like that. Mr. Bryant, you did have a question,
correct, the last time?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Lapper, a major thread throughout the minutes in the last meeting was
relating to the game room, and the question that I asked, that the architect couldn’t answer, was
basically if you eliminate the game room, then I don’t think there’s even a need for relief at that
point.
MR. LAPPER-And I agree with that, but what I had said in my introductory remarks was that it
can still stay there, because the garage obviously needs to have a gabled roof, so you’d have it.
It’s just, under the Code, if it’s not heated, it wouldn’t count as living space. So it would be the
same as it not being there, in terms of how you calculate Floor Area Ratio.
MR. BRYANT-In fact, the only difference would be that it would be Code compliant and you
wouldn’t have to be here.
MR. LAPPER-Right, that’s exactly right, and there are other people that might do that, get the
CO and then go heat it later, but they wanted to be straightforward.
MR. BRYANT-I understand, they want to be upfront about it, and I appreciate that.
MR. LAPPER-But in terms of my argument, what benefit is there to not make it heated, because
it’s not something that a neighbor or anyone passing by would know, you know, so in terms of
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
the balancing test, of the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, I
don’t see that it really matters at all. If it’s going to be there anyway, why not let them heat it,
since the relief is, in terms of the percentages, is pretty minor.
MR. STONE-Bruce, the arguments you’re hearing, the comments, are they correct?
MR. FRANK-Which ones are you referring to?
MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Lapper’s position and Mr. Bryant’s question. They could build a
building with air up there. It could be a cathedral garage. Correct? As high as it would be
now?
MR. FRANK-Because it’s attached, they’re allowed up to 28 feet in height.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-So they could, if it was going to be unfinished storage space. Yes, they could do
that, but that’s not what they want to do.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. FRANK-They’re not going to realize what they desire.
MR. STONE-So, but that is a true statement, though, that’s all I’m getting at. They could not
finish it, not heat it, and therefore we wouldn’t be here.
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe they would need any relief. That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So, in effect what we have here is an applicant with a sense of responsibility, with
a conscience. How refreshing.
MR. STONE-No, Mr. Abbate is quite correct. It is good to see someone with civic responsibility.
You want something, but you’re willing to bend over backwards to ask us to get the permission
to do it. Any other comments? Any other questions? Hearing none, let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Anybody? Any comment? Any letters?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t find any new letters. I don’t recall. Did we read in one last time from
Chris Navitsky? I think we did.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then that one’s covered, and there’s nothing new.
MR. STONE-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other comments you want to make on all the comments you heard?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. BRYANT-I’d like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-Go ahead, sure.
MR. BRYANT-One of the questions I had at the last meeting was relative to the finished portion
of the basement. What is that used for?
MRS. TARRANT-The existing basement?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MRS. TARRANT-We have our pool table down there, t.v., stereo.
MR. BRYANT-So it’s a game room.
MRS. TARRANT-Well, also a water heater, dehumidifier, pump. I mean, it’s kind of
substandard space. It’s very damp. It’s okay, I mean, for the kids. I don’t use that very much.
MR. STONE-Do you live year round there?
MRS. TARRANT-We do. We just moved there last year, yes.
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Then, Al, let’s start with you. Let’s talk about it.
MR. BRYANT-I, too, appreciate your candor and upfrontness, you know, as far as the space, but
I think this is a classic example of wanting versus needing, and in my view, the simple solution
is to just eliminate that game room, and walk out of here not requiring a variance. You’re right,
Mr. Lapper, in so much when you say that it’s not really going to affect the neighbors, and
nobody’s going to know, and so forth and so on, but the reality is, there is a Code in place, and
we try to adhere to the Code as much as possible, and the fact is this is not a small house, and
there are other opportunities for gaming or whatever. You’ve got a sitting room behind the
garage, and so forth and so on. So, I think, in this case, I’m just going to stick to my guns and
I’m going to be opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to agree. I’m going to stay where I was the last time. I really have
not seen any information that’s going to change my mind. As far as I can see, as far as the test is
concerned, the applicant would benefit from the granting of the variance, and also I don’t see
there being a physical or environmental effect to the neighborhood, but I do think that there are
some locations that don’t lend themselves to expansion, and I think maybe, as Mr. Bryant says,
wanting and needing are two different things. I also think there are feasible alternatives to this,
and I really think the relief is substantial. So I would be against it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, you know, looking at the application and looking at the history of this site,
there certainly is a certain amount of development that’s going on there, and I think that that
has to be a concern for the Board, but in this particular case, I just don’t see what the negative
impact is going to be by allowing this to go forward. I mean, our test is one of benefit to the
applicant versus detriment to the neighborhood or greater community, and I don’t see where
there is any detriment to the greater neighborhood or community, I really don’t. I also, on
occasion, appreciate the fact that an applicant does not want to create a fiction on the Code, in
the sense that they could do most of what they want, you know, in a roundabout fashion, if you
will, and they’re not attempting to do that in this particular case. I mean, you know, I think that
there is, there’s a little danger here of necessarily not honoring that to some extent. The other
thing that kind of made up my mind was the fact the Floor Area Ratio that we have employed
in the Town, it’s a good thing, and it limits overdevelopment on Critical Environmental Areas,
the lakes, these type of things, but it’s a pretty tough percentage. It’s really, it’s well done. It’s
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
there to protect the Code, but less than one percent over that, I just don’t see that that’s
substantial relief. It’s just not the type of relief that I think starts making me think about what
is the impact on the community, what is, I think, you know, in this particular case, it’s less than
one percent over what would be allowable, based on a Code that’s designed to have things not
be too much. So it really doesn’t trouble me in this particular case. I certainly wouldn’t be in
favor of any more relief, any more expansions, any of those things. I have to be honest about
that. I would think that in this particular case that you’ve gone to the line, if you will, and I
don’t think you’re over the line, but I think you’ve gone to the line, and I have to say that, so, on
balance, my primary analysis is I just don’t, in this particular case, see what the impact, what
the negative impact is going to be that would override the benefit to the applicant in this
particular case.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, when you initially look at the figures here, going from a 3362 square
foot dwelling to a 5,000 square foot, it seems like a lot. In fact, that expansion is as large as
many people’s houses are, but that’s not the thing that we’re looking at. We’re looking at the
amount that is over what is allowed, and most of that is allowed by Code, and as Council has
pointed out, the real issue is only whether or not the area over the garage is used as a game
room, a recreation room, or whatever you want to call it, or whether it’s used as storage. The
rest of the proposed construction can move forward without a variance, and I’m going to agree
with Jaime. I don’t see that the increase is that substantial. Three quarters of a percent over the
Floor Area Ratio, we’ve allowed a lot higher than that on smaller lots at times, up around the
lake. I don’t see that that’s going to be at all significant, nor the additional square footage that’s
going to be over the limit. Three hundred and twenty-nine square feet, that’s not that great.
This is a reasonable sized lot. If any place this kind of thing can be allowed, I would think it
would be on this lot. So I’m going to be in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to think a little bit about the what ifs of this, because,
again, we’re on Cleverdale, and we’re up on the lake where the lots are not large lots, although
this one is half an acre in size, but at the same time, you know, if everyone were to come in for
the same request for us, I think the eventuality would be that you would have many more
structures built, you know, on maximally using the lots that they’re stuck with, where people
live up there. In this instance, it is asking for some relief from the 22%, and I would have to
agree that, you know, the amount over the 22% is not extraordinary. It’s less than, you know,
one percent of it in any case, but I think I, too, would be sitting on the fence on this, and I’m not
sure which way I’m going to vote, but I think that, you know, I think it’s going to be a split vote,
it looks like to me, here, this evening. So, you know, in essence, I think that we have to
deliberate a little bit more on this to think about what the impact is if we allow this, because,
you know, again, you know, you’re maximally building to the most you could build. I think
that, as suggested, you could go and have this just be open space up there. You could use it
seasonally. You wouldn’t have to worry about it for two-thirds of the year, one-third of the
year you wouldn’t get any use out of it, if it weren’t heated, but I guess in this case I will, I’ll go
along with your request and say, yes, I’ll agree to it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with Jaime. I agree with Chuck, and I agree with Jim.
I agree with them for the mere fact that, in my opinion, the request is not obnoxious, if you will.
Granted, we are concerned, as a matter of fact, we just had a case t hat went to the Supreme
Court. The Appellate Division overthrew the Supreme Court decision. We have to take into
consideration, you’re right, an expansion in Cleverdale, etc., but we also must take into
consideration what I refer to as a commonsense approach. In this particular case, what
concerns me is this. I indicated earlier, and somewhat jokingly, but I really meant it. We have
an applicant before us that has come here above board, and has begged our indulgence to
approve for them what they are requesting. Now, do we encourage these kind of applicants to
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
work outside of the legal framework, if you will, suggesting that perhaps maybe they use some
sort of covert plan to achieve what they want, so they don’t have to come before the Board, and
the answer to that, to me, is no, and so based upon what Jaime and Chuck and Jim said, and
based upon what I perceive as a great deal of integrity on the part of the applicants, I believe,
Mr. Chairman, that this is an application that warrants approval.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly share the concerns of my fellow Board members, both those who
are saying yes, or those who are saying no. However, as I look at it, I come down on the yes
side, and I’ll tell you why I come down on the yes side, because it’s unusual for me to come
down on the yes side, for lake property, but I do because if we boil down the Staff notes, and
this is not a comment in Mr. Frank’s Staff notes, but we’re really looking at two different
numbers, two numbers. We’re not looking at all this verbiage. It’s very helpful, but we’re
looking at two numbers. We’re looking at a slight increase in Floor Area Ratio, a very slight
increase, on a half acre lot, approximately half acre lot. We’re also looking at the 50%, which is
fairly technical. I mean, it’s a way of making sure we don’t go too big, but when you say that,
as I say, there’s only a couple of items, and one is very small, and the other is not very large.
We’re not looking for setback. We’re not looking being closer to the lake. We’re not looking
being closer to the road, really. I still am concerned by your fence, but that’s not an issue. I just
wanted to get it in before I stop talking, but I do think, on this lot, that it comes down on the
side of saying, yes, you’ve made a good faith effort to request a variance. You have done the
minimum, it seems to me, to do what you’re trying to do, and therefore, having said that, I say I
would approve it, and I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M.
TARRANT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles Abbate:
338 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes to expand the existing 3,362 square foot single
family dwelling to 5,000 square feet, which includes a 1616 square foot attached garage. An
existing 274 square foot detached garage is proposed to be converted to a shed. The relief
required, the applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirement proposing a new
FAR of 22.75%, when 22% is allowed by Code. It’s 165.36 square feet greater than the 4,834.64
square feet allowed by Code, per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, 329
square feet of relief is required from the Continuation Code for that part of the expansion
exceeding 50% of the original dwelling’s gross floor area, and the expansion violates the FAR
requirement and the area requirements of the Code per Section 179-13-010(a2 & E). As
mentioned by various members here this evening, the space could have been changed just to
storage space up there, but they felt it would be better utilized with some heating allowed, and
due to the fact that it’s only a .75% increase over the 22% Floor Area Ratio, I think the vast
majority of us agree that this is a reasonable request.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico
MR. STONE-Before you go, let me just make a point that’s both for you and for other people
here. I regret that it’s taken this long. Obviously part of it was your fault, and part of it was
caused by the fact that this Board, and everyone should know that, asks some difficult
questions, and when people come before us, they should be prepared to anticipate some of the
questions and have answers to some of the questions that we, seem to us to be very logical. To
ask, and I just, I mean, this is what you ran into last month. Questions couldn’t be asked, and if
they can’t be asked, we’re moving on with a tabling, or worse, if we have to. So it’s just a point,
an editorial point for this Board, because I’m very proud of this Board. They do a great job, and
we do ask some tough questions.
NEW BUSINESS:
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II TOM ALBRECHT, HILLTOP
CONSTRUCTION AGENT: TOM ALBRECHT, HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER:
LAURIE A. GATES ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 75 PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 140 SQ. FT. DECK AND GAZEBO AND REPLACE
WITH A 10 FT. BY 13 FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD
SETBACK, AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 91-385
ADDITION, BP 99-386 DEMO OF GARAGE, BP 99-387 ADDITION & 2-CAR GARAGE, BP
99-564 2 BEDROOMS AND SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
6/9/2004 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.17-1-33 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-13-
010A1 AND E
TOM ALBRECHT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2004, Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction, Meeting
Date: June 23, 2004 “Project Location: 75 Palmer Drive Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to remove the existing 140 sq. ft. deck / gazebo and construct a 10’ x 13’
addition.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 20 feet of front setback relief from the 30-foot minimum
requirement for the Big Bay Road frontage and 15 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum
requirement for the Palmer Drive frontage, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-272: pending this application,
construction of a 130 sq. ft. residential addition.
BP 99-564: 08/31/99, septic system for a 2 bedroom residential dwelling.
BP 99-387: 08/03/99, construction of a 2-car detached garage and an 80 sq. ft. residential addition
(extension of living room).
BP 99-386: 07/07/99, demolition of a 36’ x 16’ garage.
Staff comments:
The proposed 10’ x 13’ addition would occupy the same space as the existing deck, except the
proposed addition would be set back one foot more than the existing deck on the Palmer Drive
frontage and would have the same setback on the Big Bay Road frontage.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Tom Albrecht Hilltop Construction Owner: Laurie A. Gates ID Number:
QBY-AV-04-48 County Project#: Jun04-AV-48 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing 140 sq. ft. deck and
gazebo and replace with a 10 ft. by 13 ft. addition. Relief requested from front yard setback and
continuation requirements. Site Location: 75 Palmer Drive Tax Map Number(s): 316.17-1-33
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 140 sq. ft. deck and
gazebo to replace it with a 130 sq. ft. addition. The addition is to be located 15 ft. from Palmer
Avenue and Big Bay Road where 50 ft. is required from both roads. The information submitted
indicates the addition will match the architectural style of the existing home. The plans show
the location of the addition and existing home. Staff does not identify an impact on county
resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
MR. STONE-Go ahead, sir.
MR. ALBRECHT-Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction, here on behalf of Laurie Gates,
proposing a ten by fourteen foot, in place of the deck, as stated. The setback would be less than
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
the existing deck currently in place, and gazebo. I’m sure, if you went out there, you noticed
that the gazebo had been removed. Something that was a three season type of gazebo that’s
there predominantly in the summertime. She hasn’t put it up this year yet. She uses it for a
dining room. Her dining room is located on the southeast corner of the property. So it’s
adjacent to the proposed addition that she’s looking for. If you notice the corner, the way the
road sweeps out and around, if you’re looking at the site plan, you’ll note that the macadam
swings significantly away from her property. So if you were to visit the site, the building is set
10 feet off of her property line, her existing building, but if you look at the setback from the
road, which I know that’s not an issue, but I guess what I’m trying to say, it’s not a detriment to
that corner, because of the way that macadam and the way the road is, and the road has been
there for a number, at least as long as she has lived there. So it’s a single story addition,
approximately 14 feet, 15 feet maximum in height, which is less than the existing building.
