2004-05-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD
PAUL HAYES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M. TARRANT
AGENT: THE MC KERNON GROUP, INC. 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
DENNIS AUSTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2004, John W. & Kathleen M. Tarrant, Meeting Date:
May 19, 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).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 30-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as
current application.
BP 2000-828: 10/27/00, construction of a 630 sq. ft. boathouse.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
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. MC NULTY-And this was originally considered on April 21, and at that time there was a
st
motion to table. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 JOHN W. &
KATHLEEN M. TARRANT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Charles Abbate:
338 Cleverdale Road. Until one of the two meetings in the month of June because nobody
appeared on the night of April 21 to perfect this appeal, to represent the applicant.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE”
MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, introduce yourself and tell us what you want. Keep in mind that the
first thing you ought to explain is the basis for the tabling motion, and you will note it’s not
June, and that was an oversight, in terms of having it tonight, but we’re here.
MR. AUSTIN-Right. Just a simple misunderstanding on my part. I’m Dennis Austin. I’m with
the McKernon Group. We will be the contractor on the project.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. AUSTIN-Again, just a simple misunderstanding on my part. Not simple, but a
misunderstanding.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you want to tell us about the application?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. AUSTIN-Basically, you summed it up. We want to add a two car garage, with a family
room, and a connector between the two. There is basically a bonus room upstairs. It will be
considered the game room. If that was a storage area, we would be under the Floor Area
Variance. We would be under the requirements. The existing garage on the property at this
point is just simply too small, and you could maybe get a compact car in there, at best. Pretty
must it’s for a lawnmower. It’ll be converted into simple storage for the lawnmower and such,
by installing a six foot double door, a swinging door, so there will be no possibility of access by
vehicles. That pretty much sums it up.
MR. STONE-Okay. The first question I want to ask. You’re the agent, I understand.
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
MR. STONE-You are not the owner. Do you have any knowledge of when the fence was built?
MR. AUSTIN-I don’t. We’ve been associated with the Tarrants for about six months. So
anything prior to that, I have no knowledge.
MR. STONE-I mean, I am concerned, and I don’t know if my Board members are concerned.
It’s an illegal fence, in my judgment, unless it was built before a certain date. It’s six foot high.
It’s a stockade fence, and we don’t allow those in front yards. So they should be aware at some
point, however we come down tonight. Any other questions anybody has? Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. You’re the agent for the applicant?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Is this a year round home?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes, it is.
MR. ABBATE-Are either of the applicants here this evening?
MR. AUSTIN-They are not.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that kind of puts me at a disadvantage, because I really like to speak to the
folks who are requesting the variance, because I’d like them, basically, to justify why they want
this kind of thing, and it may be possible that that’s what they should have, but without Mr. or
Mrs. Tarrant here, I find it very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to really ask the kinds of questions
from the individuals who own the property. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question relative to the family room in the garage and the space above
the garage. They’ve got a seven foot seven ceiling height.
MR. AUSTIN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-That’s going to be a game room. Any thought about reducing the size of this to
come within the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. AUSTIN-To meet the Floor Area Ratio standards, we could consider that second floor area
could be considered storage. Basically we’re just trying to be above board, that they may very
well use this for the kids to go up and play games on. It’s, you said it, it’s like a seven foot
seven ceiling. To be a true living space, a living room, an office, whatever, that that wouldn’t be
possible. So it’s more or less a bonus room. I’m not sure if I answered that question or not.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-I understand that you want to be above board, but my question is, this would be
a very simple, well, that’s one of the issues. The other is relative to the size of the expansion,
but to come within the Floor Area Ratio requirements, couldn’t this be redesigned?
MR. AUSTIN-It would be a little bit tough to bring, you have a specific size you need your
garage, in order to get the width and the length for the vehicles.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you have enough width, obviously, to fit two vehicles in. The question is,
the length is relative to the family room and not the vehicle.
MR. AUSTIN-Exactly. By shrinking the family room, it would become, if it was to shrink any
considerable amount, it would become unusable.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it would be storage area.
MR. AUSTIN-Right, and they’re looking more for a family room. The spaces in the home are
relatively small. It’s an older home. It tends to be very cut up, relatively small, compact spaces
throughout the house. They needed one gathering point.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not that small of a house. It’s 3600 square feet.
MR. AUSTIN-No, it’s not a small house.
MR. BRYANT-3300 square feet is not that.
MR. AUSTIN-It’s not a small house. It has small spaces within the house. It’s very cut up.
Very small, small, simple rooms.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else?
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me go back to what I said. I go back to what I said earlier. The
applicants aren’t here, and you said they may very well want to use this as a bonus room. You
don’t know.
MR. AUSTIN-They’re going to use it as a game room.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but if they were here, I could ask the folks the questions, why do you want
this, and they may very well have a legitimate reason.
MR. AUSTIN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-But they’re not here to answer my questions.
MR. AUSTIN-Through our design process with them, we’ve discussed the use of that room.
The use of that room will be for, I probably shouldn’t have said may be used for. The use of
that room would be for, if they have a group of kids, you know, their children are home, they
have friends, whatever, they can go up and play a game, do whatever, so they can have a little
space.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, let me ask a question. Is there a reason why they’re not here?
MR. AUSTIN-Actually, they’re out of town, to the best of my knowledge.
MR. ABBATE-They were out of town last meeting, too, but we had to postpone.
MR. AUSTIN-No, that was me.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. ABBATE-That was you. Okay.
MR. STONE-Anybody else have anything?
MR. URRICO-I’d like to go back to Mr. Bryant’s question. Could this space be reduced to meet
the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. AUSTIN-We could move the game room upstairs. That would be just straight storage. It
would be an unfinished space, and that would bring it underneath the floor area. It wouldn’t
reduce the square footage surface area, but it would reduce the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the one thing that’s under our control, in this case, is the Floor Area
Ratio.
MR. AUSTIN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-And plus the oversized house, oversized in the sense that it requires a variance.
MR. AUSTIN-Right.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, I’m going to chime back in on the fence. You can’t tell me, we don’t
keep records of when fences are built. I, personally, have great concern about approving a
variance on a property which may be in violation of our Zoning Code at the moment, and
obviously you can’t answer the question, and I totally understand that, but I guess I would like
someone to be able to answer the question. Anybody else have anything?
MR. BRYANT-I just have another question. I’m trying to understand the game room concept,
okay, and since the blueprints really don’t show the house, they’re not really doing anything to
the house of consequence, there’s no indication of the layout of the house. There’s a basement.
Is the basement usable. Is it a finished basement?
MR. AUSTIN-It does have a section that is finished, yes, in the front side of it.
MR. BRYANT-It’s a finished area?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s used for?
MR. AUSTIN-I’m not sure, to be honest with you. I mean, as far as I know it’s a sitting room.
MR. BRYANT-And how many bedrooms?
MR. AUSTIN-The basement is accessed from the water. Bedrooms, I believe there’s three.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, and for the purpose of efficiency, let me open the public hearing.
There may be some people here who want to talk. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I’d like to thank
you for the opportunity. I had a couple of questions. I was not sure the use of that space, and I
know that there’s a concern about impacts on septic systems and building expansions. A lot of
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
times you consider closed spaces that could be sleeping areas possibly as bedrooms. So I was
just wondering if there could be an evaluation of an existing wastewater system as a condition
on a plan, if the variance was granted, and also, I don’t know if there’s any stormwater
management on the site as is, but that could be another possible consideration by the Board to
address the stormwater management from the proposed addition and the existing developed
site to bring that into compliance. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s a note from Elizabeth Ward, at Five
Winding Road, Delmar, NY. She says, “I’m a long time resident of Cleverdale and own
property by lots north of the Tarrants on the east side of the point. I have spoken with Mrs.
Tarrant about the pending request for a variance to build a two car garage at their property on
Cleverdale. The request indicates that the new structure would encompass in excess of 1700
square feet which seems extremely large for a family room and a two car garage. Mrs. Tarrant
has explained that this would be a three story structure, and the property is a double lot, 120
feet. While this may exceed the Floor Area Ratio minimally, it is still a considerably large
structure. My primary concern is that a structure of this size could easily be modified at a
future date to encompass a small apartment or even two, one on the upper level and one on the
basement level. To this, I would have to object. The existing garage, which I understand will
remain as a storage building, was never used as a dwelling space. So there’s no precedent for
multiple housing units on this property. I have no objection to this variance request if the
Tarrants will assure the Zoning Board that there’s no intent on their part to create additional
housing units on the property at some time in the future. With that assurance, any concerns I
have will have been addressed. I thank the Board and the Tarrants for consideration given to
my concern.”
MR. STONE-Thank you. That’s it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-You can come back up. Mr. Austin, do you have any comment to that letter that
you wish to make, either comment from the public?
MR. AUSTIN-As far as impact on the septic, we’re adding no bedrooms. So I don’t know what
the impact could possibly be without adding any bedrooms or any more bathrooms, kitchens,
whatever, and I also have a letter of intent from the Tarrants, stating that, in response to Mrs.
Ward’s letter, that they would not be, you know, changing this into an apartment in the future.
MR. STONE-Okay, and you can submit that?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes, and I would like to submit that.
MR. STONE-Okay. I do have a question. One of the Board members asked you about the
basement, and I’m looking at the worksheet that was submitted with the application, for the
Floor Area Ratio, and you have in front of you, you have a copy of it?
MR. AUSTIN-Actually, yes, I do. It says the existing area for the first floor is 1143. The second
floor is 630, the basement, 630, covered or enclosed porches, 685, and detached garage, all of
which apply to the Floor Area Ratio. On the proposed area, I got 1,013 first floor; second floor,
625, and the basement and covered porches seem to have gone away.
MR. AUSTIN-Where am I looking again?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-The Area Variance Floor Area Ratio worksheet. It just may be that it didn’t get
carried over when it was written, but I just want to be sure.
MR. AUSTIN-I do not have that. What I do have is an analysis that should be attached to your
package. The Floor Area Ratio analysis.
MR. STONE-Do I have that?
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if I can interject something here.
MR. STONE-Please do.
MR. FRANK-That’s the proposed area of construction, on the right hand side. It’s filled out
correctly.
MR. STONE-It’s filled out correctly?
MR. FRANK-Yes. That’s the proposed area of construction.
MR. STONE-Yes, but we’re talking the Floor Area Ratio for the whole structure, are we not?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Well, where did those two numbers go? The 630 and the 685?
MR. FRANK-They’re part of the existing. When you fill out that application, that one Section,
you’re looking at how much additional construction you’re proposing in Floor Area.
MR. AUSTIN-I do have a copy of that.
MR. FRANK-Does it exceed what the parameters for that 22% times that lot area, whatever that
comes out to, and it does. So that’s why they need the relief. It’s all been calculated.
MR. STONE-I’m sure it’s correct. It’s just that I don’t understand. If that’s how we fill it out, I
guess I don’t understand it, because the proposed area is everything in the house, but if you’re
saying that the Floor Area Ratio, as determined here, is fine, then I.
MR. FRANK-If you look at D and E, D is remaining area potentially developable, equals B
minus C. E is the proposed area of construction.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-If E is larger than D, a variance or revisions to your plan may be needed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. It’s just that it struck me strange.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to go back to that because the new detached garage is not on there.
This proposed area.
MR. FRANK-There’s not a new detached garage. The garage is attached, and he includes that
in the first floor of the primary house.
MR. BRYANT-In the first floor. Does he also include that room in the back, because according
to the notes, the garage is 616 square feet, when that whole section is really 1,000 square feet.
MR. FRANK-The space above the stalls that he’s proposing to be a rec room is 625 square feet.
The space behind it is proposed for storage only. It’s not to be included in the Floor Area Ratio.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-But the space behind it is not storage.
MR. FRANK-If you look at your floor plans, you’ll see what I’m saying. The space on the
second floor above the garage.
MR. BRYANT-What about the first floor.
MR. FRANK-That’s, I believe, the 1013, part of the connection to the existing house.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I see that. That’s the connection, okay.
MR. FRANK-Right, and the garage space itself is part of the 1013.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Any other comments? Gentlemen, lady? Okay. Let’s talk
about it, as it stands right now. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Looking at this, and the size of the lot, I don’t really have any problem with
the request. The increase in Floor Area Ratio strikes me as being minimal. We certainly don’t
want to allow much of an increase. That Floor Area Ratio rule is there for a reason, but in this
case, the additional area that triggers that strikes me as being kind of incidental to the idea of
putting a garage on this place. This is probably one of the few places on Cleverdale that it
would make sense for me to maybe try to put a garage on, because there’s enough lot there to
allow it without having the garage parked right on the road. I guess there’s no need to prolong
it. That’s where I come down, I think. It strikes me as being a reasonable request, in relation to
the particular lot that’s involved. So I’d be inclined to approve.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-All right. I do have a question first, though. In the plan, the area behind the cars,
on that same level, what will that be?
MR. AUSTIN-The area behind the cars, looking in this photo?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, the new garage, and then it looks like a room, and then there’s going to be
something upstairs, too?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I would have a little concern that that could easily be a rental, but otherwise,
I would go along with it.
MR. AUSTIN-May I speak?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. AUSTIN-In response to that, I do have the letter of intent that we discussed before, that it
would not become a rental.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The current project is on a 0.52 acre lot. The 5,000 square foot,
which includes, of course, the garage, is quite large. The relief from the Continuation Code
exceeds 50% of the original dwelling of the Gross Floor Area Ratio, and again, without the
applicant here to perfect their request, I have to fall on the side of saying no.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Al?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-I have to agree that the one percent on the Floor Area Ratio is not a huge request.
However, I think the additional 300 plus square feet exceeding the 50% of the original dwelling
is a little larger than we’d like to see, and I’m just wondering if there’s a possibility of possibly
dropping part of that room behind the garage, and then putting a family room upstairs, to
reduce the expansion.
MR. AUSTIN-With the height limitations, the 28 feet height limitations, the ceilings on the
second floor, in order to keep in keeping with the design of the home that is existing, it would.
MR. BRYANT-Is seven foot seven.
MR. AUSTIN-Right. It’s also a sloped ceiling.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay.
MR. AUSTIN-So it would dramatically limit what that room could ever be used for.
MR. BRYANT-I understand, but the ultimate, the end result would be that you’d get your
garage and still have a little bit of space, additional space, and as the application stands now, I
would not be in favor of it. I’d like to see a little bit of adjustment, the size of the building to
come closer to the requirements.