There’s not an additional location for a dining room is what she’s looking for is a dining room,
off of her kitchen, that would be suitable. I welcome any questions.
MR. STONE-You touched on the concern that I raised about visibility, coming around that
corner. Right now you have an open porch, if you will, open deck, and I don’t know how
people drive on Palmer. I have to admit, usually on dead end roads they want to get out in a
hurry, because I clocked it. It’s 2.2 miles up to Luzerne Road.
MR. ALBRECHT-You don’t want to go too fast around that corner.
MR. STONE-But I was just concerned about visibility. You don’t think it’s a problem, based
upon your argument.
MR. ALBRECHT-I guess that’s my position on that, right. That’s the way I was looking at it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Is Ms Gates here this evening, by any chance?
MR. ALBRECHT-No, she’s not.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I hate to ask a question and have a third or second party answer the darn
thing, but I would have said to Ms. Gates, Ms. Gates, would you be kind enough to explain to
me why you really want this addition. So you really can’t answer that.
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, I can. Because that was the question I asked her. I tried to ask her, with
the anticipation of your questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. ALBRECHT-No. I think it has everything to do with the flow of the house that’s indicated
in the paperwork that’s been read. The flow of the house, the interior of the house. The kitchen
is located on the southeast corner. The living room is on the southwest corner, and the
bedrooms were on the north side of the house.
MR. ABBATE-So this is like a traffic flow thing, if you will?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, it’s really away from the traffic flow.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. ALBRECHT-It’s really away from the traffic flow, and it’s adjacent to the kitchen, which,
you know, the view, the water.
MR. ABBATE-I understand. Okay. It’s a human kind of thing.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ALBRECHT-It’s appealing. It’s attractive.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. You said this was a 10 by 14 foot addition, and the Staff notes
say.
MR. ALBRECHT-Ten by thirteen. I’m sorry.
MR. URRICO-I just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss something.
MR. ALBRECHT-You’re right.
MR. BRYANT-The room, the addition, what exactly is that going to be used for?
MR. ALBRECHT-A dining room.
MR. BRYANT-That’s a dining room.
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Is there a dining room existing in the house now?
MR. ALBRECHT-She does not have a dining room. She has a large living room, and she has a
kitchen with a wrap around peninsula with bar stools. She doesn’t have a formal dining room.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Based on your floor plans, you show, well, can you go back, first, to the
picture that shows the house front on? The deck on the right is the one that’s going to be
replaced, okay, and there was a better picture than that. Is that deck, does that deck protrude
farther than the deck on the left? Or is it all?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, it does.
MR. BRYANT-It does. Your floor plan doesn’t really say what the difference between the new
building and the, it protrudes slightly further than the existing deck that’s going to remain. It
doesn’t really say what that distance is.
MR. ALBRECHT-Right.
MR. BRYANT-What is that distance?
MR. ALBRECHT-It’s a 10 by 14 foot deck that we’re removing.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but the existing deck, the left hand side is going to stay intact.
MR. ALBRECHT-The left hand side is staying intact, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the distance between the protrusion of the new addition and the
existing deck, what is that distance?
MR. ALBRECHT-It will end up to be one foot difference. The new addition will be 12 inches set
back to the existing house by one foot.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that means basically that deck is nine feet deep.
MR. STONE-I think what he’s saying is, if you take the deck that’s going to stay, and the new
room, what’s the distance going to be here?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ALBRECHT-Well, we’re proposing a 10 foot addition.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the existing deck is nine feet deep?
MR. ALBRECHT-No, the existing deck is approximately 12 feet.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not talking about the deck that you’re removing. The deck that’s going to
remain is how deep? Nine feet?
MR. ALBRECHT-Eight feet.
MR. BRYANT-So the difference is two feet, then?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ALBRECHT-I’m sorry. I didn’t address the existing deck that would remain.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let’s open a public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak on this subject? Anybody? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Any consideration about making that room consistent with
that front deck there that’s going to exist, so that you have one plain, instead of having it
protrude? Any consideration?
MR. ALBRECHT-Well, I’m sure in your home, no, I’m not sure of that, but most dining rooms
would not be eight foot wide, minus a six inch wall cabinet. It would be quite narrow to put a
table in, and be comfortable. Actually 10 feet is what we’re asking for, and you’re going to lose
six inches of that. So, to answer your question, I think eight feet is unreasonable for a dining
room.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is there going to be an interior wall between the dining room, the new dining room
and the rest of the house?
MR. ALBRECHT-No, that would be opened right up with microlam beams.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ALBRECHT-That wall would be removed.
MR. STONE-So the ten foot is a full ten foot, minus the six inches for the outside wall?
MR. ALBRECHT-Minus the six inches for the outside wall. That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it keeps going, though, too. I mean, it’s not a, there’s an open space?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And as my colleague just pointed out to me, of course, there’s still another
reduction of the wall board one inch or whatever the case might be.
MR. ALBRECHT-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, I didn’t know. I asked him that question.
MR. BRYANT-Another question for you. You show a crawl space. That’s all going to be
enclosed, I’m assuming there’s a concrete floor underneath there?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-And it’s only four feet underneath the house.
MR. ALBRECHT-Nominal.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Anything else? Well, Roy, let’s talk about it.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I really don’t have a problem with this. I think obviously there’s a benefit to
the applicant for granting this. The effect on the character of the neighborhood, I think it’s
pretty a wash. It’s not going to be much different than before, other than it’s going to improve
the look. As far as the feasible alternatives. Well, you could do something taller, but this is
actually replacing something that was there before, and is actually mitigating it somewhat from
what it did occupy, and that sort of leads into whether the relief is substantial relative to the
Ordinance, and it is relative to the Ordinance, but compared to what was there before, that’s
sort of, in my mind, weighs in your favor, and I don’t see any environmental impact. So I
would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree. What really sold it for me on this application, there
certainly is some relief that’s requested, but I think at the end of the day, this is actually going to
architecturally an improvement in the house. I think, when I drove by this house, it’s certainly
a nice home, but it has a flat front, and in this particular case, you know, changing that in a way
that’s stylistic and also provides the applicant with a dining room which is a, quite frankly, is a
New England tradition, if you will. I think it’s a legitimate need or want, in this particular case,
and I just don’t see, in this particular case, with the improvements that are going to be made
architecturally in the front of this house, that anyone in the neighborhood, if I lived next door, I
would be in favor of it. I think it’s an improvement, in the broadest sense. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to go the other way. The deck doesn’t bother me too much,
because it’s open, but coming around that corner and trying to visualize a solid wall there, I’m
not sure that it affects visibility for driving, but I do think it affects visibility for the scenic
aspect. I think it’s going to make it seem more like you’re driving down beside a wall before
you make that turn, whereas now you may look across the top of the deck and see the river
there. I can understand the applicant’s desire to do this. Certainly the placement is logical, and
all of that, but with it cutting into the setback the way it does and the fact that it’ll be a solid
wall there instead of an open deck, I think there’s a negative effect on the neighborhood, and
I’m going to be opposed.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in favor of it. I think it’s a very modest request. It’s not a
very huge home that we’re seeing here, asking for a major addition to go on the front of there,
and I think that it is going to, the setback is going to be a little bit better from the road front, as
it curves around there, as mentioned. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with Jim. I think this is a very modest request, and the
reason for the request I believe is reasonable. If I were in the applicant’s shoes, if you will, I
would probably be requesting the same thing. I have no problems with the application, and I
would certainly support it.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I just have a question, before I.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-You gave us an elevation, a frontal elevation. What kind of, what are we going
to be looking at at the side of the house? Is there a window there, or what’s going to happen?
MR. ALBRECHT-There are two awning windows.
MR. BRYANT-What is an awning window?
MR. ALBRECHT-An awning window breaks out at the bottom, eight foot wide of window,
approximately 24 inches tall.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you mean like a Miami window kind of thing?
MR. ALBRECHT-Miami?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, you crank it and it opens from the bottom?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I grew up in Florida. They called it a Miami window.
MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. I’m sorry. I missed that.
MR. BRYANT-The positive aspect of the application is that you’re going to encroach less on the
setback. So that’s a good thing. Mr. McNulty expressed concern about coming around the side
of the road and the aesthetic. I’m not really concerned that much about the aesthetic at that
point, because I don’t think you could see anything but trees anyway, but the, I’m more
concerned of the safety aspects only being 15 feet from the road, how it is going to affect coming
around that curve, but that being said, I’m going to be mildly in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-We’ll put that word in there, in the motion, mildly. You know what, Al, I agree
with you. I’m mildly in favor of it, too. I have the same concerns. I think, certainly, the benefit
to the applicant is obvious. I think the detriment to the community is slight, but real. I mean,
any time we obstruct vision or make something, put something there that wasn’t there before,
it’s going to take people a while to realize that maybe they don’t have quite the side line they
had before, but on the other hand, it is a, I imagine it’s a neighborhood where people work hard
to keep speed down. I know, on lakefront property and riverfront property, people are very
interested in safety of themselves because there’s a lot of walking going on, and therefore I’m
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
sure that they do a lot of self-enforcement. So, therefore, as Al is, I would be mildly in favor,
but I need a motion to approve. Al, you want to try it?
MR. BRYANT-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2004 TOM ALBRECHT, HILLTOP
CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Hayes:
75 Palmer Drive. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 140 square foot deck and gazebo
and construct a 10 by 13 addition. Relief required, the applicant requests 20 feet of front setback
relief from the 30-foot minimum requirement for the Big Bay Road frontage, and 15 feet of relief
from the 30-foot minimum requirement for the Palmer Drive frontage per Section 179-4-030, for
the WR-1A zone. Can the applicant achieve the same effect by other means? In my view there’s
no feasible alternative, being that currently there is no dining room at the house, and the
addition would serve as a modest dining area. Is there an undesirable change in the
neighborhood, or the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties? The only concern
that a number of the Board members made was with regard to visibility, coming around the
corner, but other than that, there would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is the
relief substantial? In actuality, the applicant has reduced the encroachment on the setback, and
therefore the relief is moderate. Will the request have any adverse physical or environmental
effects? In my view, other than those stated relating to visibility, there are no adverse effects,
and is the difficulty is self-created? Yes, the difficulty is self-created, and so for those reasons, I
move that we accept Area Variance No. 48-2004.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. ALBRECHT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you for being able to answer the question that the Board raised. You
anticipated that.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID & MARIANNE MC GOWAN
OWNER: DAVID & MARIANNE MC GOWAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: OFF
BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVACY FENCE 40 FT.
IN LENGTH AND 6 FT. IN HEIGHT ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF AN
UNDEVELOPED PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE AREA AND HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. LOT SIZE: 0.10
ACRES SECTION: 179-5-060E
DAVID MC GOWAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2004, David & Marianne McGowan, Meeting Date: June
23, 2004 “Project Location: off Birch Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes construction of a 40-feet long, 6-feet high privacy fence (the closest section to be 21 feet
from the shoreline).
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief to allow for 29 of the 40 feet of the proposed
fence to be located within 50 feet of the mean high-water (MHW) mark of the shoreline (4 feet
maximum height allowed), per §179-5-060(E1). Additionally, the applicant requests 74 sq. ft. of
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
relief from the 100 sq. ft. maximum area of fence allowed within 50 feet of the MHW mark of
the shoreline, per §179-5-060(E2).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None
Staff comments:
The site plan submitted is a reduced copy of the site plan submitted for Kenneth & Leigh
Searles. The 21’+/- depicted for the fence setback does not scale accurately using the 1” = 10’
noted in the legend. However, a review of the site plan submitted for AV 6-2003, SP 35-2003
and BP 2003-691 for Searles indicates the southeast corner of the dwelling to be approximately
22 feet from the shoreline (an “as built” survey has not yet been submitted for the Searles’
dwelling).”
MR. MC NULTY-And no County.
MR. STONE-Question, before you start. That Staff comment makes a question. Is the Searles
property occupied. Do they have a CO?
MR. FRANK-They just finished the dwelling and they requested a site plan inspection today. I
know the Building Inspector was there today. So my inspection is tomorrow.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re still very current on that.
MR. FRANK-They know they have to provide an as built survey. I directed the contractor
today, and I’m doing my inspection tomorrow.
MR. STONE-Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.
MR. MC GOWAN-Okay. For the record, I’m David McGowan. I live at 48 Birch, and we
propose to construct the fence. Just a couple of comments on it. First of all, we haven’t selected
an exact style or model yet, and we propose that it’s going to be constructed by or put in, if it’s
granted, by Adirondack Fence, if I can work something out with my neighbor. Really the
purpose of the fence is to shield the neighbors from us as well as us from the neighbors. We
often go down and use that parcel at 5 a.m. in the morning to kayak and we don’t really want
them to feel like we’re intruding on them, or them on us. Right now, you know, I assume
they’re going to put curtains in, if they don’t like us there, they can shut the curtains. We’ll
have no way of shutting them out. We’ve looked at putting trees or other screening type
vegetation on the property, and it may be possible, but I would be very maintenance intensive
to get it going and make sure that it continued to grow. So, you know, that really isn’t a feasible
option. One thing that we are not doing, we’re not putting this up to try to block the Searles
view from the lake. We really, we’re just doing it so that it’ll help us enjoy our parcel, and until
now, you know, the house has just been used as a vacation property, before the rebuild, and
there really wasn’t much traffic, other than three, four, five, six weeks a year, and the windows
on the old property were much, much smaller, and it wasn’t until the house was completed that
we really noticed, you know, how close the windows were to the line, which was about 80
inches, now, and the fact that you could stand on the line and essentially look right into the
windows and feel like you’re sitting in the living room. Also, when the house was originally
constructed, there were substantial numbers of variances that were legally applied for and
granted, and we didn’t oppose any of the variances. In fact, when the house was put in, it was
actually an improvement to the neighborhood. They re-did the septic system. So that’s going
to do nothing but improve the quality of the lake, and both my wife and I are extremely, we’re
environmental type people. So anything that can help the area, we’re definitely in favor of.