MR. STONE-And before we go further, how much, do you have any authority to grant us any
of our requests?
MR. AUSTIN-Any of the changes would have to be gone through the Tarrants.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Okay.
MR. AUSTIN-Would have to be approved by them.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in total agreement with Mr. Bryant on this one. I really feel that, in
order to, we’re charged with a balancing test, and that’s the benefit to the applicant versus the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and I really don’t see where
granting that extra 329 square feet of relief is going to be a good thing. I really think we need
some compromise, and the unwillingness or the inability to compromise bothers me a little bit,
and I would be against it at this point.
MR. AUSTIN-Just for my understanding, if we were to eliminate the game room on the second
floor, and if that entire second floor becomes just strictly storage, will that put us underneath
the 50%?
MR. STONE-Let me ask, are you looking for information, or are you conceding that?
MR. AUSTIN-I’m looking for information.
MR. STONE-So, you recognize that if I, well, that you’re probably not going to get approval
tonight.
MR. AUSTIN-I’m looking for information to discuss with the Tarrants.
MR. STONE-Fine. Okay, and that’s why I want to be sure. Because, let me just speak. I mean,
right now, if I say no, and I’m inclined not to say yes, and I’ll explain what I mean by that, then
we’re into a situation where we deny it, and the whole thing starts all over again. I think you
would be advised, for the betterment of your clients, to ask us to table this at this point, so that
they can come with the answers to the questions that Mr. Bryant raised, that Mr. Urrico raised,
and the one that I’m about to raise, about the fence, because I, quite frankly, I don’t think it’s a
bad project, but in good conscience, without their comment, and without knowing about the
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
legality of the fence, I could not vote for this at this time. I drive up and down that road fairly
frequently. I’m not a resident of Cleverdale, but I do get over there, and that fence is a big
fence, and we don’t allow big fences in front yards, and so I need some information from them.
So I would advise, if you’re willing, we’ll table it for, we’ll get to it like in June or maybe in July,
because we’re not going to grant you what you want right now.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the response to the applicant’s question,
relative to the second floor, if Staff would be willing to answer that.
MR. FRANK-I’m sorry, what are you looking for?
MR. BRYANT-The question was, if the second floor became strictly storage, would that affect
the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. FRANK-Well, it would. It would also negate the need for the greater than 50% expansion.
MR. BRYANT-Is the second floor big enough for that?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
MR. FRANK-It’s 625 square feet.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s the solution. Then you don’t even have to come back.
MR. STONE-But he can’t answer that. He can’t make that commitment.
MR. BRYANT-No, I’m just saying, I mean, that’s a logical solution.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And we’re happy, and you’re happy and they get the garage, and they get a little
room behind the garage, and they get a lot of storage area.
MR. AUSTIN-Again, to clarify. If we are to concede, as you said, the second floor area, we will
receive an approval, we will not be required to go through the variance?
MR. URRICO-Bruce, how does it change from a game room to storage space?
MR. STONE-Yes. I have real problems with the enforcement of that, and that’s one of the
problems that we have, and we struggled with that a couple of weeks ago with a previous
application. We don’t define storage area very well. We don’t, we are not the Queensbury
police. We can’t go in and say, it’s storage area. Isn’t that nice, and we can’t do that. We need,
we really need, even the letter, we need the owner of the property to tell us what they will and
will not do, at least I do, anyway.
MR. AUSTIN-I absolutely agree with you that it’s almost impossible to police, but still, my
question is, if we were to negate that area, or we were to delete that area and that was to be
storage, on our set of drawings, and we were to apply for a permit, we would not need to go for
a variance?
MR. STONE-That is correct. Bruce, is that right? That would take care of the two things that
you’re seeking a variance on? So the easiest way is, we can just table it, and if it falls by the
wayside, it falls by the wayside. Is that all right with you?
MR. AUSTIN-Yes, and that clarifies it.
MR. STONE-All right.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
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
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go. We will get it on the agenda. I mean, it’s up, you will tell your
clients what we said, and they will let us know what we’re going to do.
MR. AUSTIN-Make their decision at that point. The one question I have for you is the letter of
intent.
MR. STONE-Please, we’ll put it in the file, and we’d like to have it, since you offered it.
MR. AUSTIN-Yes.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT SALES, INC.
AGENT: PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER: WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM ZONING: LI
LOCATION: 435 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
6,000 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY ADDITION TO BE USED FOR VEHICLE REPAIR AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,600 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPAL BUILDING [WITH NEW ADDITION] AND THE EXISTING ACCESSORY
BUILDING. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 10-1994 MODIFICATION, BP 99-672 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: 5/12/2004 LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1
SECTION: 179-5-020B3
CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2004, Logger’s Equipment Sales, Inc., Meeting Date:
May 19, 2004 “Project Location: 435 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. one-story addition to the principal building,
and construction of a 1,600 sq. ft. outdoor storage building.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum separation
distance between buildings requirement for the proposed separation distance between the
principal building with the new 6,000 sq. ft. addition and the existing accessory structure, per
§179-5-020(B3). Even though none has been requested, 26 feet of relief is required from the 10-
foot minimum separation distance to the existing 50-foot buffer zone for the 1,600 sq. ft. outdoor
storage building (as submitted on May 13, 2004), per §179-5-020(B3).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 99-672: 12/02/99, 1,800 sq. ft.
addition.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
SP 10-94 Mod.: 11/23/99, construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. addition.
BP 94-385: 12/01/94, 3,600 sq. ft. pole barn.
BP 94-671: 11/16/94, demolition of dwelling.
BP 94-672: 11/16/94, demolition of garage and addition.
SP 10-94: 03/22/94, construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. metal building and a 3,600 sq. ft. pole barn
with associated parking and equipment storage.
BP 94-384: 02/23/94, 10,000 sq. ft. office building and repair shop.
AV 97-1989: 08/15/90, one-year extension request.
AV 97-1989: 08/23/89, relief from the minimum road frontage requirement for the construction
of a 10,000 sq. ft. metal building and a 3,600 sq. ft. pole barn with associated parking and
equipment storage.
SP 11-89: withdrawn 02/24/89, by Bebout Ford Tractor, Inc.
Staff comments:
On May 5, 2004, the applicant was informed of the need for additional relief, which was not
requested, but was identified upon further review of the site plan submitted. After being
informed of the need for additional relief, the applicant stated the proposed location of the 1,600
sq. ft. accessory structure would be set back 60 feet from the west property line, which would
alleviate the need for additional relief. The applicant was directed to submit a new plan
depicting the proposed new location. On May 13, 2004, the new plan was submitted. However,
the new plan depicted the proposed 1,600 sq. ft. accessory structure to be located 34 feet from
the south property line. Therefore, 26 feet of relief is needed for the structure being it is
proposed to be setback 34 feet from a residential use property (the zoning code requires a 50-
foot buffer zone between commercial and residential uses, and a 10-foot setback to all buffer
zones for accessory structures).
Also on May 5, 2004, the applicant was informed the site plan submitted is different from the
county tax maps. According to the tax maps, part of parcel 308.16-1-82.2 is included in what the
applicant claims is tax map parcel 308.16-1-82.1. The access drive on Corinth Road is actually
on Lot 82.2, which was why AV 97-1989 was requested in 1989 (to provide access to Lot 82.1
from Lot 82.2’s frontage on the town road). Due to the confusion, the Zoning Administrator has
determined an “as built” survey must be provided for the site. The applicant stated he would
try to have a survey ready for submittal for the June 2004 Site Plan Review. On May 13, 2004, in
addition to the correct site plan, a survey map dated June 25, 1994 was also submitted locating
the primary structure and the pole barn on the parcel.
Additionally, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s office has requested the West Glens Falls
Fire Company Chief John Carpenter review the plans for the proposed project and offer
comments relating to fire and/or emergency response should there be any concerns. As of May
14, 2004, nothing has been submitted from John Carpenter.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12,
2004 Project Name: Logger’s Equipment Sales, Inc. Owner: William Buckingham ID Number:
QBY-AV-04-32 County Project#: May04-29 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. one-story addition to be
used for vehicle repair and construction of a 1,600 sq. ft. one-story storage building. Relief
requested from the separation distance requirements between the principle building [with new
addition] and the existing accessory building. Site Location: 435 Corinth Road Tax Map
Number(s): 308.16-1-82.1 Staff notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a
6,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing 12,700 sq. ft. building and a 1,000 sq. ft. building to replace an
existing pole barn structure used for storage. The 6,000 sq. ft. addition is to be located to the
rear of the existing building and 5 +/- ft. from an existing adjacent building. The required
separation distance between building is 50 ft. 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” Signed by Bennett F. Driscoll, Warren
County Planning Board 5/17/04.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, the Fire Marshal did submit something to me on May 17 with the
th
Fire Chief’s comments. So I think that’s in the permanent file. You can read it in at the public
hearing.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read that in. Thank you. Gentlemen.
MR. JOHNSON-Hi. Good evening. My name is Charles Johnson, Paradox Design Architects,
here representing William Buckingham, of Loggers Equipment Supply. It sounds complicated,
all the stuff you guys read. Hopefully I can make it sound pretty simple. What we’re
proposing to do is take an existing business, I think it’s been there since 1994, and expand it yet
again. I was involved with the 1994 expansion for some office space. This is 6,000 square feet
for vehicle repair out in back. We’re also going to be enclosing some existing outdoor storage
that occurs underneath an overhang. So to replace that, we’re going to build this freestanding
1600 square foot pole barn. I simply took the 1994 site plan, traced it over, and in the process
we discovered from Bruce that that was an incorrect site plan. So what we approved in ’99
really wasn’t reality. So we found that this property really consists of two tax parcels, one in the
front and one in the back. There’s a common shared 35 foot wide access, gravel road or paved
road from Corinth to the rear property. Once we straightened all that out, and our setbacks are
squared away, we still are here before the Board for the 15 foot separation distance between two
adjacent buildings on the same lot. The requirement is 50 feet, we’re proposing 15 feet, and the
other reason we’re here before the Board is that standalone pole barn structure, the storage
building, stands 34 feet off the property line where it needs to be 50. The confusion comes in is
it’s both parcels are zoned LI, but currently a house is on that property, and the Zoning Code
has changed from uses to zones, or zones to uses. So even though it’s zoned LI, it’s used as
residential. Therefore we need to provide that 50 foot buffer. So that’s why we’re here. At this
point I’d ask that you approve the variance, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. STONE-Are there any questions? I have to admit, sir, that I was impressed with the size of
your operation. I’ve gone down that road. I had no idea how big it was until I drove in there.
Very impressive. Anything else anybody wants to ask?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Quite frankly. The Staff comments are confusing to me, not that the
wording is confusing. Was an as built survey submitted?
MR. JOHNSON-No, we have not done one yet. We had provided that 1994 survey, which
accurately located the buildings. Bruce and I had talked and said that if that survey pretty
much followed what was already there, the as built, it was sort of a discussion item whether we
actually had to provide the as built or not, depending on the quality of our survey.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that you will provide
an as built survey.
MR. JOHNSON-Then it’s end of discussion. That’s what we’ll do. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Right. So, without the as built survey, I’m not so sure how I could make a
decision on this thing, quite frankly.
MR. JOHNSON-What are the issues?
MR. STONE-But that’s for site plan.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. The other thing that’s confusing, I really wanted to clear up in my mind,
again, not because the Staff comments are confusing, but because there was a lot of confusing
information submitted in here, this buffer zone is, indeed, a 50 foot buffer zone, and you’re
requesting 26 feet of relief. Is that correct?
MR. JOHNSON-That’s correct.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I misunderstood. I thought I heard you say 16, but you must have said 26.
MR. JOHNSON-I may have misspoken. It is 26.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, we agree that it’s 26 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone,
correct, on that one?
MR. JOHNSON-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
MR. URRICO-Can you explain how the space between the two buildings will be used?
MR. JOHNSON-The 15 foot space?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JOHNSON-It’s going to provide access for the yard area in the back, in the rear of the
building, so some of the trucks, delivery for parts, on vehicle storage, is going to go between the
two buildings in that 15 foot space?
MR. URRICO-Does that leave enough room? Is 15 feet enough room?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, Bill has said that’s going to be enough.
MR. URRICO-Do you ever have trucks passing in that area?
MR. JOHNSON-It’s a one way loop around the property.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to hear what the Fire Marshal had to say about that space.
MR. STONE-Well, we’ll read it. Do you want to hear it now?
MR. BRYANT-Before I ask any questions.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-I can’t really talk intelligently about it until.
MR. STONE-Fine. Would you read it?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a memo from Steve Smith, Fire Marshal, to the Queensbury
Planning Board, regarding the West Glens Falls Fire Chief comments on Logger’s Supply
project. “The staff of the Queensbury Fire Marshal’s office met with the West Glens Falls Fire
Company Chief John Carpenter on Friday May 14, 2004 to review the site plan for the
referenced project. Chief Carpenter has the following comments: 1. The proposed separation
distance of 15 feet between the existing building and the proposed addition limits access to the
rear of the property to just one lane. This lane shows a gate, which will also limit access to the
rear of the property unless provisions are made for the Fire Department to have a key to this
gate (Knox Box access) or there is some other means of ensuring access through this gate. I
should point out the existence of technology that enables the Fire Department to open locked
gates with the siren on their vehicle. Also, this access road must be planned and maintained at
a minimum of 20 feet in width for emergency access. 2. Based on the site plan review, it has
been determined that a fire hydrant must be included in this project. Section 508.5.1 of the Fire
Code of New York State (attached) requires the installation of a yard hydrant if any portion of
the building in question is located more than 400 feet from a municipal hydrant system. As
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
planned, the distance from the existing fire hydrant on Corinth Road to the furthest corner of
the new addition is measured at over 600 feet. Please review the comments herein, and advise
me of any further assistance that may be required. On behalf of Chief Carpenter and the Fire
Marshal’s office, thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Sincerely, Steve Smith
Queensbury Fire Marshal”
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now can I ask my question?
MR. STONE-Absolutely. Sure.
MR. BRYANT-The pole barn, the position of the pole barn, is that carved in stone?
MR. JOHNSON-It is or we wouldn’t be here asking for that relief. We need to position is that
way for access in and out. A lot of forklifts come in and out of there with the larger pieces of
equipment that are stored in that building.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it’s quite difficult to look at this site plan and determine what, do you have
trucks coming in on the side of the pole barn? Is that what happens?