There’s one thing to note, though, that in order for that house to be built, we did have to move
our right of way to the parcel, and let me just read a comment that came from, this is the
Queensbury Zoning meeting, 1/22/03, and this was a comment from Mr. Schroder, who was the
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
consulting engineer. His comment was, unless the right of way can be removed, we don’t have
a project, because if the right of way can’t be moved, there’s no other place to put the septic
system. This is an imperative here to be able to do this, and there’s an imperative here to be
able to satisfy the McGowan’s wants. So, if we didn’t agree to that, there’s a good chance that
the house would have never been re-built and I wouldn’t be sitting here today asking for a
variance to put a fence in. Another thing you may want to note is that the house, the old house
and the new house are not built on the center of the lot, which in today’s zoning requirements,
it is a requirement to do that. It doesn’t meet the side setbacks. Again, a variance was applied,
at one point, I’m assuming, or grandfathered in, but if that house were centered, there may not
be the imperative to put the fence in either.
MR. STONE-Well, let me just correct you. There’s no requirement that it be centered. Only that
it meet side setback requirements, which sometimes results in a house being centered because
of the narrowness of a particular lot, but they don’t have to be centered. They’ve just got to
meet the two side setbacks.
MR. MC GOWAN-Which is 10 feet?
MR. STONE-In this area, how big is the lot, 15 feet, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-It depends on the width.
MR. STONE-Yes, it depends upon the width. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. FRANK-And I’m not sure how wide their lot, I think it’s approximately 50 feet wide, which
would make it.
MR. STONE-Twelve and a half.
MR. FRANK-Less than 50 is 12.
MR. STONE-Yes, 12.
MR. MC GOWAN-Okay. It’s 80 inches now. So, you know, it doesn’t meet the setbacks.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC GOWAN-But, again, everything is legal.
MR. STONE-By the way, this is the Zoning Board that granted that, you know that.
MR. MC GOWAN-Yes, I do.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC GOWAN-But I guess in closing, I’d just like to say that, you know, the Searles, when
they put this property in, they did everything absolutely right. We didn’t oppose anything. We
looked at it as an improvement. It wasn’t until the house was built that we even had an inkling
that maybe a privacy fence was required, and, you know, again, provided we can get by this
issue, I’d make the same decision again. I’d move the right of way. I’d let them put it in. I’d let
them build everything, exactly as it is. We’re just looking to be able to use the lot without
mutual intrusion on each other’s property.
MR. STONE-This is a vacant lot.
MR. MC GOWAN-Correct.
MR. STONE-You own your property where your house is.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MC GOWAN-Yes, and we walk across the street to the lot. So it’s our access to the lake.
We have a house on Birch Road that’s not on the map, but it’s.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. You’re not the house down on the water, where the paved road goes.
MR. MC GOWAN-No. Our house is at the corner. We’re at 48 Birch is our main residence, and
we have to walk out our driveway, and then across the right of way to our lot. It’s probably, I
don’t know, 100 feet maybe, to the back of the property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I walked your lot today. I got good exercise, since I started from the
other guy’s property.
MR. MC GOWAN-Okay, but I mean, essentially, that’s my story.
MR. STONE-Okay. So what you own is an empty lot, totally?
MR. MC GOWAN-Yes, it’s 35 by 100 foot, 110 feet to the back.
MR. ABBATE-Question. This is an empty lot.
MR. MC GOWAN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And did I hear you correctly, you indicated you utilize it three to four weeks a
year?
MR. MC GOWAN-No, no. I’m sorry, that’s the Searles residence next door. Before they were
utilizing it three, four, six, you know, maybe plus weeks, but with the new construction, we
expect that the use on the house is probably going to increase substantially, requiring the.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, how often do you utilize this vacant lot? You and the family.
MR. MC GOWAN-We’re over there several times a week.
MR. ABBATE-Several times a week. Where do you reside, your permanent residence?
MR. MC GOWAN-It’s at 48 Birch Road, which is, again, approximately 100 feet from the lot.
MR. ABBATE-From the lot.
MR. MC GOWAN-That is our lake access.
MR. ABBATE-I understand.
MR. MC GOWAN-Without that lot our property value of the house would substantial decrease.
MR. ABBATE-No, I understand. See, you have to help me out, because I’m grappling with the
fact that you’re requesting a six foot high privacy fence, and this is on a vacant lot.
MR. MC GOWAN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-I understand that it’s your access to the lake. I understand that, all right. I’m
trying to weigh the fairness of a six foot, forty foot long, six foot fence, on a vacant lot. I’m
trying to determine whether that six foot fence, forty foot long, would grant you faster access.
I’m trying to come up with a formula that would say, yes, we should approve this because it
will positively increase your ability, your family’s ability, to get access to the lot, and I can’t
seem to do that.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, we did. At one point we had a tent down there or a little gazebo we
had set up that we would use, and a hammock set up down there. So we’ll go down and
sometimes just lay by the lake on the parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you this question. If this application were disapproved, how would it
significantly change your lifestyle?
MR. MC GOWAN-Significantly? Well, it would just be a bit awkward going down there.
MR. ABBATE-Why? You go in a bathing suit. You don’t go naked.
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, like I say, it’s for us to protect our privacy as well theirs. Do you want
to be looking in, if you’ve got a house sitting directly next to your neighbor, do you want to be
looking into their kitchen window or into their living room window? If you were going down
to recreate, let’s say, or swim, in your pool in your backyard, would you want to sit and look
directly into the window of the neighbor?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what you’re justifying to me, unless I’m reading you wrong, is that
you’re doing your neighbor a big favor by putting up this fence?
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, it’s mutual. They say good fences make good neighbors.
MR. ABBATE-Fences do make good neighbors. No question about it.
MR. MC GOWAN-The other thing that I didn’t state is that if the house were actually set back
at the 50 foot level, we wouldn’t be applying for the variance either. That would be an absolute,
there would be no need for this. In fact, when I spoke to the two fellows at the Planning Board
in Queensbury, both of them had different opinions whether a variance was even required,
because the Codes right now state that you can put a fence on a lot that begins at the beginning
of the house and take it to the back of the house. You can’t put it in front of.
MR. ABBATE-You should really listen to them, because they are experts in that area.
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, I was told initially to just go ahead and put it in.
MR. ABBATE-Really? What’s the name of the folks who live on the other lot?
MR. MC GOWAN-That’s Ken and Leigh Searles.
MR. ABBATE-Are they here this evening?
MR. MC GOWAN-Ken is.
MR. ABBATE-He’s here this evening. Okay. I’m going to wait. I think I have to listen to what
he has to say. Please. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Just to follow up on Mr. Abbate’s question, why 40 feet? I’m still not convinced
as to why you need 40 feet.
MR. MC GOWAN-Forty feet? That takes it to the back of the house.
MR. URRICO-So you need to cover from the back of the house to the front of the house in order
to have privacy?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, I’m willing, well, that’ll take it by all the windows. Actually, you
could take it 22 inches less than that, and have it go by all the windows, and have it cover the
windows.
MR. STONE-Keep in mind that the question stems from, that we’re supposed to give minimal
relief, and if there’s any way that we can have it further away from the lake, this is something
that we have to consider.
MR. MC GOWAN-Well, actually, though, I believe I only require a variance for 29 feet of fence.
MR. STONE-That’s correct. The 29 feet that covers the porch and goes part way back on the
house, yes.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the Searles did have an Area Variance granted
to them, which this Board granted, for side setback relief. I quoted earlier the side setbacks
were, are required to be 15 feet, and it’s 20 feet on this lot. This lot’s greater than 60 feet wide,
and also the shoreline setback relief was granted to them for 31 feet. So what the applicant
stated is correct. I mean, they’re 31 feet closer to the shore than what the requirement is.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC GOWAN-The other thing that the Board told me was that, with the, and this is Craig
Brown and the other fellow who works for him there, that the Searles.
MR. STONE-This is the gentleman, or are you talking the Planning Board?
MR. MC GOWAN-The Planning Board at Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Well, this is the Code Enforcement Officer, Bruce Frank.
MR. FRANK-Mr. McGowan, we’ve had conversations on the phone in the past. We’ve never
met.
MR. MC GOWAN-Okay. I’m quoting some of our conversations.
MR. FRANK-If I can state something. I think I had the conversation with Mr. McGowan where
I said it would be allowed for the Searles to put up a fence, because now their lot has a defined
front yard and rear yard. I mean, at the time I told them they could legally put up a fence along
the side of their house because it would not exceed into the front yard, and you know a
stockade fence can’t go into any front yard, regardless if it’s a shoreline front yard or front yard
on a road. At the time, I was incorrect, because I forgot about the section of the Code stating
about the encroachment on a shoreline, regardless of where the dwelling is, and in this
particular case, just because they got an Area Variance to put their dwelling closer, which seems
kind of, well, in some people’s opinion may seem kind of outrageous that they can’t put a fence
along the side of their house, but they would have to apply for an Area Variance also, if they
chose to put this fence up. Even though their house is approximately 20 feet from the shore,
they still would have to get an Area Variance for the fence.
MR. STONE-This is another structure. It’s just like a deck.
MR. FRANK-Well, it is a structure that has restrictions, as far as the shoreline is concerned.
MR. STONE-Yes, right. That’s what I meant.
MR. FRANK-So I did state that to him at the time, and that was well over, it was last year some
time, or early in the year.
MR. MC GOWAN-It was April, I think April of this year.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. FRANK-Well, we’ve had a few conversations, if I recall correctly. I think one was much
earlier than April.
MR. MC GOWAN-Or March, maybe.
MR. FRANK-But I’m the one that stated that, and I stated that incorrectly to him at the time, so,
I mean, I’ve got to fess up. He didn’t point fingers at me, but I think I’m the one that told him
that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-So they would, if the Searles applied for a fence, needed a fence, they could only
go to within 31 feet of the shoreline?
MR. STONE-No, they can’t even do that.
MR. FRANK-They couldn’t. They could go no closer than 50 feet, because of that section of the
Code.
MR. STONE-They would need the same variance that Mr. McGowan is seeking.
MR. FRANK-Even though they have an Area Variance to be approximately 20 feet away from
the shoreline for the dwelling. So, again, it seems kind of outrageous that they couldn’t put a
fence along the side of their house, since you’ve already granted them the relief for the dwelling
to be that close to the shore. It’s a technical matter.
MR. ABBATE-The only, they need approval beyond 29 feet? Help me out.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, because I believe where he’s proposing to put it is approximately 21
feet from the shore. So the first 29 feet closest to the shoreline he needs relief for. Beyond that,
he doesn’t need any relief for that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would this hold true for the next door neighbors as well?
MR. FRANK-That’s true. The Searles could put a fence up 50 feet back from the shoreline, a six
foot privacy fence.
MR. ABBATE-I see.
MR. FRANK-Now that’s only for privacy fences, now. We’re not talking about a picket type
fence. That’s a different matter. Stockade fences aren’t allowed in any front yard or within a
shoreline.
MR. ABBATE-Let me clear it up, then. Let’s get more specific. This says six foot high privacy
fence. Explain to me what a privacy fence is.
MR. FRANK-Well, a privacy fence is something you can’t see through. So a stockade fence, but
I think I’ve got to correct myself. That section of the Code, and I don’t have my book with me.
I’d have to run and get it. I think it applies to all fences, now that I think about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-So, just to follow up. So, if the Searles applied for a variance, they would need 19
feet of relief.
MR. BRYANT-No, they’d need the same relief.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-No, they’d need the same relief.
MR. FRANK-The same exact relief that Mr. McGowan is seeking now they would need, if they
propose to put it in the same location.
MR. STONE-They would need relief from any closer to the lake than 50 feet.
MR. URRICO-They’re 31 feet from the shoreline.
MR. STONE-That’s nothing to do with the fence.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to the discussion of privacy fence versus stockade fence.
MR. FRANK-A privacy fence is a stockade fence.
MR. BRYANT-Is a stockade fence. So, in reality, if it were the Searles putting the fence up, they
would need a relief to put a stockade fence in their front yard.
MR. FRANK-They would still need relief. The same relief like Mr. McGowan is seeking today.
MR. BRYANT-What about relative to the front yard?
MR. FRANK-Well, the front yard you’re referring to is the shoreline.
MR. BRYANT-The shoreline.
MR. FRANK-They would still need to seek relief. You can’t put any fence within 50 feet of the
shoreline.
MR. STONE-Are we all clear on that? In other words, anything constructed within 50 feet from
the lake requires a variance. The house got one. A fence would need one, and that’s basically
simplistic, but that’s what we’re talking about. Do you agree, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-One more thing to make clear. Help me out here. In effect, the applicant is
requesting 29 feet of relief from the 40 feet of proposed fence line?
MR. FRANK-That’s part of the relief he’s seeking, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Is that right?
MR. FRANK-That’s part of the relief he’s seeking. There’s a second part of the relief he needs,
for the amount of square footage of the fence within that 50 foot shoreline setback.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have your computer with you? Give me a percentage, 40 of 29. Will you,
please.
MR. STONE-Fifty-eight percent.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ABBATE-Is it a 58%? Okay. Is that right, 58% of relief?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So, anyway, it is 58%, though, right?
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that.
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. STONE-Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEN SEARLES
MR. SEARLES-My name is Ken Searles. I own the house next door, and I know you’ve gotten
correspondence also. We absolutely don’t want the fence. I have no problem with it being
open. I have no problem seeing my neighbors. I like looking out my window and seeing the
land. I welcome them to walk by and wave. We have kayakers that come up to the lake, you
know, and fisherman that come up and wave. I mean, we bought this house, or we bought a
camp 17 years ago, and it existed probably 70 years before that. I think it burnt down in the 20’s
or whatever. The side of that house that we bought looks almost identical, looked almost
identical, we had to keep within the same footprint to rebuild this house. The porch actually,
there are four windows in the porch area. So that was actually bigger, and then there were
single windows where the other two double windows are. So the square footage of the
windows is probably maybe it’s slightly larger there, but it’s very close, and for 16 years, we
never had a problem. I mean, this is the first time I’ve seen Dave in two years. I saw his wife
twice in the last two years, and that was just to like wave from a distance. So I don’t really have
a problem.
MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think Mr. McGowan said that he looks, if he walks by, he could look into
your kitchen window. Is that correct?
MR. SEARLES-Well, it would be the living room.
MR. ABBATE-The living room. If he walked by and he looked into the living room, would you
have a problem, would you have any problems inviting him in?
MR. SEARLES-No. I mean, if I didn’t want him to see anything I’d pull a shade.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m trying to make a point here.
MR. SEARLES-I mean, to me, to have a, for me to look out those windows and see nothing but a
six foot high fence, destroys what I’m here for.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. One other question. Okay. At the present time, you have a nice working
relationship with your neighbor, correct, can I assume that, up to this point?
MR. SEARLES-Well, up until this point I thought we did.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. If the fence were to go up, would that deteriorate the relationship?
Would that cause animosity?
MR. SEARLES-Well, he asked me three months ago if I would mind this, and I told him, I said, I
would like there to be an alternative, that it would probably bother me having a six foot fence
outside my window.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEARLES-And then we never spoke since.
MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question, sir, if I might. The fence in the proposed location.
How much of the lake view is it going to block? How is it going to affect you?
MR. SEARLES-Of the lake view?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. SEARLES-It would cut probably the corner where the McPhillips’ house juts out on a
peninsula, there’s a little bit of water that you can see there, and you would just not be able to
see that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and what do you normally see out of your living room window?
MR. SEARLES-That, I mean, I’d be looking the other way. I mean, basically I would be looking
at the photographer, and, you know, to me, if you want it to be blocked off, then I disagree
about planting shrubs and bushes. There’s things there that look like elephant ears. I think in
the last three weeks they’ve doubled in size. Try growing more. I’ll look out and see bushes
and trees and stuff like that. I mean, I just, you know, Glen Lake, I took a boat ride around
when I first got here today, and we will use the house a little bit more, but I’ll bet you if we use
it 40 days a year or 50 days a year, it would be a lot. We just love it so much that that’s why we
did what we did. If this is allowed, I mean, there are houses all around that lake, houses that
are that close together, and I don’t know anybody that has a problem. I mean, all our
neighbors, you come out, you wave, you say hi.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question, please. Okay. I really want you to
think about this before you answer it.
MR. SEARLES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-If this application were approved, and a 40 foot long, 6 foot high privacy fence
were installed, would you perceive that as offensive?
MR. SEARLES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEARLES-I would think what did I do wrong.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. The shot that showed the windows of the house, what rooms are
those?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. SEARLES-It’s like a Great Room. There’s a stone fireplace, and there’s two windows in the
side of it, and then there’s like a porch area in the front.
MR. URRICO-That’s the one window to the left was the porch?
MR. SEARLES-The furthest to the lake, and that was the porch originally, too.
MR. URRICO-And then the upstairs?
MR. SEARLES-Bedrooms.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEARLES-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-So the porch is now part of the house?
MR. SEARLES-Well, it’s still a porch, but it’s heated.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, I mean, it’s an extension, if you will, of the house? Okay. Anything
else? All right.
MR. SEARLES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this? We have some
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have some correspondence. We have a letter from Margery
McPhillips. She says, “Glen Lake has been my summer home since 1919, and my year round
home since 1971. As a long time resident and member of the Glen Lake Protective Association, I
share a commitment with other home owners on the lake to high environmental and aesthetic
standards. The applicants for this area variance own a 35 foot wide lot to the west of my home
and to the east of a beautiful new home built by Mr. and Mrs. Searles. The Searles should be
commended for the septic and related upgrades that will protect the lake’s environment. The
six foot fence proposed by the McGowans is unreasonable and unnecessary. The fence would
adversely effect the neighborhoods aesthetics, and is an unwelcome, seemingly spiteful
intrusion. I strongly object to the area variance application and request that you note my
objection for the record. Very truly yours, Margery F. McPhillips” And we have a letter from
Joseph W. McPhillips. He says, “As co-owner of adjoining property, I object to the above
application for a use variance. Very truly yours, Joseph W. Phillips” And we have note from
Walter Rivette and Wilford Fowler. They say, “We are opposed to this application because we
believe that the proposed 6’ fence would detract from the natural beauty of Glen Lake. Walter
Rivette Wilford Fowler”
MR. STONE-Does it say where they live?
MR. MC NULTY-No indication on this.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-And, a note from Dean Sanborn. He says, “To put up a fence, let alone a 6’
fence, is ridiculous especially on a Vacant piece of land! If this goes through it will set a
precedent to make the lake look like a mess and restrict views. It will destroy the CHARACTER
of the lake and the charm of it! People used to enjoy (and still do) walking the lake and that will
no longer exist. Please don’t let this happen. Dean Sanborn” And that’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Nobody else want to speak? Then I will close the public hearing.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comment, you want to make, Mr. McGowan, on what you heard?
MR. MC GOWAN-Just on the letters. Number One, the only houses that’ll really be able to see
this, that I’m aware, are the McPhillips and the Searles. Also, one of Ken’s comments. I did call
him earlier, and I did talk about this, but he didn’t, during our conversation, say yes or no.
There was, he may have thought it, but the comment was that we could talk about when he
comes up next time, and that never happened.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC GOWAN-That’s really all I have.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? If not, let’s start with Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, when I originally read this application, my initial impression was that I had
to be missing something, I mean, to construct this in this way, in this particular circumstance,
with it being a vacant piece of land, and I have to say that that impression hasn’t changed. In
fact, it’s probably gotten worse, based on the testimony tonight. I’ve been on the Board almost
eight years now, and I’ve certainly opposed applications when I thought the applicant had
proposed something that had a detrimental impact on the neighborhood that exceeded their
desires or their wishes or their benefit to them, and that’s our test. I can’t recall, in that entire
period, never lending any credence to benefit to the applicant that was set forth in the
application. It usually is pretty self-evident and it’s understandable, and you might not always
agree with it, but there’s usually some benefit that’s discernable. In this particular case, I find
the benefit to the applicant to be completely bankrupt. I mean, I just, for the life of me, cannot
understand why this is a necessary action, or a necessary thing to grant relief for in this
particular case. I have to say I’ve never felt that way, and I certainly feel that this way. I
wouldn’t be in favor of any relief under any circumstances in this manner. Whatever you’re
entitled to build by the Code, you know, I wish you luck, and I think obviously you’re entitled
to do that, but I think that the Searles, and also the residents of Glen Lake, to have fences
running down to the lake on vacant pieces of property, to me ultimately is, would be definitely
be a negative to the neighborhood, to the community and to the Town. I wouldn’t understand
the rationale if there was a house there, to this extent, and I certainly don’t understand the
rationale when there’s no house there. So I would say I’m strongly opposed to this application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I, too, am opposed. I basically agree with Jaime. I think a fence in this
location just does not fit with the lake. I think on Glen Lake or even on Lake George, on a good
number of the lots, you’ve got to expect you’re going to be kind of looking into your neighbor’s
window. As far as whether a fence would intrude on the view from either of the neighbor’s,
I’m not too concerned about that, because somebody some day might decide to build a camp on
this piece of property and they might well come in for a variance to build it up closer to the lake
like the Searles property, for any number of reasons, and it’s conceivable they might get
permission to do that. So a house, or the camp would also block their view, but I think whether
there’s a vacant lot, or whether it’s an occupied lot, I don’t see the benefit of the fence versus the
detriment to the neighborhood. I think it’s going to be a definite detriment to the neighborhood
and that character of the lake. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe our Town’s motto is Queensbury’s home of natural beauty, and I
think that a fence in this instance, where you have proposed it, would not be in keeping with
that. I live on the opposite side of the lake from this property. My home is built next to a six
foot spite fence that’s pre-existing my buying the property, and, having moved on to the
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
property, just so I didn’t have to look at that ugly monstrosity, I planted a hedgerow of trees
along there, and my trees are now about 12, 14 feet high, as opposed to a six foot fence, which
effectively screens my, viewing my neighbor’s fence line. I think that in this instance here, you
do have an undeveloped lot, and I think that you could also plant trees along that line there, if
you really wanted to go to the expense of an arborvitae hedge. That’ll grow to be 30 feet tall, if
that’s your intent, but I think, due to the fact that it’s an open lot, you could plant a wide open
arrangement of trees there that would somewhat screen the house from your view, and I think
that that would be a feasible alternative for you to consider, but a fence would not be in keeping
with it. The fence over near my house extends all the way down right to the waterfront, and it’s
the only one on the lake, and I don’t think we need to have another one.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. If this Board were to approve the application, as submitted, it would
be adding to an undesirable change in the neighborhood. It would encourage, in all probability,
other individuals, possibly, to do the same thing. I cannot rationalize, and I truly mean this, in
my own mind, any justification, I just can’t do it, for this particular request, a 40 foot long, 6 foot
high privacy fence. That, coupled with the fact that I heard what the neighbor has stated, and
he’s in obviously complete opposition. In addition to the fact that we take into consideration
perhaps other correspondence, and the correspondence as I recall the secretary reading from
other folks residing in that area are in total opposition, total opposition, for this Board to
approve this 40 foot long, 6 foot high privacy fence. In any case, I would not favor any relief
whatsoever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I kind of agree with the other Board members. I think, not only do you
block the neighbor’s view, but you also, it’s going to be an unsightly thing that people are going
to see from the lake, and the fact that the lot is vacant, it really makes it even more unnecessary.
So I’m going to be opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to agree with the rest of the Board members. I really don’t, I agree
with Jaime, especially when I looked at this. I didn’t get it. I didn’t get what the need was, and
I still don’t get it, and I just would be against it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I’m certainly unanimous with the rest of the Board. When I looked at
the property today, I wrote a couple of notes down, because I always write notes down. It
doesn’t mean I follow through necessarily, but in this particular case, I wrote a question, spite
fence. That was a question. I didn’t have an answer. I’m still not sure, but I don’t like it. Then
I said, there’s no compelling reason to grant this thing. It’s an open lot. I can’t see any reason in
the world, I think Mr. Hayes put it very succinctly, very cogently, very well, that there just is no
reason to do this. It is such a detriment to the neighborhood, the community, that any benefit is,
does not even measure up, particularly when the lookee, Mr. Searles, says, I don’t want a fence.
I don’t care if they look into my house. He’s the man who’s going to be most impacted by your
concern for viewing into his house. You have two choices. We certainly can deny it, and that’s
the easy way. You can also withdraw the application. Because you’re going to be denied.
MR. MC GOWAN-I think I’ll let it go on the record as being denied.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. I need a motion to deny.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2004 DAVID & MARIANNE MC GOWAN,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
off Birch Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 40-foot long, 6-foot high privacy
fence; the closest section would be 21 feet from the shoreline. Specifically, the applicant has
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
requested relief to allow 29 feet of 40 feet of the proposed fence to be located within 50 feet of
the mean high water mark of the shoreline, which, in normal circumstances, or without
variance, would allow a four foot maximum height fence per Section 179-5-060 (E1).
Additionally, the applicant requests 74 feet of relief from the 100 square foot maximum area of
fence allowed within the 50-foot mean high water mark of the shoreline per Section 179-5-060
(E2). I move for the denial of the application on several reasons. First of all, I do not believe
that the applicant has proposed or set forth a benefit to him that is adequate, in this particular
circumstance, to provide this type of relief that’s being requested. Second of all, I think that, in
terms of impact on the neighborhood or community, in this particular case, allowing a fence of
this size height, length, placed in the proximity to the lake will certainly have a negative impact
on the greater community, particularly if it was employed or asked for on a number of
circumstances on Glen Lake or Lake George. I also feel that the immediate neighbor, the most
impacted neighbor in this particular case, which is part of that community, has expressed his
concern, or not even concern, his outright opposition to the fence, for reasons that it’s going to
block his view. In this particular case, I think that the Searles have also touched upon the point,
which other Board members felt that in this particular case, if privacy is desired for what is a
vacant piece of property, that the applicant is more than, you know, has more than the
opportunity to accomplish some of that or a lot of that through natural vegetation and/or a legal
fence. I think some combination thereof, meaning a four foot fence or whatever is allowed by
Code, along with natural vegetation, which the neighbor has said he does not oppose, I think
that you can obtain your objectives through feasible alternatives and I just don’t think that this
fence represents the best alternative to what your goals are in this particular case. We’re not
granting any relief in this particular case, and we’re moving to deny this application as
submitted here tonight.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
MR. MC GOWAN-So I could legally put a four foot fence?
MR. HAYES-Well, you’d have to work that out with the Town, but our notes indicate that to
some extent, and for some portion of that, that a four foot fence is legal.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Sorry.
MR. MC GOWAN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II BRIAN HOGAN OWNER: BRIAN
HOGAN ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 34 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 1,246 SQ. FT. EXISTING CAMP AND 660 SQ. FT.
GARAGE/BUNKROOM. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE WITH A 3,187 SQ. FT.
HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, AND
SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 4993 ADDITION
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/9/2004 LOT SIZE:
0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-56 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-070
BRIAN HOGAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2004, Brian Hogan, Meeting Date: June 23, 2004
“Project Location: 34 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes
demolition of a 1,246 sq. ft. camp and 660 sq. ft. garage/bunkroom and the construction of a
3,187 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which includes a one-car attached garage.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 15.9 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline
setback requirement and 7.9 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of
the WR-1A Zone, per §179-4-070 and §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-026: 01/11/02, septic alteration
for 33 and 34 Holly Lane.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s proposal includes increasing the front and shoreline setbacks from the existing
and
eliminating the small bunkhouse dwelling, which is part of the existing detached garage.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Hogan, Brian Owner: Brian Hogan ID Number: QBY-04-AV-50 County
Project#: Jun04-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,246 sq. ft. existing camp and 660 sq. ft.
garage/bunkroom. Applicant proposes to replace with a 3,187 sq. ft. house with attached
garage. Relief requested from shoreline, and side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 34
Holly Lane Tax Map Number(s): 239.12-2-56 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to remove an existing one story 1,246 sq. ft. (foot print) camp and a 660 sq. ft. garage
bunkroom to construct a 2063 sq. ft. (footprint) with a 779 sq. ft. (footprint) second story. The
new home will be located 34 ft. from the shore where 50 ft. is required, 12 ft. from the north
property line where 20 ft. is required. The information submitted details the location of the
existing and proposed dwelling. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on
the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation Warren County Planning Board
recommends No County Impact with the condition that the applicant work with the Warren
County Soil and Water Conservation District.”
MR. STONE-Go. You can explain to that to us when you get there. You were there.
MR. HOGAN-For the record, my name’s Brian Hogan and with me tonight is Meredith Durkee.
We live at 34 Holly Lane. We’ve lived at the property for approximately three years now, and
our intent is to build a more permanent year round home. What we’re asking for is basically we
want to move the house back a little bit further from the lake and basically build within the
same side setback that the north and a little bit further back from the lake. That’s the extent of
what we’re asking for.
MR. STONE-Can you explain the septic situation? Do you own the property across the street?
MR. HOGAN-I do.
MR. STONE-And so you got permission to put both septic systems on this other lot?
MR. HOGAN-Correct. Basically, when we bought the property, we found that the existing
septic system on the lakefront property was what I would consider in a state of failure. The
septic tank itself was located approximately four feet from the basement wall and was totally
perforated. It was basically leaking effluent into the basement at that point, which was being
picked up by the sump pump and being pumped into the lake.