MR. JOHNSON-It’s a three-sided building with the long side facing the other building,
completely open for access, so forklifts and delivery trucks are going to be pulling up and
backing in and out of that building area in front of that.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying this is the only place on the property that this pole barn could
be?
MR. JOHNSON-That’s it’s prime location, yes.
MR. BRYANT-The separation of the two buildings, you’re not going to drive in that 15 foot
lane?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, we are going to drive in it.
MR. BRYANT-You are going to drive in it. So that means in the wintertime it’s going to be
cleared?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the slopes of the roofs, relative to each other, each building?
MR. JOHNSON-The pole barn’s eaves runs along, will drop the snow.
MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about the accessory building and the addition.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. The accessory building, the small building to the rear, this building
back here, will dump its snow, half of the roof will slide into this.
MR. BRYANT-Into the hole.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Into the 15 feet.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. BRYANT-But that’s still going to be cleared?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-I’d be interested in knowing what your comments are relative to the Fire
Marshal’s.
MR. STONE-Yes. They’re saying 20, where you’re saying, asking for 15.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, that’s not the only access. There’s a large gate, at this end of the property
as well, for fire access in this direction. It’s a closer egress for fighting fire, rather than driving
all the way around. So we propose that this be considered the access point for fire equipment,
emergency equipment, rather than back here. We’d be happy to provide the automatic de-
locking equipment at both gates if they’d like, but that’s why we feel the 15’s suitable, with this
secondary access. What we’re trying to do is get the most out of our addition here and still
provide access to the back for the vehicles. The vehicles that are going to drive through here are
all pretty much site specific, or only drive around on this site. We’ve got occasional delivery,
material delivery trucks that are going to come back in there.
MR. STONE-Just to get it on the record, you can’t go to the north of that building because
there’s a fence extending out to the west?
MR. JOHNSON-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-But that property is owned by Logger’s.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Chairman, also for the record I think it’s important that I think Chuck
read into the record that the Fire Marshal indicated that a 20 foot width is important or is
desirable, even perhaps mandated. I don’t know. I think that’s a crucial question, whether or
not we could overrule that to go along with the applicant for 15 feet wide. I’m unsure. I don’t
know.
MR. JOHNSON-Was the Fire Marshal aware of the two gates?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t know.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask Mr. Frank, is it required to have two entrances to the back of the
building?
MR. FRANK-I don’t know that. I know that when the Fire Chief came in to the Fire Marshal’s
Office, they called me in. I brought the plan in. I showed them that southern access. So why
they did not comment on that, I don’t know. I know that it was brought to their attention.
MR. STONE-Okay. It was brought to their attention?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Relative to that question, the 15 feet versus 20 feet. The addition is 75 feet.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Is it possible that the addition could be 70 feet? Is this a prefab steel building?
MR. JOHNSON-It’s a prefab building. Each vehicle repair bay is 20 feet. That’s 60. There’s
three of them. That left 15 feet for storage, within that space, lunchroom for Staff. A little
bathroom is going to be in there, a mechanical room.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-We’re talking about five feet.
MR. JOHNSON-I’d say the same thing with the fire trucks. They’re talking about five feet.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but you can work around the storage area, but you can’t shrink a fire
truck.
MR. JOHNSON-But, like I said, we’ve got the other access point. I don’t even know if we’ve
had any fire calls to the property since ’94. It could happen tomorrow.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it only takes one.
MR. ABBATE-It might be a good idea, perhaps, to touch base with the Fire Marshal and raise
these issues with them, because I would have, I, quite frankly.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, I find it hard, I mean, the night before the meeting, for him to submit the
comments. We have no chance to deal with it at all, from my point of view. I’d be happy to talk
to him, but I don’t have a chance. I’ve got to know when.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’re talking about expertise here. The Fire Marshal says 20 feet. Who
am I to say, well, no, 15 feet is okay? I wouldn’t dare to say that.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. ABBATE-I’d have to come down on commonsense and vote no.
MR. JOHNSON-So you’re advocating that we wait 30 days?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m advocating that this be cleared up.
MR. JOHNSON-My only avenue to clear it up is to wait 30 days and come back before the
Board. Could we make it a condition? Could we do that? How about if we drive around the
accessory building?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, see, you’re talking to the wrong guy. I’m not the Fire Marshal.
MR. STONE-Well, but he just said, Chuck, if they remove that fence, or a part of that fence, or
put another, a gate in the back side, so they can come around.
MR. ABBATE-If the Fire Marshal says it’s okay, you know what, it’s okay with me.
MR. JOHNSON-If I can provide the Fire Marshal with a 20 foot wide drive, which is what he
asked for, that would be approvable by this Board, I would think.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if they were willing to make that change in their plan, this does
have to go before the Planning Board for a modification of their site plan, actually it’s a new site
plan, I believe, that they’re being held to, it’s been brought up, there’s a condition that could be
worked into their site plan approval, so you wouldn’t hold up the applicant, since they’re
willing to provide two accesses to the back.
MR. STONE-Well, I understand.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you know, I wouldn’t mind, because we have to be fair to the applicant as
well, but I would like to be able to get in, I would be able to sleep easier tonight if we could get
in there subject to the 20 foot width, so that a fire truck, God forbid we say 15, and then there’s a
fire, and guess who’s going to be held liable.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Yes, but, Chuck, what they’re saying is that, forget that 15 foot. That will not be a
fire access. It will be around the other building, an additional few feet.
MR. ABBATE-Make it a stipulation, fine.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but, I understand that, but Mr. Abbate, in this particular instance, is making
a valid point. Supposing they need to get some kind of vehicle, and I’m not a firefighter, and
I’m not an EMS person. So I don’t know. Supposing they need to get some kind of vehicle
between those two buildings, for whatever reason, some kind of ladder, some kind of structure,
some kind of machine, and that spaces prohibits it? Obviously, the Fire Marshal made that
comment based on his experience, and I don’t have that experience. So I think, in this particular
case, Mr. Abbate makes a valid point. You can have 13 entrances, and it wouldn’t really make
any difference if you couldn’t fit the machine through that portal, and I think that’s the issue.
MR. JOHNSON-I understand your concerns, you know, you made an excellent point with the
last applicant. The person wasn’t here to address their concerns. I’d say the same with the fire
guy. I mean, if we had three or four days to deal with it before. We’ve got not even 24 hours.
MR. BRYANT-I agree. We had to listen to it, we heard it the same time you did, and I don’t
think that’s necessarily the right way to work.
MR. JOHNSON-So we could keep forward momentum, could we make this, could you craft
some wording that makes this conditional, take his approval that, even though we’re providing
two accessible means, we’re still keeping the 15 foot. If he’s okay with that, you’ve given us
approval. If he has a problem, we’re going to have to satisfy his issue and come back before the
Board.
MR. URRICO-Even without the fire guy, I’m still bothered by the 15 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I think I am, too, because the rules say 50 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And there’s got to be more than just a whim why that 50 foot was put in the
Code.
MR. ABBATE-See, the Fire Marshal, based on his expertise, when he says 20 feet wide, there
must be a darn good reason why. Who am I to say it may be.
MR. JOHNSON-His equipment, probably his equipment is that wide.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that has to be worked out with him. I am not going to override this Fire
Marshal. I’ll tell you right now.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, I was not asking you to override. I was trying to make it conditional.
MR. ABBATE-I won’t do it.