MR. STONE-Direct transfer?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. HOGAN-Pretty close. So basically what we did is applied for a building permit to put in a
new system, and the most practical way to do that was to locate both the systems across the
road, since there’s a significant amount of area there.
MR. STONE-Then you gave an easement to yourselves to locate it there?
MR. HOGAN-Yes. It was kind of hard.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, you had to.
MR. HOGAN-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay, and what did the County Planning Board mean by work with Soil & Water?
MR. HOGAN-I don’t know. We didn’t.
MR. STONE-Do you know, Bruce, why they would have said what they said?
MR. HOGAN-What did they say? I’m not aware of any.
MR. STONE-Just what he read.
MR. FRANK-It didn’t go into detail, and I don’t believe they forwarded anything to us.
MR. STONE-Okay. Just a strange comment, that’s all.
MR. FRANK-Well, it may have something to do with the stormwater prevention pollution
control.
MR. HOGAN-At the time, I think during part of the construction I think there was a question
about when they were building it, they didn’t have a silt fence in place, and I think one of the
neighbors had an issue with the fact that some of the silt was getting more towards the lake,
and I think the contractor rectified that.
MR. STONE-Who owns, are we going to hear from the property owner to the north, the vacant
lot? I assume that’s a totally vacant lot?
MR. HOGAN-It’s actually not a vacant lot. That’s owned by Mr. Polk. Actually, the way his lot
is laid out, if you look, it’s a very large parcel, and the house is on the extreme northern end of
it.
MR. STONE-But that is part of the lot that the house?
MR. HOGAN-Exactly. It’s a single lot, and we discussed with Mr. Polk about the side setback,
and he agreed with it, and I think there’s some correspondence from him on that.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Bruce. When you’re going to go from demolishing a
1200 square foot camp to building a 3,000 square foot single family dwelling, is that more than a
50% increase in size, or are you going to count all the outbuildings in your formula to determine
that?
MR. FRANK-That’s not even reviewable, because this is a teardown, rebuild. So it’s not an
expansion. So we don’t look at that section of the Code. So it’s like starting from scratch, like
this never existed.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-Question, and I’m not a surveyor. Is this just a false front on the survey here,
between these two iron pipes? You own to the water, I assume?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, I do.
MR. STONE-Because it’s kind of a strange, I’ve never seen this straight line between iron rods,
or iron pipe and iron rods. I guess they’re different. Are they, Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-Honestly, no, I couldn’t tell you what that is there for either, but maybe there’s a
reason.
MR. HOGAN-Well, that’s basically the beginning of a slope that goes down to the lake, is I
think what that signifies. There’s a line of trees right there.
MR. HAYES-Usually they use like topographical lines, though.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-I would think, yes, and actually if you look at the, based upon what the original,
what the survey showed and what we were supplied by the Town, there’s a slight discrepancy
in the size of the parcel as well.
MR. STONE-Is the front footage smaller or larger?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, the square footage of the parcel is smaller in the survey than it is in the
documentation we have from the Town.
MR. STONE-The only thing that counts is the front footage, but that’s another Board.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The tax map for this parcel shows it being 100 by 150, and the survey map
shows it being 130, their survey that he supplied us. That line you were asking about is what a
surveyor would call a tie line, and they use those in situations where they can’t measure
accurately along the shoreline.
MR. STONE-That’s probably one of the straightest shorelines I’ve ever seen, strangely. That’s
what I figured it was, but it’s just strange to see. Any other questions?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’ve got a couple. Even ignoring the tax map 150, you’ve still got a lot
that’s 130 feet deep, and it’s 100 feet wide, and you’re tearing down and doing a complete
rebuild. Why can’t the home be placed in a compliant location?
MR. HOGAN-Well, there’s two reasons that we’re trying to do that. One, I mean, when you
walk the property, you’ll notice that there’s woods extremely to the north, towards where Mr.
Polk’s is, and what we were trying to do is to move the house as far north as possible, so there
was increased separation between us and the southern neighbor, because the southern
neighbor’s house is within 20 some odd feet of our south property line. So what we would try
to do is move the house north a little bit, to make sure that we could have a little more room
between us and the neighbors. So that’s what we did on the side setback.
MR. HAYES-No fence?
MR. HOGAN-No fence. Not yet anyway, and as far as the shoreline setback, because basically
what we tried to do is not to encroach any further than the main house as it originally existed,
and also we wanted to try to, if possible, move the, not move the house back so far so as we’re
going to lose one of the large pine trees that’s behind the house, because we wanted to try to
retain that if possible.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-Bruce, and you probably know it quicker than I can look it up. At one time, in the
old Code, you had to have a minimum of 20 feet on one side, but at least 50 feet total on both
sides. Does that still exist? I haven’t looked in there lately.
MR. FRANK-For the Waterfront Residential lots, you usually see that in subdivisions where
they.
MR. STONE-No, Waterfront Residential used to be, when I built my house, and I didn’t think
we had changed it.
MR. FRANK-Well, ages ago it may have been that way. Now if you look at the side setbacks for
any Waterfront Residential property, it all depends on the lot width, and it’s not a sum of, it’s
always.
MR. STONE-It’s not a sum of. Okay.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Just to piggyback on Mr. McNulty’s question. If not put in a compliant location,
how about a smaller dwelling?
MR. HOGAN-I mean, yes, you can always build a smaller house, but what we tried to do was
to build a three bedroom house with a living room and a dining room and a one car garage.
MR. URRICO-So by building it smaller, you could make it more compliant to the lot.
MR. HOGAN-I don’t know that I’d be able to move it any further back from the, I probably
wouldn’t change too much from that concern. I mean, if I was going to build a smaller house, I
would probably maybe increase my setback from the southern neighbor a little bit, but I would
still want the 12 feet on the north side, and I don’t think I’d want to build it any further back
from the water, because if I had any shape of a square house, I’d still impact the trees in the
back, and I don’t want to do that.
MR. FRANK-And for the record, what he’s proposing is compliant to the lot, for the Floor Area
Ratio. He’s not requesting any relief from the.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but the setbacks, the side setbacks.
MR. FRANK-Okay. I thought you meant for the size.
MR. ABBATE-And this is a teardown and complete new rebuild, correct? So we don’t have to
take into consideration any percentage of increase.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. It’s not an expansion. It’s teardown and start all over.
MR. ABBATE-So this is starting from the beginning, so to speak?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-But you could, 20 feet is the requirement. Right? So that the house could be
moved three feet to the south.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just anticipating what some of the Board members have said.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. BRYANT-Your layout here, unfortunately, it’s very difficult to make out where the existing
house/camp is, in relationship to where the new building is going to be.
MR. FRANK-That’s mine, but you’re welcome to look at it.
MR. BRYANT-So this black, where it says patio, that’s the existing?
MR. HOGAN-I’m sorry now?
MR. BRYANT-The black area where it says patio, that’s all existing?
MR. HOGAN-That’s currently existing, yes, and if you look underneath it, there’s like a hatched
area. That’s the existing camp.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re bringing it back, yes, but, Bruce, you didn’t show me where the
existing ends. It ends over here?
MR. FRANK-The light gray.
MR. STONE-Is existing.
MR. FRANK-That’s the existing.
MR. HAYES-That’s just past the dining room table.
MR. ABBATE-Before you go away, do me a favor. If he were to compromise, say three feet,
okay, where would that bring him? How much compliance? He said it was possible, if he had
to do it.
MR. HAYES-If he moved it three feet, then he’d need three feet less.
MR. STONE-He’d need five feet of relief.
MR. HAYES-Five feet of relief.
MR. ABBATE-Five feet of relief?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Bruce.
MR. BRYANT-What is the, he’s only requesting a side and water, right? This side here.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. So he doesn’t need the relief there.
MR. ABBATE-You haven’t taken down the building yet? You’re residing in it.
MR. HOGAN-No, we live in it, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-So some of the design is actually trying to save those pine trees on the, that are,
that’s.
MR. HOGAN-The pine trees, and there’s a, if you look where the original frame garage is, that’s
attached there, there’s a very large oak tree that we’re trying to preserve as well, and there’s a
couple of pine trees on either side.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-That’s where it says the 120?
MR. HOGAN-Yes, that’s a large oak tree, and then on the southern side there’s an 80 foot pine
tree there, that we moved it three feet, it would get kind of close to that, and then there’s that,
the other one that’s right to the rear of where you see the entry porch and that little sidewalk
that goes around.
MR. ABBATE-This is a year round residence?
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-It is? Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Is there any question of permeability here? The house looks awfully big for the
lot.
MR. FRANK-It’s proposed to be a 70%, 5% more than the minimum.
MR. STONE-So it’s gone from 19, and it’ll be 30.
MR. FRANK-That’s impermeable.
MR. STONE-Yes, well, that’s.
MR. FRANK-It’s going from 80.6 to 70, but, 65 is the minimum requirement.
MR. BRYANT-One more question. The question was asked, you’d still need relief, even if you
moved the three feet to the south, and you’ve said that you could probably do that, but you also
have three feet in the, on the street side. So, my question is, would you move the house towards
the street another three feet?
MR. HOGAN-Well, there’s two trees that I’m going to deal with there, the two large pine trees,
and if I move it back towards the street more, I’m going to get fairly close to that pine tree, and
if I move it more towards the southern neighbor, then I’ll also get into that tree as well.
MR. BRYANT-So what is your answer?
MR. HOGAN-I’d prefer not to.
MR. BRYANT-I know you’d prefer not to, but if given, if push came to shove, would you give a
little to get a little?
MR. ABBATE-Would the pine tree have to come down, because of the roof structure and
everything else?
MR. HOGAN-I think it might.
MR. ABBATE-It might?
MR. HOGAN-The roots in a lot of those trees are fairly shallow. I mean, I wouldn’t know until
they started to dig the foundation.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, you know, you could, instead of, I think the only thing that’s going to
really encroach on the pine tree are the walkways. You could always go around the pine tree.
That would make for a more pleasant walkway.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. HOGAN-I didn’t assume that the walkway was going to impinge on the root structure. I
was real careful in the process of making sure that I dealt with all the neighbors and everything
like that, and, you know, Mr. Polk, I think, is the one to be most affected by that, and he said as
long as we stayed within the existing building line.
MR. ABBATE-And that raises, I have to ask another question. Obviously you have touched
base with some of your neighbors, and they gave you a positive response.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Are they here tonight?
MR. STONE-We have correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-We do? Okay. Good.
MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions? The quickest way to get to the letters is to open the
public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STONE-All right. Read what we’ve got.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. First off, we have a letter from Susan B. Bardin, Land Use Coordinator
for the Lake George Association, and regarding this particular application, she says, “The
applicant proposes to raise and rebuild a single family dwelling on a shoreline line lot. The
Board should require the applicant to conform with the shoreline setback of a minimum of 50
feet, if at all possible. What is the hardship for the 15.9 feet of relief? Finally, the applicant
should be asked to supply specifics with regard to their on-site wastewater treatment system.
The proposed structure appears to have four bedrooms. Can the existing septic system
accommodate?” And we have a note from John Polk, and he says, “I’m writing in reference to
the Area Variance request to be submitted by Brian Hogan for his property at 34 Holly Lane. I
am the northern neighbor to the property under review, and have been neighbors with Mr.
Hogan for approximately three years. I have reviewed the preliminary plot and elevation plans
for the project and find them to be acceptable, in terms of the requested setback variances. I
wish to go on record as stating I have objection to the construction of his new home. Further I
feel the new home would be an improvement in the character of the neighborhood, and we
have a letter from William Crowell, III. He says, “Please be advised I reside and own the
property at 20 Holly Lane. This submission is to inform the Zoning Board of Appeals of my
support for the referenced application. Very truly yours, William Y. Crowell, III” And that’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments you want to make about that?
MR. HOGAN-I won’t make any comments about the LGA, since we’re members. I believe there
was one other piece of correspondence I think that you were, that was sent by the southern
neighbor as well, at least he gave me a copy of it.
MR. STONE-We don’t have it, but you certainly can read it in as part of your opening
statement, as long as it’s signed, yes, and you’re willing to give it to us, or get us a copy.
MR. HOGAN-He gave me a copy of it, but the copy that he gave me is unsigned.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. HAYES-He could probably still enter that, under risk of.
MR. MC NULTY-I am finding something else here.
MR. HOGAN-From Don Blais?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. They had it buried behind several other things. Sorry about that. Yes.
This is from Don Blais and Pat Blais, and they say, “Brian Hogan has approached us with the
plans he has for replacing his home at 34 Holly Lane. We have been next door neighbors for
about three years. We have reviewed his most recent floor plans, elevations and plot plan for
the project. Brian indicated to us on the various documents where the need for zoning
variances is required. I would like to say that based on a review of the plans, we feel that the
proposed changes would be a significant improvement to his property and enhance the overall
appearance of the neighborhood. We would approve of any determination by the town to
allow this construction. Sincerely, Don Blais Pat Blais”
MR. STONE-Okay. Tell me. I asked earlier about the septic system. How new is it? Since
you’ve lived there?
MR. HOGAN-It’s very new. I mean, if you’ve been in the property, you kind of understand
why it looks a little bit the way it does. It was completed in about November or December of
last year, right before, actually pretty close to when the snow came.
MR. STONE-I have to admit, I didn’t notice. I was there, but I didn’t notice. I saw way in the
back by Mr. Baertschi’s house where obviously you had put the fields.
MR. HOGAN-That’s where the two fields are. Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-I don’t know. What else can I tell you about the septic system?
MR. STONE-Well, it’s new. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. HOGAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-It’s up to Code. It’s a new system, up to Code.
MR. MC NULTY-And obviously they’re going to have to prove that it is up to Code for what
they’re building.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. MC NULTY-Because it it’s approved, now, for a three bedroom home, and they’re building
a four, it’s going to have to be resized for the four, if it doesn’t meet that already.
MR. HOGAN-And actually what we did, we sized, we built two new septic systems at the same
time we built it for that property and the property at 33 Holly Lane, which is across the way,
and in both instances we sized, actually I oversized those two systems. I think we’re only, we’re
only building a three bedroom house, Number One. I sized both the systems for four
bedrooms, and during part of the construction process of the septic systems, I actually had them
use additional fill. So the actual systems and the separation between the back of the property
that has an additional six feet of fill in it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, let’s talk about it, but listen to what people are saying, because I hear
some concerns, at least some of the questions, and let’s see where we go. Let’s start with Chuck.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to support my reputation, I guess, for being negative. I’ll
probably be the most negative of the crew here, but I keep coming back to, this is a reasonably
sized lot. This is basically new construction, and I haven’t heard enough compelling reasons to
grant variances. My inclination is to say that it ought to be possible to build a reasonable sized
house on this lot and have it compliant, and that’s where I’m going to come down. So I’m going
to be opposed to this proposal.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to essentially agree with Chuck. I think that we should echo
the sentiments of the LGA that, you know, these new houses ought to be built, if it’s going to be
complete new construction and a teardown, they ought to be built in a compliant location, set
back from the lake properly. I think that the septic is not probably going to be an issue, but it
probably should be built in a compliant location.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I’m not so sure that the request is that unreasonable. I would be more
comfortable if Mr. Hogan would agree, probably to move three feet to the south with the
construction. If he were to compromise to that position, I would support the application, but
overall, people have to live, you know, life is short. How destructive could this possibly be? I
don’t have a problem with it, and I would support it.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I think that the house that you’ve designed would be a definite
improvement over existing conditions, but I’ve got to agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr.
McNulty. You have the opportunity to build something that won’t necessarily be totally
complaint. I’m really not concerned about the north setback, because your neighbor to the
north has said he has no problem with it, and I really don’t have a problem with it, but I think
that a little redesign, maybe change the way the garage is going to sit or push the house back,
whatever, I’m not an architect, to bring us back a little bit more from the lake. I know you’re
not going to get the full 50 feet, but, you know, another 10 feet might be helpful, and it would
be more palatable at that point, but as it stands right now, I’m going to fall down on the
negative side.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m going to side with Mr. Abbate on this. I really don’t see this as being that
unreasonable. I would like to see it maybe slide a little bit toward the, to sort of mitigate that
side setback relief somewhat, but I understand what you’re trying to do with the trees, and I
think if it’s worth saving the trees to keep it in the current location, I would keep it there as well.
I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think I’m going to agree with Chuck on this matter.
MR. STONE-Which Chuck?
MR. HAYES-Chuck with the Sienna shirt on.
MR. ABBATE-To show that there’s no collusion, both he and I are graduates. Okay.
MR. HAYES-But in this particular case, I think moving the proposed construction three feet
down to the south, you know, in the overall sense, I think that it really is going to be an
improvement in the neighborhood. Your neighbor said that. I think it’s true. That’s no insult
to the camp that’s there now, but the plans are nice. The change that’s proposed, if I lived next
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
door, I’d be in favor, in this particular case. We are increasing the setback from the lake, and
that’s always part of the analysis, where do we start. Where are we going. If you had come
before this Board in my, or come before me and asked to put this camp where the old one was, I
would not have been in favor of that, but you have moved it back. I think there’s been an
attempt to add compliance. I mean, I think, from a practical standpoint, there is a limitation of
how much further back the camp can be pushed, based on Holly Lane and parking your cars,
and that type of thing. The attempt to preserve the trees, in this particular case, I’m certainly
not, call myself a tree hugger, but there’s certainly, those are nice trees. They’re listed on the
map as 80 foot trees. I think that’s got some value, in trying to save those. Whether that tree
would be cut down or not, I agree with Allan, that’s not definitive, but it certainly is, I certainly
think it’s a worthy goal to maintain the mature vegetation in any project that you can, in this
particular case. So I really wanted to hear what the neighbor to the south had to say, because I
think that they’re the most impacted, in this particular case, and they’re in favor, and we’re
gaining them another three feet on top of that, to the point where the relief, in that particular
case, is less than five feet. I find that inconsequential, for a lot this size, in this particular case.
So, you know, historically, I think we push applicants to, when they’re going to do a tear down
and a rebuild, to improve the conditions on the site, to the extent, you know, practical, and I
think, in the broadest sense, I think that this plan represents that. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. STONE-I’m going to agree with the people who say more work is necessary. I have no
problem with the setback, side setback. That’s negligible. It would be nice if you could balance
it off, but I am concerned about the lake. You have an opportunity. You’re tearing this house
down. You’re going to build it. I certainly have been known as a defender of the lake. I live on
the lake. I care a great deal. I’ve given a lot of my time, and I think that you have an
opportunity, even though you’ve made some improvement in the setback, I think there’s an
opportunity to do more. I haven’t heard anybody who, even those people who said they could
vote for, in favor of most of the project, who’ve said, yes, let’s just do it the way you have it. I
mean, maybe a little bit, but there’s question on everybody’s part. I would like to give you the
opportunity, myself, to do some modifications on the location of the house. You’ve got, I think
as somebody said, you’ve got a reasonable sized lot. You can put a reasonable sized house on
it, considering the fact that everything you put on is nonconforming. You don’t have an acre
lot. I mean, none of us do, but the point is, I think you can find a way to bring this back from
the lake a little bit, and I think that is what I heard, the general theme, even though people said
they could vote for it, I just think that, as I look at the votes, there are four of us who say we
can’t approve it in its present form. It doesn’t say we can’t approve it with some slight
modification. I would like to see a modification. Now, that gives you two choices. The way I
count.
MR. HOGAN-Could I make a suggestion?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. HOGAN-Is that a possibility at this point?
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. HOGAN-If we were willing to move the house back, I guess from the perspective of the
garage, without me having to ask for any relief on the road frontage, we could go from 35 feet
to 30 feet, which would move the house back an additional five feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. I can tell you that this Board has been more willing to give road relief for
lake front properties than they have for lake front relief.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, if you wanted to go back, if you could go back a little bit, and you needed
relief, I’m sure the Board would give it to you where you are, particularly at the end of the road,
and the road is never going, it’s not going to go any further, that I know of.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. HOGAN-Yes. Well, can I ask a question? I mean, if you look at the building itself, the
building itself is, at least according to our calculations, is going to be, the closest point is going
to be 41 feet from the lake, which is, you know, by my calculations, asking for nine feet of relief,
which I don’t think is very significant.
MR. STONE-Well, we’ve been asked to consider 15.9.
MR. HOGAN-Well, 15.9, that’s where the front of the patio would be, okay.
MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s construction.
MR. HOGAN-Is that construction? Does that count?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HOGAN-In terms of how that. I assumed it did. That’s why we asked.
MR. STONE-That’s why it’s 15.9, yes.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-Right, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I mean, technically what he said was correct also. The actual
dwelling is proposed to be 41 feet back, but the patio is to be, it’s a deck, correct?
MR. HOGAN-Actually, that’s going to be a patio.
MR. FRANK-But it is built up, though, it’s going to be on a foundation?
MR. HOGAN-No.
MR. FRANK-It’s going to be a wood structure, though, correct?
MR. HOGAN-That was not the intent of it, no.
MR. STONE-Well, what is it going to be?
MR. HOGAN-It’s going to be like paver stones type of.
MR. STONE-That doesn’t count.
MR. BRYANT-Well, if it’s a patio without rails and without deck, that doesn’t count.
MR. ABBATE-That doesn’t count.
MR. FRANK-If it doesn’t need a building permit, then that would not have to.
MR. STONE-If you’re going to put down flat stones, whether they be slate or paving.
MR. HOGAN-The intent with the front part of that building there is flat stones.
MR. URRICO-So we’re looking at nine feet of relief now, Bruce?
MR. ABBATE-So then we’re only looking at nine feet of relief total.
MR. FRANK-That would be correct.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. ABBATE-So that 15 feet is out the window.
MR. FRANK-However, then you would require site plan review for hard surfacing within 50
feet of shoreline. Right now, as is, you don’t need any review by the Planning Board.
MR. STONE-You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
MR. HOGAN-My neighbor said this wasn’t going to be easy. So, I was prepared.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hogan, if that patio is going to be material, stone, etc., okay, what about if
you just don’t use that patio? That would resolve a lot of problems. You don’t have to worry
about permeability. You don’t have to worry, we ignore the 15 feet and we go back to the nine
feet. That would solve it to me.
MR. BRYANT-It’s a patio. It’s not included.
MR. ABBATE-It’s not included. Yes, but except it has to go for plan review because of the
permeability, see. In other words, I guess what I’m saying, because we always look for a
reasonable, feasible alternative, and I’m just trying to throw out some things. You have, right
now, a lot of options, if you were to follow those options, to have this thing approved.
MR. HOGAN-Well, we’d like that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then do something about it. Make some decisions.
MR. STONE-We can do a couple of things. We can adjourn while you go out and talk about
what you might want to offer to us.
MR. HOGAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-And come back after we do a couple of more applications.
MR. BRYANT-I think, Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe he should talk to Staff to determine,
you know, the construction now that we understand that it’s a patio not a deck, you know,
what the impact exactly is, what the relief required at this point is, and this way we can, you
know.
MR. FRANK-Well, they very clearly show what the proposed setback is to the dwelling. I
mean, they also show the 34.1 feet to the, what’s now being described as a patio, but again I’m
only looking at the elevation drawings that were submitted. The elevation Number Eight to the
north, it looks like it’s raised up a little bit. That’s why I’m asking you, but even if it is proposed
to be raised up, you could very well say, now, I would go without that and I would not
construct that, and if you wanted, in the future, to make a patio of pavers.
MR. HAYES-They could apply to the Planning Board then.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. HOGAN-At that point.
MR. HAYES-Yes, it would not prevent you from going forward.
MR. STONE-So, I would suggest that you.
MR. URRICO-I would suggest that they table it, just so that he gets a chance.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-Well, we could even table it, is the better thing to do, and come back next month, if
we can get you on. I’m sure we can. Next month is light. Right, Bruce, they tell me?
MR. HAYES-The whole thing, we’re still cluttering our own agenda. If there’s a possibility of
resolution, sometimes we should be resolving these things.
MR. STONE-I agree.
MR. HAYES-We’re just going to go through the whole application process again.
MR. ABBATE-Jaime’s right. If we can resolve it, you know, I have a question. You see these
two items here, it shows two patios. Correct?
MR. BRYANT-That’s the existing.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the existing. See it right there?
MR. HOGAN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now, if you were to eliminate one of these patios, which doesn’t count
right now, you don’t have to have to worry about a site plan review.
MR. HOGAN-Those are existing patios now. They’re going to be removed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you.
MR. BRYANT-What is the thing with the umbrella?
MR. HOGAN-That’s an umbrella.
MR. BRYANT-Is that a deck? That’s a patio.
MR. HOGAN-That’s a patio.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So we’re only going to the building, from what I understand. Right?
Because you show a 34.1 feet to the patio. What is the dimension from the building to the
shoreline?
MR. HOGAN-41.1.
MR. HAYES-So it’s 9.9 feet of relief.
MR. ABBATE-We go back to the 9.9, right. Okay.
MR. URRICO-You said you might be willing to move it closer to the road as well?
MR. HOGAN-We could look at doing that. One of the concerns I had about moving it closer to
the road is just, right now we have a hard time getting in and out of the driveway on Holly
Lane. The road itself is only probably about 15 feet wide.
MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re not going to have your old building.
MR. HOGAN-Right. We’re going to move that, so we’ll be able to do that better, but any time I
move it closer, then it’s going to become a little bit more difficult to park our two cars there.
That’s why. We wanted to be able to have parking for a couple of cars, if people came to visit
and stuff. If I move it back even five feet, it starts to encroach between the road and the.
MR. HAYES-So you don’t think you can do five feet, then?
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion?
MR. STONE-You may.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. There’s two separate issues here. There’s the side setback on the north,
and now a reduced setback of 9.9. Could you at least poll the Board and see where they are on
those two setbacks? And then that’ll make the determination how we proceed.
MR. FRANK-Actually, the relief would be 8.9 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s 8.9.
MR. URRICO-Maybe find out if he’s willing to move the house three feet as well.
MR. STONE-Well, which way, you mean, from the side lines?
MR. URRICO-Well, we already have the setback to the shoreline resolved.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s not resolved.
MR. URRICO-It’s what we just talked about.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be 8.9, compared to 15.9.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but now we also have the side setback issue, which.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Al just asked me to do.
MR. URRICO-But we haven’t asked Mr. Hogan if he’s willing to move it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, my question is this.
MR. HAYES-We can approve what we’re going to approve, and that’s up to him to, I mean.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but as I made a statement relative to the fact that the north
neighbor doesn’t care less, and he’s the one that’s going to be affected.
MR. STONE-And I said I didn’t care either, about that one.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, so the side setback is really not a concern of mine. I was more concerned
with the lake, and you almost got 10 feet off, and that makes me happy. So, I mean.
MR. HAYES-Roy’s right. We might as well just get the two parameters down and see where
that’s at, you said that, too, just so we know where we’re at.
MR. BRYANT-I’m happy with both of them.
MR. STONE-All right. If you are willing, minimum for you, if you are willing to say that this
house, this constructed property, is going to be no closer than 41.1. Is that what you, that’s
what you’ve heard. That’s what you’re willing to say?
MR. HOGAN-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me re-poll the Board, very quickly, on a variance which calls for three
feet, or whatever it is.
MR. HAYES-It would be five feet, now.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-No, no. I’m on the other side. The 7.9 feet of relief on the north side, and 8.9 feet
of relief from the lake, and let’s just start again quickly. Chuck, are you still unhappy?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think I’m going to stand on my ground and say that you could build a
compliant place here, and that’s what I would like to see.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d like to see you at least split the difference on the lake, you know,
so you could go back another four and a half feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you like what he’s done, but you’d like to go a little further. Okay.
Chuck Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-7.9 and 8.9 feet from the lake, and if he.
MR. STONE-No, it’s 8.9.
MR. ABBATE-Well, 8.9, that’s what I had. I read it wrong. If he’s going to indicate that he will
be no closer than 41.1 feet from the lake, that would make me happy. I don’t have a problem
with that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim, you’d like to be 45, give or take, as approximate. Okay. Al?
MR. BRYANT-I can live with the current thing. I’d like to see it more, but I could live with the
current.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m okay with it as it is.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think it’s minimal when it’s under 10 feet. I’m okay with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I would like to agree with Jim, but looking at what we’ve got, you can get
approval for the 41.1, based upon what I counted here. So, having said that, I would like a
motion to approve Area Variance 50-2004, with 7.9 feet of relief from the north side setback, and
8.9 feet of relief to any construction requiring a building permit. Bruce, does that cover it?