MR. STONE-Well, let us keep going. We’ll open the public hearing, and then let us comment
and see where we come, because obviously, we have some interest in possibly putting a
condition on it. We also have some members of the Board who, at least to my ear, are saying,
it’s supposed to be 50 feet it ought to be 50 feet.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-So, having said that, is that all right with everybody? Joyce?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MRS. HUNT-I would like to hear the Fire Marshal’s letter again.
MR. STONE-Okay. Would you read it again, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. There were two concerns that were expressed. The first one, “The
proposed separation distance of 15 feet between the existing building and the proposed
addition limits access to the rear of the property to just one lane. This lane shows a gate, which
will also limit access to the rear of the property unless provisions are made for the Fire
Department to have a key to this gate (Knox Box access) or there is some other means of
ensuring access through this gate. I should point out the existence of technology that enables
the Fire Department to open locked gates with the siren on their vehicle. Also, this access road
must be planned and maintained at a minimum of 20 feet in width for emergency access.” The
second item.
MR. STONE-You don’t have to read the second item, that’s not on point here.
MR. JOHNSON-So, here’s what I heard him say, that he needs access to the rear of the property,
or we need to provide other means to access the rear of the property, and an access road must
be 20 feet wide. So no discussion about clearances between buildings was mentioned. It was
more about access to the rear of the property. Did I hear that correctly?
MR. STONE-Well, he addressed it from a fire standpoint, and that’s what his job is.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-And we’re addressing it from a zoning standpoint, mitigated by what he’s saying.
Let me open the public hearing. We’ll listen, if anybody wants to say anything, and then we’ll
talk about it and see where we’re coming down. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing
to speak on this subject? Please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON BARRISFORD
MR. BARRISFORD-Good evening. My name is Don Barrisford. I live at 38 Michigan Avenue,
which is directly the north side of this project. This site, these guys have been very excellent
neighbors, as far as business wise. My concerns are being a resident on a dead end street, I have
no problem with fire entrance, as far as getting into the property for fire purposes. My concern
is if these do become entrances, as far as fire issues, my concern is, does that open that road in
future for business access, as far as trucks coming down the road? I have a real problem with
traffic. I would like to keep it a dead end street. I have no problem with the business itself. Fire
entrance is okay with me, as far as opening up the road and having traffic go through, as far as
noise, weight, vibration, cb radio, as far as bleed over of those concerns are my concerns. If we
do have access for fire, if it would be for fire only, and if I could have that in writing, as a
guarantee. The one thing that did concern me about the sirens opening the gate is that also
these trucks with powerful air horns, are they also able to open the gate, as much as the sirens
are? That would be another issue. Other than that, have a nice evening.
MR. STONE-I assume just that we’re talking access from Corinth Road only, for the fire
vehicles. They’re not coming in the back door.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and that property behind the property in question is not part of the
project. So, they have no right to cross over that property, even though it’s under the same
owner, it’s a different parcel, and it’s not the parcel that Logger’s Supply is located on.
MR. STONE-Right.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-And I have it on the map.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’re talking coming in from Corinth Road, and going out onto Corinth Road.
Your other comment, not knowing the technology, it’s a point certainly to put on the table, and
we appreciate that.
MR. BARRISFORD-Okay. The only other issue, I would like to get together with the property
owner, maybe. We have a lot of problem with juveniles in the area, as far as using their
property. If I could have a few moments with him after.
MR. STONE-You certainly can do anything you want when we’re through here.
MR. BARRISFORD-Yes, okay, thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thanks. Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence,
besides the Fire Marshal?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Why don’t you gentlemen come back up. Do you have any comment about what
you heard or is that?
MR. JOHNSON-I think, we’re not proposing to connect to Michigan Avenue at all in any way.
The drive that’s there is just to access these two lots. The fire equipment access point is from
Corinth Road only, and there’s two gates on the property from that access, little access road.
MR. STONE-Okay. Just for the public’s record, the two lots we’re talking about are the little
finger going in to the big lot.
MR. JOHNSON-This is the lot in question. Buckingham also owns this piece, and I think the
gentleman who was talking was one of these two pieces right here. So his concern, I’m
imagining, was that we would have traffic driving right on through to Michigan, whether it be,
I think it was fire equipment, traffic.
MR. STONE-But that’s not a road, is it, there?
MR. JOHNSON-It is a 30 foot wide access that you guys, this Board I think granted, or Planning
Board granted to give access to this back parcel.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-To give access to this parcel only. It also is our drive. I think this strip allows
access to both parcels, and our drive that’s on the site plan is providing access to the buildings
that are there.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let’s, if you guys have no more questions.
MR. BRYANT-I do have a question. I just want to verify. The residence that’s affected by the
pole barn, you own the property?
MR. BARRISFORD-Yes, I do.
MR. JOHNSON-Which one, the Michigan Avenue property?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-No, the property that’s by the pole barn, which is in the south part of the
property. It’s one of those three lots, that lot right there. Is that your property?
MR. BARRISFORD-No, it’s not.
MR. JOHNSON-He’s up on Michigan. He’s right there.
MR. BRYANT-No, no, I’m talking about the pole barn, the buffer area.
MR. STONE-The new pole barn.
MR. JOHNSON-There’s a 50 foot buffer right here, on this strip. The pole barn sits in this
corner.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and where is the residence that’s adjacent to that?
MR. FRANK-I have the marker on it. There’s also a 50 foot buffer north of.
MR. BRYANT-On the front is the one that’s affected, right?
MR. JOHNSON-There’s 50 foot here. There’s 50 foot here. There’s 50 foot here. We’re
proposing the pole barn here. We’re holding it the buffer distance away. We’re not in
compliance with the 50 foot buffer here.
MR. BRYANT-Right. Do you own that residential property?
MR. JOHNSON-No.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-These are the two pieces, this one here, and this one here.
MR. STONE-Okay, and the buffer we’re talking about is to the west.
MR. BRYANT-No, we’re talking about to the south.
MR. STONE-No, no, no. Where the pole barn’s going to go, you’re asking for relief from the
western property line?
MR. FRANK-That’s not correct. He’s proposing a 60 foot setback to the western property line.
He’s 10 feet away from the 50 foot buffer. They’re now proposing a 30 foot setback to the south
property line, which requires 26 feet of relief.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it is the south.
MR. BRYANT-It’s the south.
MR. STONE-Sorry, okay. All right. Joyce, what do you think?
MRS. HUNT-Well, as far as the fire access, if the Fire Marshal has no problem with using that
access road and getting the gate open, I don’t think there would be a problem, and I would be in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, if the applicant addresses and meets the Fire Marshal’s concerns,
well, then they’ll meet my concerns as well.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. JOHNSON-Well, Bill just came back. He made a call to the contractor. We can chop five
feet off the addition, if that’ll make you happy, and give you a 20 foot aisle, between the two
buildings.
WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM
MR. BUCKINGHAM-If they don’t approve the gate on the back, so we have two accesses at 20
feet, then we will cut our building down five feet. So we’ll have a 20 foot access.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the only question that’s before us, is that 20 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BUCKINGHAM-There’ll be two 20 foot accesses to the back of that building, and if he
doesn’t accept the back fence from the accessory building, then we’ll have to chop our building
five feet.
MR. STONE-What do you mean two? The one to the south is 50 feet, isn’t it?