MR. FRANK-I believe so.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s why I need a motion for that way.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2004 BRIAN HOGAN, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
34 Holly Lane. The applicant proposes demolition of a 1,246 square foot camp, and 600 square
foot garage/bunkroom, and the construction of a 3,187 square foot single-family dwelling,
which includes a one-car garage. In doing so, the applicant requests 8.9 feet of relief from the 50
foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 7.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirement of the WR-1A zone, per 179-4-070, and 179-4-030. In testing the criteria, the
applicant would benefit from the granting of this Area Variance by basically tearing down an
older structure and replacing it with a newer, better structure. The effect to the character of the
neighborhood would be to actually improve it by putting up something that’s more conducive
to the character of the neighborhood. There are some feasible alternatives, but in discussing
them, we found that the benefit, in terms of the environment and the surrounding trees, that
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
this is probably the best location for it, so that we’re okay with that, and the amount of relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance, well, we’re talking about 8.9 feet of relief out of 50 feet,
which is less than 10%, and the side setback is only 7.9 out of 20 feet, which would seem
modest, at best, but the neighbor to the north that would be most affected has come out in favor
of the project and doesn’t seem to be bothered by that dimensional relief as well, and as far as
the adverse effect on the neighborhood, in terms of physical or environmental conditions, we
don’t see that that would be the case here. So I move to approve this Area Variance. That we
are granting this variance in anticipation of maximum protection of trees that are currently on
the property, and that this 8.9 feet is based upon no construction requiring a building permit
closer to the lake.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood
MR. STONE-There you go. Thank you for your help.
MR. HOGAN-Thank you all very much.
MR. STONE-And they’ll be watching, and you do know, this is a given, this is new
construction, but that you do need an as built survey when you’re done.
MR. HOGAN-Right.
MR. STONE-And if it’s not right, we’ll make you tear it down.
MR. HOGAN-Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE 51-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II JONATHAN MONROE OWNER:
JONATHAN MONROE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 22 RED HOUSE LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (629 SQ. FT. NET INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA).
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK, AND CONTINUATION
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2001-208 RAISE ROOF AND ADDITION BP
2003-770 SEPTIC ALTERATION LOT SIZE: 1.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.13-1-10
SECTION: 179-4-070, 179-4-030, 179-13-010 A1, B & E
JONATHAN MONROE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2004, Jonathan Monroe, Meeting Date: June 23, 2004
“Project Location: 22 Red House Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes renovation and construction of an addition to the single-family dwelling. The
proposed net increase in building floor area is 860 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
1) 5 feet of relief from the 60-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement (average setback of the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels), per §179-4-
030 and §179-4-070 for the WR-1A Zone.
2) Relief from the Continuation requirements, per §179-13-010(A1, B and E)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-770: 09/17/03, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
The applicant proposes to renovate the existing dwelling, which includes a second-story
addition. The proposed net increase in building floor area is 860 sq. ft. The applicant depicts a
75-foot average shoreline setback for the two adjoining properties. Scaled measurements of the
two adjoining dwellings results in 16.5 feet and 103.5 feet, which averages to 60 feet. The
setback to the proposed new construction is 55 feet. Being the average setback of the dwellings
on the two adjoining parcels is 60 feet, 5 feet of shoreline setback relief is required.”
MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County on this.
MR. STONE-Bruce, we have a question. The agenda says 629. The Staff notes say 860, increase
in area.
MR. FRANK-You’re going to have to give me a moment to look at it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Monroe.
MR. MONROE-I’m Jonathan Monroe, 22 Red House Lane. I’m looking for setback, shoreline
setback. I don’t know if you’ve got it, by the prints, but the house already stands there.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’ve got it.
MR. MONROE-I’m going to tear it out. The foundation’s in no shape to be building a second
story on. So I wanted to rip the house down completely, new foundation, and then continue up
with a second story.
MR. STONE-You want a complete tear down?
MR. MONROE-Complete tear down on the back section of the house.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MONROE-Just the area that’s within the 60 feet. I’m only missing it by five feet because of
the average of the two properties.
MR. STONE-Okay. You say sanitary sewer. You mean a septic system.
MR. MONROE-Septic system.
MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t think they were bringing the sewers that far.
MR. MONROE-No.
MR. STONE-Not with the puddle I had to go through yesterday.
MR. MONROE-For what it’s worth, the mobile home that’s on the property, I own that, and I
own the little lot next to the mobile home, and that will shortly be gone, I say shortly after I get
done with my renovation. I’m getting rid of that. There’ll be nothing built on that piece of
property.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question. I thought the gravel pit was to the left, and yet I saw a truck
going up by your road. Is that?
MR. MONROE-Yes, right up past me and up to the top of the hill is the gravel pit.
MR. STONE-It’s on the right side, as you come off of Dream Lake Road.
MR. MONROE-Yes. So go to the right.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-It’s going to the right?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. STONE-I haven’t been up there lately.
MR. MONROE-Just go right past, if you miss my driveway, you drive right up to it.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay. I’d forgotten it was on that road. Did you figure it out, sir?
MR. MONROE-I may have had an error.
MR. FRANK-I’m not 100% sure. I believe 860 is accurate. Did you ask the applicant what he
thought the net increase was?
MR. MONROE-I didn’t. There may be a discrepancy. We added it up quick, the architect and I.
It may be off by, the square footage may be off by that much.
MR. STONE-I worry about architects who add up what they’re doing quickly. Do we have an
advertising problem? That’s the only question that Chuck raised.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. That would be my question.
MR. HAYES-It’s still advertised for dimensional relief.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. FRANK-We put that on there when we do our agenda description so the public has a
general idea of what’s going on. I mean, the technical part of it is not really reviewed until I go
over this application more thoroughly. We review the applications quickly for descriptions.
We’re under the gun all the time. We have numerous applications. I can’t spend a great deal of
time, initially. So a lot of times this stuff comes out after I’m doing a thorough review of the
application.
MR. MC NULTY-Right, but I think the key thing here is he’s not asking for square footage
relief.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-I just want you to, you owe me for letting you say that.
MR. FRANK-I don’t know what I owe you. I can make another comment, too.
MR. STONE-No, I meant the pitch for being overworked.
MR. FRANK-Well, thank you. I’m just saying it’s commonsense. I know I’m going to spend a
lot of time on this application down the road for the description, and we just can’t afford that
much time.
MR. STONE-Just a question. As I say, Chuck raised it.
MR. FRANK-And by the way, the applicant has offered some information, which he didn’t have
to, but he did. He owns two or three of the neighboring parcels.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. MONROE-Yes. Originally the house was on one lot, and I own three other lots, but I’ve
merged all those into one now.
MR. FRANK-And he plans on tearing down that mobile home, that trailer. If he was to do that
today, I don’t think he’d need any relief here, because then he would only have to meet a 50 foot
shoreline setback. He is the neighboring parcel, and the parcel next to that is also his.
MR. STONE-You haven’t heard whether we have a problem yet, either.
MR. FRANK-Don’t forget, we had discussed that, and he offered that up to you, why, that was
his decision. He didn’t have to offer that up to you, but that’s why he’s forcing himself to get
this relief, because he has people living in there. I guess he’s being nice and he’s not kicking
them out and tearing it down.
MR. HAYES-Or asking them, I’ve got to move this today.
MR. ABBATE-He speaks rather fast for me, and there are times, you know, based on the aging
process, I lose a lot. So I’m going to ask you a very simple question. Once, if you receive
approval to construct this new, this project, you’re going to remove the trailer. Is that correct?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And by removing the trailer, that brings everything down to zero. Is that
basically correct?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Why all this confusion, then? It seems a very simple matter to me.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s technical relief.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, enough editorializing.
MR. FRANK-The relief is technical, because the two adjoining parcels have dwellings on that he
needs the average setback.
MR. ABBATE-I see.
MR. FRANK-He is the owner of one of them, which he’s in control of. He could very well tear it
down today and then there wouldn’t be an average setback greater than 50 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, we broke a record today. We have at least two applicants with a
high degree of integrity. That’s fantastic.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question. You said you inspected the foundation, and
it was whatever, and you’re going to tear it down and rebuild. Approximately how much of
the foundation are we talking about?
MR. MONROE-Just the back section of the house that I’m looking for, just a single story.
MR. BRYANT-So basically what we’re looking, when you say the back section of the house,
that’s where your new addition is going to attach to. So you’re not only going to build a new
foundation for your new addition.
MR. MONROE-No. The new addition is that. I’m not really building the house much bigger
than that is right there. That is just being gone and then rebuilding the way it is now up.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. The floor plans, maybe I’m looking at the wrong drawing or
something, but the floor, you’re Monroe, right?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-The floor plans in the existing shows a little bedroom and the office on the first
floor, and then when you look at the proposed first floor, it’s now a foyer with a walkway and a
stairway and a toilet and some other thing there.
MR. MONROE-A kitchen.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, whatever, and upstairs it appears that you’ve got a roof on the second floor,
and here, now you’ve got a bedroom and a bedroom office and all that other stuff. So, it looks
like you’re adding that whole front piece there.
MR. HAYES-He’s just going up.
MR. BRYANT-In other words, are you squaring that building off in the front?
MR. MONROE-This front, or the lake side?
MR. BRYANT-No, no.
MR. STONE-The other side, the back part.
MR. BRYANT-The back part.
MR. STONE-Is that going to be wider?
MR. BRYANT-In other words, you see how that projects forward, that pointed thing projects
forward, and the rest of it is back. Right? Are you going to square that off?
MR. MONROE-No. Where that little shed is over the top of the bilco, you mean?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. MONROE-No, the only thing that’s getting squared off is the opposite side. There’s a five
foot by ten foot section on the opposite side. So it squares the kitchen off a little bit. It’s only
five by ten, I think. Because I have no stairway down in the inside of the house right now.
MR. BRYANT-Well, then, you know, I must be approaching Mr. Abbate’s age and condition,
because I don’t understand these drawings at all.
MR. MONROE-There’s a walkway and like a porch roof around that outside of that house.
MR. BRYANT-So this is like a roof porch, is that what it is?
MR. MONROE-Yes. That’s probably what you’re looking at. Right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. It doesn’t say what it is.
MR. MONROE-Right.
MR. BRYANT-It just shows a couple of stairways. I assume that these things, it’s an enclosure.
So that’s not enclosed.
MR. MONROE-Correct.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. BRYANT-So this roof goes over the porch?
MR. MONROE-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re just replacing the existing foundation, putting up new walls, new
foundation, and that sort of thing.
MR. MONROE-And then going up another story.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and where are you going to square it off?
MR. MONROE-Right, it shows it where the kitchen juts out there. Do you want me to show
you on there?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, show me. I want to understand.
MR. MONROE-Right here.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s a porch, you said.
MR. MONROE-No. See, what it is, here’s the porch. This is the porch around here. This is just
a concrete porch. This is the only thing that should be squared off. Then you’re seeing this
right here?
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Is that where the stairway is?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-No, no, the stairway’s there. So this area right here, on the first floor, is this a
walkway, covered porch?
MR. MONROE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So it’s not really, okay. I see what you’re saying now.
MR. MONROE-Yes, that’s just a porch.
MR. BRYANT-That’s just a porch, and this is the roof of the porch, and that’s it. That’s all. I
understand. Thank you.
MR. MONROE-Right.
MR. STONE-Anybody else have any other questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s start with Jim. Let’s talk about it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is a reasonable request. Essentially, the new building is going
to be a slight gain for him in the amount of living space that’s back there, but as he’s explained,
it’s well past, it’s outlived it’s usefulness, as far as a building that you would actually want to
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
live in. So I think that the amount of relief that he’s requiring, the five feet of relief, is a
reflection of the two properties adjacent. I don’t think that’s going to have any impact on the
lake whatsoever, if we grant the five feet of relief, because he’s still going to be over 50 feet back,
where the new construction will take place, and the other relief that’s requested, the
Continuation requirements, I think we can be easy on that one also.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. In the interest of time, I would like to quote and agree with Jim, and
also I’d just like to add a little aside here that I think that the mathematics are quite simple.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I think it’s a no-brainer. You’re basically renovating what you’ve got there.
Your only real addition is half the back of the house is you’re adding a second floor, and that
funny porch that you’ve got around there, and other than that, I don’t see any change. It’s not
really changing your relationship to the lake. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-This is the easiest one we’ve had all night. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I concur with the rest of the Board members.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-At the risk of destroying my reputation, I’m going to agree. I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. Bryant said it very well. Took 15 minutes to say no-brainer, but that’s
very, this is a nice project. You are affecting absolutely nobody with your isolated location,
except maybe the birds or something, when you hammer a thing, but, having said that, I need a
motion to approve this variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2004 JONATHAN MONROE,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
22 Red House Lane. The applicant proposes renovation and construction of an addition to the
single-family dwelling. Proposed net increase in building floor area is 860 square feet. The
relief he’s requesting is five feet of relief from the 60 foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement, and again, that’s as a result of the average setback to the dwellings on the two
adjoining parcels which he appears to also own, that’s from Section 179-4-030, Section 179-4-070
for the WR-1A zone, and, two, relief from the Continuation requirements per Section 179-13-010
(A1, B & E). As we discussed, this will have a minimal, if any, impact on any of the adjoining
neighbors or the lake, due to the fact that the construction will be located so far from the
waterfront.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT A. PHILLIPS OWNER:
ROBERT A. PHILLIPS ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 147 PILOT KNOB ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 202.5 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY ADDITION
TO THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE
AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED
FROM THE HEIGHT AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE:
SPR 32-2004, BP 98-731 REPAIR BOATHOUSE AND BUILD NEW BOATHOUSE
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/2004 LOT SIZE:
0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-20 SECTION: 179-5-050(6), 179-13-010(B)
BOB PHILLIPS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2004, Robert A. Phillips, Meeting Date: June 23, 2004
“Project Location: 147 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes construction of a two-story addition to the existing 16.15+ feet high boathouse
(approximately 101.5 sq. ft. for each floor).
Relief Required:
1) 50 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, per §179-4-030
for the WR-1A zone.
2) 20 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per §179-4-030 for
the WR-1A zone.
3) 2.15+ feet of relief from the 14-foot maximum height requirement for boathouses, per
§179-5-050(A10).
4) Relief from the Continuation requirements, per §179-13-010(B and E).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2000-727: 09/28/00, 663 sq. ft. deck.
BP 2000-405: 06/14/00, septic alteration.
BP 98-731: 12/01/98, repair existing boathouse and 229 sq. ft. boat slip.
BP 97-513: 09/18/97, 2-car detached garage.
BP 96-644: 10/22/96, rebuild 462 sq. ft. storage building.
BP 96-523: 09/06/96, rebuild 1430 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
Being the applicant proposes to expand the two-story boathouse upland from the Mean High
Water (MHW) mark, that portion of the structure would require relief from the shoreline
setback requirement (the applicant has identified only 55 sq. ft. of floor area; however, the total
should be 110 sq. ft., which would include both floors). The amount of height relief required
cannot be accurately identified from the application. On 05/25/04, the height of the boathouse
from the top of the dock to the peak was measured at 16.15 feet. The amount of relief identified
by staff is only for the 2.15 feet above the 14-foot maximum requirement. The additional height
from the MHW mark to the top of the dock needs to be identified and added to the 2.15 feet.