MR. BUCKINGHAM-Well, we would create a new second one, up around the accessory
building.
MR. STONE-Okay. So there’d be three.
MR. BUCKINGHAM-So there’d be three, only the middle one, with 15, wouldn’t count, because
he couldn’t get a deal.
MR. STONE-I though that’s the one he’s saying he’ll make 20.
MR. JOHNSON-I’ll make it 20 if he doesn’t like this proposal.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BUCKINGHAM-Because I think he’s only concerned with the access to the back of the
building, not between. If I’m wrong, then I’ll chop the building five feet.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re willing to compromise, and that’s great with me, and again, if you
address the issues and you meet his requirements, then by jiminy, you meet my requirements. I
have no problems with it.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-The setback issue I really don’t have a problem with. It is moderate, but it’s
reasonable. The distance between the two buildings, on the other hand, I have somewhat of a
problem with. I’m kind of on the fence, and I really don’t know where I’m going to come down.
There’s really two sides to this story. You could meet the Fire Marshal’s requirements of the 20
foot aisle around the building, for access, and that would be fine, but somewhere the Town, in
their infinite wisdom, when they set up the zoning structure and they said that any accessory
building has to be 50 feet away, there were obvious reasons, and some of the questions I asked
relative to the snow removal might be some of those reasons. So I really don’t know, in this
case, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I offer something up for that? I believe the intention of the
Code, way back when, was due to, also, building materials. So they didn’t have the metal
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
prefabricated structures as they do today. That’s one of the things that the Fire Marshals told
me about. So I think that was one of the reasons for the greater accessory, or the greatest
distance between accessory and primary structures. Also, and again, I’m not a Fire Marshal.
I’m not familiar with the Fire Code, the part of the New York State Building Code, but I do
recall in the past that when we do our plan review that they’ve stated that three sides of the
building have to have access for firefighting. So that’s why I think the Fire Marshal’s comments
state that access to the rear. He’s not talking about access by the vehicle to get in between the
two buildings.
MR. BRYANT-Right.
MR. FRANK-They need to get in to the rear of the property, to provide access to all three sides,
to three sides. Again, I don’t know that 100%, but I do believe that was the intent that I was
told, for previous applications. This is not the first time we’ve had this relief. I know it doesn’t
happen a lot, but that’s what I’m recalling. For whatever that’s worth, just to let you know.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I want to make sure that, regardless of whether the Fire Marshal has
approved 20 feet, I think these structures are too close together, and the Code was just newly
adopted a few years ago, and I think they had the opportunity there to change it at that time,
and they did not. So 50 feet is there for a reason. I’m willing to compromise, but I think 20 feet
is where I would start, and, like I said, regardless of where the Fire Marshal comes down on
this, I would not approve it at this distance right now.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ve got some problems here, too. First, I need to clarify again. We’re
talking about the pole barn, and cutting in to the buffer. Now we’re cutting in to the buffer
that’s closest to Corinth Road?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Why can’t that pole barn be slide north enough to avoid that?
MR. FRANK-Just to clear it up, if you look at the new submitted plan, they’re not actually
cutting any trees down. They just happen to be within that 50 foot buffering requirement. They
show that the vegetation line is approximately 30 feet away from the property line.
MR. JOHNSON-If that’s an issue, we’ll move it back. I mean, we’ll move the light pole. We’ll
shift the building down. We’ll deal with the conflicts of traffic. I mean, if that’s a burden for
you guys, that’s not a problem for us.
MR. BUCKINGHAM-I don’t have a conflict in traffic.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s see where we come down.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, on that part I would be happy, if that didn’t comply, but I’m kind of like
Roy on the other part, the separation distance between the proposed addition and the storage
building. I was going to say some of the things that he did. We just revised the Town Code,
and they didn’t change that 50 feet. Now maybe it was an oversight, but since that was, in
effect, endorsed by passing the new Code, I’d like to, I need something more to justify that
reduced distance. I think what we’re saying, at the moment, is, well, the rules say 50 feet, but
the guy that’s the Fire Marshal right now, and the guy that’s the Fire Chief right now say we
don’t need that, that 20 feet would be okay. That’s just two guys. I don’t know what other
thinking went into that 50 feet, and I don’t hear anything that makes this a unique circumstance.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
We’re just saying, maybe it’s okay now to have it 20 feet instead of 50 feet because of new
building materials and firefighting ability. That means that same logic would be applied to
anybody else that came in here that wanted to put a building 20 feet away from a main
building, and, that being the case, we’re changing the zoning, which is something that we’re not
supposed to do. We’re supposed to look at each instance as a unique instance and make an
exception when the circumstances justify it, and as I say, so far, I don’t see any real justification,
other than the applicant just saying we want to do that, but I don’t see any unique
circumstances that says this is different than anybody else with the same kind of situation. So
your concession on the buffer may be a moot point, as far as I’m concerned, because I’ve got a
problem with the other part of it, too. So, at this point, I’m negative.
MR. JOHNSON-The one unique aspect of this that I didn’t really talk about is how these access
bays, or how these repair bays are accessed. It’s a drive thru situation. The vehicles come in
one side and go out the other. We’ve already got existing bays established in the building, and
we’re trying to expand on to provide more. So that’s the unique situation, that we’ve got
existing buildings that were acquired when the business moved here, and over time we’ve
grown, and we’ve got an existing function in the pole barn. We’ve got existing functions in the
building, to expand the drive thru kind of service bay for the large equipment that we need,
we’d have to build a standalone building, which doesn’t really work.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, before you comment?
MR. STONE-Yes, you may.
MR. BRYANT-Would you consider the possibility of building two bays, instead of three?
MR. JOHNSON-Again, we wouldn’t be here if we thought that was feasible.
MR. BRYANT-Well, when you say not feasible.
MR. BUCKINGHAM-If I didn’t have to come before the Board, I wouldn’t. If two bays sufficed,
I wouldn’t be here. Three bays is really what we need to expand the business, to invest in this
cost of the building, you need to get some reward back, and the three bays are going to generate
the income we need to help substantiate the cost of the building. It’s a business driven size. It’s
not arbitrary. I’d love to not be here.
MR. ABBATE-And let me, can I add something, too, Mr. Chairman? You can blame Mr.
McNulty for this. Mr. McNulty raised an interesting point. Last meeting we had, I went
ballistic when I said we have to take into consideration mitigating circumstances, and that was
just a different term than Mr. McNulty used, and I failed, this evening, to take a look at this and
say are there any mitigating circumstances. So Mr. McNulty, I may reverse my position say you
are absolutely right, and thank you for bringing to my attention what I did last week.
MR. BRYANT-Well, actually there is a mitigating circumstance, and basically they have an
existing building that they have to deal with.
MR. ABBATE-Do you want to cause me a sleepless night. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-If you use that logic.
MR. JOHNSON-One of the duties you guys are charged with is to balance the need between the
general public with the applicant, and we’re sort of stuck here between a rock and an accessory
building, and we can’t expand anywhere else on this property, in an economical way, that
meets the needs of the business, without doing this.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s not necessarily my position. Don’t misunderstand. I say a lot of
things, I make all kinds of statements, but my final decision is surprising sometimes.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-My turn, guys? The only thing I’ve heard that concerns me, and it doesn’t concern
me very much, is why the 20 feet, or why the 50 feet, in the first place, between the buildings.