Should this application be approved, Site Plan Review will be required for the enlargement of a
nonconforming structure existing within a CEA, per §179-13-010(F).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Phillips, Robert A. Owner: Robert A. Phillips ID Number: QBY-04-AV-52
County Project#: Jun04-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a 202.5 sq. ft. two-story addition to the existing boathouse.
Relief is requested from the shoreline & sideline setback requirements. Additionally, relief is
requested from the height and continuation requirements. Site Location: 147 Pilot Knob Road
Tax Map Number(s): 227.14-1-20 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to add a
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
202 +/- sq. ft. two-story addition to an existing boathouse. The addition is to be located is 3 +/-
ft. from the side property line, 16 ft. in height where 14 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The
information submitted shows a photo of the existing boathouse with the proposed addition,
and the plans show the location of the boathouse on the property. Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county
impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
MR. STONE-Sir.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Bob Phillips. I’ve owned this property for 50 years, and let me
give you a little history. Back in about 1956, I built a dock in this same location, and put a shed,
a lean-to on the back, for my kids to use. In 1967, I built a boathouse around a 1947 Criss Kraft
and took the lean-to and put it up on the second floor and built that little projection out of the
front of it, and that became a room. So, in the back of this, there is a deck that is seven foot deep
and 14 feet wide. This boathouse is 16 feet wide, but it tapers back, having to do with property
lines, and so the problem that I’m facing is that this boathouse, the original dock and the
boathouse is built on the property line, as is the seven by fourteen foot deck, and I’ve been using
this deck to store windsurfers outside during the summer, and the little building on top that
you have in your packet would be more useful to me if it were deeper, and what I’m asking for
is a modest increase in the area. So I’m asking for a footprint increase of 91 square feet, which I
think is a very modest request, and as I say, I’m here because this is a boathouse, and it’s built
on the property line. So I can’t move the boathouse, and I need your relief to build this back,
rebuild this back section to enclose the existing deck. Now, with that, I’ll turn it over to the
panel.
MR. STONE-Questions, gentlemen? Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-I want to make sure that I’m right. Am I correct if I were to make the following
statement. I just wrote a note, that a nonconforming lot may not be expanded with another
nonconforming use.
MR. FRANK-A nonconforming?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. A nonconforming structure may not be expanded with another
nonconforming use, structure for use?
MR. FRANK-Well, I think the use is staying the same. Is the expansion of the use changing? Is
that what you’re?
MR. HAYES-The use is conforming.
MR. STONE-The use is conforming.
MR. FRANK-The use is conforming. It’s not a nonconforming use.
MR. HAYES-It’s a nonconforming structure.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Can I say that a nonconforming structure may not be expanded with
another nonconforming structure?
MR. FRANK-Without relief from the Code.
MR. STONE-Without relief. That’s what we’re here for.
MR. ABBATE-I mean, I don’t know, I’m asking. Can we grant that relief?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. STONE-We can grant, yes, we can grant it, recognizing that to grant it, we have to grant at
least four different kinds of relief.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ve got it now.
MR. FRANK-There’s no use expansion. So I see where you’re coming from. There’s no use
expansion. Even though there may, if you’re meaning that there’s going to be a little bit more
use because the structure’s been expanded, that’s not what the Code is intending when it looks
at the expansion of a use.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-It looks for a different use.
MR. ABBATE-You’re right. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
MR. FRANK-So there’s not a concern there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question. Mr. Pritzker, you’re going to speak in public comment
period, right?
MR. PRITZKER
MR. PRITZKER-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, you can provide the information that’s current, that you gave
us in this letter?
MR. PRITZKER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, in other words, we will have.
MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. All right.
MR. STONE-I know there was some concern that this stuff just came in, but Mr. Pritzker will, in
fact, make a presentation based upon that note, within the five minutes we allow.
MR. PRITZKER-No problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions by the Board? Well, not hearing any at the moment, let me
open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STONE-I mean, we do have a letter that you presented to us. Because we have not had a
chance to see it, it’s in your best interest to summarize it well and quickly.
STAN PRITZKER
MR. PRITZKER-Okay. Well, thank you. I had it hand delivered yesterday. We received the
notice approximately a week ago. So it was the quickest I could get it to you. I apologize if it
was too late for you to review it. My name’s Stan Pritzker, and I represent William Walker, III.
Mr. Walker is the property owner to the north, and he adamantly opposes the requested relief
sought today. I will summarize from what I provided to you. I’ll try not to be redundant. First
off, I’d just like to address the test that’s applicable to Area Variances. We believe that the
requested variance will result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood. This is an
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
enlargement of a relatively large boathouse on a crowded portion of Lake George. I think that
it’s incumbent upon the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny this type of variance in general. I
think everybody knows that one of the biggest problems is crowding the lake. It’s criticism that
was raised against my clients’ variance application as well, by this gentleman, two years ago,
relative to an expansion of a second story. I’ve also provided that letter to you, which I would
like to make part of the record, if it’s not, April 20, 2000 from John Caffry, regarding Area
Variance 23-2000. The next part that I think is important is can the benefit sought by the
applicant be achieved by some other feasible method, other than the drastic relief of an Area
Variance. As stated in the Caffry letter, I would echo this. There’s no reason why the applicant
cannot limit his expansion to the amount of space the Zoning Code allows. If he wants to store
whatever he stores there, aquatic devices or whatever it is, he could store it somewhere else on
his property. He doesn’t need to add to the crowding of the lake to do that. I think that goes
without saying. So, therefore, I would say he can limit his use to the nonconforming boathouse,
to the amount of space that the Ordinance allows, and we’ve heard that tonight on a number of
applications. Finally, the request is clearly substantial. More to the point, you’re requesting
four types of variances here, two of which, the shoreline setback, a side setback of 100%. You
can’t really get more substantial than that. Added to the fact that, of course, we’re talking about
a crowded portion of Lake George. Another thing that I’d like to notice, the hardship here is
obviously entirely self-created. That’s the only way to look at it. The question I asked is why
does Mr. Phillips need a larger boathouse, and I’m not saying this facetiously, but the reason is
he wants a larger boathouse, and that’s why. It’s not a need, it’s a desire. It’s volitional. It’s a
want. I would also say, and I’m going to skip part of the legal analysis regarding whether we
can expand the use or not. It’s a little esoteric and I’ll leave it at what your Code Enforcement
Officer interpreted, but I will say this. There’s certainly a Continuation requirement that needs
to be varied here, which is why, of course, we’re sitting here, as you’ve said, and we’re talking
about increasing an expansion that violates the shoreline setbacks, and those are critical,
particularly in this part of the lake, again. What we’re going to do here, if this variance is
granted, is essentially grant an Area Variance for no particularly important reason, in an area of
the lake that should be most protected, and that’s really all I have to say here, with the
exception of it is obviously in a Critical Environmental Area. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. A letter from Susan B. Bardin, Land Use
Management Coordinator for the Lake George Association. Regarding this application, she
says, “Applicant proposes a two-story addition to their existing boathouse In 179-5-50,
“Boathouses shall be designed and constructed solely for the storage of boats and related
equipment”. The proposed structure would have a building footprint of 690 sq. ft. plus a
second-story. The boathouse seems oversized for the sole storage of boats and related
equipment. Furthermore, the 16’ high boathouse structure could emit negative visual impacts.
Finally, the four variances required results in a substantial request. Thank you for your
consideration of our comments for the protection of the water quality and aesthetic resources of
Lake George.”
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-No, that’s all.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Bruce, does this come under the Park Commission, Lake George Park
Commission, for a height variance?
MR. FRANK-Well, the Park Commission’s regulations say 16 feet, I believe.
MR. STONE-They say 16, yes. This is over 16.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. FRANK-Well, the way that it’s pitched, I don’t know, for a fact, if the Park Commission
would require, because only a portion of it is above the waters of Lake George, according to
what Mr. Phillips has provided.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So, it may well be, but is the portion that’s going to be above the waters of Lake
George greater than 16 feet? I don’t think that’s been accurately displayed.
MR. STONE-Okay. It was just a question. Any other questions of the applicant? Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I do, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Phillips. I’d like you to
answer a question for me, if you wish. In your opinion, do you believe that shoreline setbacks
are critical to the protection of the lake?
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, that talks about your dwelling. The boathouse is a riparian right. I mean,
it sticks out into the lake, and we’re talking about a modest increase at the back side of the
boathouse, the land side of the boathouse, which is nestled into a great big outcropping of
granite on the Walker side.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, but could you just answer my question. It’s very simple. Do you believe
that shoreline setbacks are critical to the protection of any lake?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, of course. I’m 130 feet back, on my dwelling.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. In this Pritzker letter, okay, he talks about the Section
179-13-030, about the enlarging of a nonconforming structure, where it says an existing
structure which violates only the area requirements, may be enlarged or extended, so long as
such an enlargement or extension does not violate the area requirements of the Chapter. I
mean, the addition is in the setback area.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-So, would that indicate, based on this, that enlargement is not an acceptable?
MR. STONE-No, that means you need a variance.
MR. FRANK-Well, that Section of the Code really pertains to a structure that’s not in violation
of any setback or area requirements. Say you wanted to add an addition on to something that
was in the compliant location, but the addition would encroach on the setback. That’s what that
Section of the Code is referring to.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So, again, as long as the existing dwelling meets the all the setback requirements.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, this building doesn’t.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-And then you’re building an addition into an area that still doesn’t meet the
setback requirements.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and plus the upland portion of that accessory structure which
happens to be a boathouse, boathouses do not need to meet the shoreline setback, but the
expansion of that boathouse is upland, which means it’s part of an accessory structure, but the
Zoning Administrator clearly said, but it’s still part of the boathouse. So that portion that’s
upland of the mean high water mark needs to meet the shoreline and sideline setback
requirements.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So, based upon that statement, then, does that refer to the 50 feet of
relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback?
MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s correct. I mean, Mr. Phillips shows a delineation of the shoreline
underneath the back portion of the deck that attaches to the boathouse, if you look at your plan.
MR. HAYES-You can see it in the pictures.
MR. FRANK-Yes. For that portion that is upland of the mean high water mark is in need of the
setback relief.
MR. ABBATE-So there are two critical areas here for setbacks. One is in fact the 50 feet of relief
from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement which is 100% relief, and the other is
20 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements, which is another 100%
relief. Is that correct?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and all portions of the boathouse have to meet the adjoining
property line setback.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. All right, in either case he’s requesting at
least one and two 100% relief of Subsection One and Subsection Two. Right?
MR. FRANK-Relief required, that’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck, are you ready to talk about it?
MR. ABBATE-Me? Sure. Okay. We’ll give it a go. Well, and if I’m incorrect in my perception,
Mr. Phillips, please stop and help me out here. I think earlier I asked you if you felt that
shorelines setbacks were critical to the protection of the lake, and you indicated absolutely they
are. Yet, in relief required, you are requesting 100% of relief from the minimum shoreline
setbacks in one section, and another 100% of relief, 20 feet of relief of the 20 foot minimum side
setback requirements per the Section of WR-1A. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, and fellow
Board members, that, well, let me be blunt. I find it offensive. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I take that as a no.
MR. ABBATE-It’s a no.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not going to be so blunt, but I agree somewhat with Mr. Abbate.
You’re asking for 100% relief on the shoreline setback. You’re expanding a nonconforming
building in an area that’s still nonconforming. You’ve got the side, 100% of the side relief, and
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
then on top of that we’ve got height relief requested. It’s just too much relief in an
environmentally sensitive area, and I would be opposed to it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with my two fellow Board members. I would be opposed
to it as well.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think Mr. Pritzker’s outline of the test, in this particular case, I
agree with it. We try to accommodate applicants when we can, but I don’t think this passes any
aspect of the test as prescribed. So, as far as the balancing of those two issues, there’s no
balance because I don’t think it really passes any part of the test and it certainly seems self-
created. So I would be opposed.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I think we’ve got a nonconforming structure here, and the
only reason I can see for allowing it is because the applicant wants to do it, and I don’t think
that’s sufficient justification. I think the balance falls the other way, detriment to the
neighborhood and so on. So I’m opposed.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to reflect upon how long the structure has been here.
It’s been there for decades. It’s been used with that lean-to structure on the upper story there,
so to speak, and I think that, you know, at this point in time, to suddenly decide that, well, we
need to add another five or six feet on the back of that to make it so it’s more usable, it seems a
little bit obtuse. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-This is clearly a case where the amount of relief is excessive, excessive, excessive. I
think Mr. Abbate, in his colorful style, said it as well as anybody. I believe that there is just no
justification. The benefit to the applicant, obvious. Everything else falls on the negative side.
As Mr. Hayes said, Mr. Pritzker made a very good analysis, even for a lawyer he made a good
analysis, very straightforward. I have no, I could find no justification for approving this
variance, and therefore I need a motion to deny. I’ll give you the opportunity to withdraw it,
but we can just deny it.
MR. PHILLIPS-I’d prefer to have you deny it.
MR. STONE-Absolutely. I need a motion to deny. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’ll move it.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2004 ROBERT A. PHILLIPS, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
147 Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Phillips proposes construction of a two-story addition to the existing
16.15 plus high boathouse, which is approximately 101.5 square foot per each floor. Mr. Phillips
is asking for four types of relief. The first type of relief he’s asking for is indeed 100% of relief
from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements and in my estimation, Mr. Chairman
and fellow Board members, this is not any type of considerate balance. I think it’s excess relief,
and I think it is a detriment to not only the lake, but the community as well. Part Two, again, is
100% of relief. Mr. Phillips, again, is requesting 20 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side
setback requirements per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Again, I reiterate the fact that
in my opinion this is not balanced. It’s excessive relief, and I think it would be a detriment to
the lake as well as the community. Part Three, Mr. Phillips is also requesting 2.15 plus feet of
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/23/04)
relief from the 14-foot maximum height requirement for both houses. As one of my other
fellow board members said, this boathouse has been there for years, and there is no real logical
explanation why it should change, particularly due to the fact it’s a nonconforming structure,
and, four, Mr. Phillips is also requesting relief from the Continuation requirements of Section
179-13-010(B & E). On balance, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, and that’s what we
do. We take everything on balance, I believe the request is excessive, and I think if we were to
approve this application, it would indeed, in my opinion, result in a detriment not only to the
lake, but a detriment to the community as well.
Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go. Anything else to come before the Board tonight, gentlemen? We
are adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
62