The willingness of the applicant, one, to move the pole barn to the north, I thank you for that. I
would not have stopped me from saying yes, if you left it where it was. The access, again, and I
share your comment, or your concern why do we just hear about it now? One of the things that
we have complained about for a long time is when an applicant comes in, and there are people
in this room who have seen us say, we really don’t like to get new information on the day of a
meeting, and this is certainly, without the ability to question the Fire Marshal, because a
number of things have been said. If he’s only talking about this particular space, he said 20 feet.
Okay. That’s still much less than what we’re asked to do normally, but is that because he sees it
as the only second way in, or is it, in fact, he wants it to be 20 feet or more? Like we had in the
earlier application, if we can’t ask the question of somebody who has the answer, we can’t get
the answer, and I sense a little frustration, certainly on the part of a couple of members of the
Board, like, you know, why, 50 feet is good, and we wouldn’t be here. Fifteen feet may be too
little, if, in fact, the Fire Marshal understood what it is you were trying to do and maybe
satisfied with the 20, but as Mr. McNulty says, and I think Mr. Urrico said, why didn’t we
change the 50 when we re-did the Zoning Code? I don’t have an answer. I really don’t. Now,
that’s still our job, particularly on a variance from the Zoning Code, and I’m not saying we
shouldn’t do that, but I would like to have other questions. The willingness of the applicant to
say that they would make it 20, if they have to, if they can’t get acceptance for the back gate,
around the northerly most building, certainly makes me, gives me the ability to say yes, and I
would say yes. My problem is, looking at the numbers I have, I don’t know what motion to call
for, but I’m going to ask for a motion to approve, and we can see how it goes. Because right
now I see three yeses, if Mr. Abbate hasn’t changed where he was. I’m not putting you on the
spot.
MR. ABBATE-No. I think, again, the balancing act, you said this correctly. Look, the applicant
has been willing to make adjustments. He’d be willing to compromise. As far as I’m
concerned, he’s bent over backwards this evening. I don’t have problems with that. I am
frustrated with this business of getting information from the Fire Marshal quite late, but it’s not
fair for me to take it out on you. It’s not your fault. So, I haven’t changed my position. I would
go along in saying yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, to be fair to you, I’m going to fall down on the negative side.
MR. STONE-You’re going to fall down on the negative side. Okay. Go ahead, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Just to clarify my point, if we’re going to pass this, contingent upon the Fire
Marshal’s direction to establish a 20 foot buffer, and that’s the only contingency for 20 feet, then
I would be against it. If we established 20 feet or more, as the contingency, regardless of where
the Fire Marshal stands, then I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. How do you guys stand on that?
MR. JOHNSON-If that’s what you need, that’s what we’ll do.
MR. STONE-Okay. So let’s say we’ll make a motion to grant this with 20 feet separation
between the buildings, and understanding that there may be other discussions with the Fire
Marshal, when he hears our concerns about why is 20 enough, and maybe we’d get a back gate,
but I see four people who are willing to go there.
MR. JOHNSON-One question. Does that kind of open the gate for him to say well, now if
they’re going to do 20, make it 30?
MR. STONE-No. We’re saying 20. He said 20. I mean, that’s in writing. We have to accept
that, and you’re saying we’ll make it 20, and we’ll see what happens after that. So, Roy, since
you’re the one who, would you do the motion? None of the others have a problem with going
along with leaving the pole barn where it is?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. ABBATE-No, not at all.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2004 LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT SALES,
INC., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
435 Corinth Road. The applicant is proposing construction of a 5,600 square foot one story
addition to the principal building and construction of a 1,600 square foot outdoor storage
building. The applicant is requesting 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum separation
distance between buildings requirement for the proposed separation distance between the
principal building and the new addition, and the existing structure, per 179-5-020 (B3). In
addition, the applicant is requesting 26 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum separation
distance to the existing 50-foot buffer zone for the 1600 square foot outdoor storage building. In
granting this application, there is a balancing test that we didn’t address, but whether the
benefit to the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means to the applicant, and we
decided that there are some feasible means, and the applicant has made adjustments
accordingly. As far as an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to nearby properties, we
don’t think there’ll be any change as far as that’s concerned. The request is substantial,
especially in the separation of the two buildings, but we feel that the adjustments that have been
made would be enough to satisfy Board members and also create a situation that is beneficial to
the applicant. This will not have any physical or environmental side effects, and the difficulty
can be described as being self created, in the sense that we’re dealing with an existing business,
looking to expand, and that’s a good thing. So I move that we adopt this for approval. The
applicant did request 15 feet of relief from the two buildings, but has modified his request to
make it 20 feet between the existing structure and the new structure that’s to be built.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. URRICO-Also, as directed by the Zoning Administrator, this is to have an as built survey
as well.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if you want to impose it, that’s fine, but when the Zoning
Administrator made that determination at the time, nothing was submitted. He had no proof
that the current location of the buildings was adequate, and after I brought it to the applicant’s
agent’s attention, he did provide a licensed, stamped survey indicating that the buildings are
located correctly.
MR. STONE-Okay, but these are new buildings, and there will be an as built survey by
definition. Will there not?
MR. FRANK-Well, I don’t know if you need one for the addition. Maybe you do. I know for
residential you need an as built, brand new. Again, I’m not saying you can’t impose that, but I
just wanted to clarify why the Zoning Administrator said that at the time.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, you wanted to do that, Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-What am I doing?
MR. STONE-Imposing the as built survey, as a requirement.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m just reading the comments that ask us to.
MR. STONE-Right, but as Mr. Frank said.
MR. URRICO-If we don’t need it, then I’m not requesting it.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-If you’re concerned, we were concerned, at the time, because we had no idea if the
existing location of the two existing buildings was correct, and then something was provided
that proved they are located correctly, as they were submitted originally on the site plan.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. We can take it out, then, I guess.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your cooperation.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER & CHRISTINA COLLINS
AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ., STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ. OWNER:
PETER & CHRISTINA COLLINS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 17 HOLIDAY POINT
ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGARDING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION RELATIVE TO THE
DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF A STRUCTURE. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 2004-004, SPR 25-2004, SPR 58-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT
SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-42 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-070
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Regarding the Section of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an
interpretation, Section 179-13-010, Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots. On February 2,
2004, the Town of Queensbury Building Department issued a building permit to the applicants
for their proposed renovation project. The renovation plans were for alterations for the
applicant’s pre-existing, nonconforming residence. The approved plans called for numerous
changes to the walls and a portion of the structure involving the relocation of windows and
alterations of the height of the walls. As the applicants contractors were working on the project,
they discovered that the walls in question were structurally unsound. As a result, in order to
maintain the integrity of the structure, the walls were removed by the contractor with the
intention of replacing them with new walls of the same size and dimension, except for the
change contemplated by the approved renovation plans on the same foundation. Prior to doing
so, the contractor inquired of the Building Department and it was the contractor’s
understanding the Building Department has okayed proceeding in the fashion proposed after
the construction crew removed the walls and the flooring in the area in question, but before the
replacement walls were erected, the Zoning Administrator visited the site and directed the
contractor to cease all construction activity, on the grounds that the temporary removal of the
walls in question caused the applicant’s residence to lose its nonconforming status requiring a
variance before construction could continue. It is the applicant’s position that the variances are
not necessary for this project. Section 179-13-010 of the Town Code states that a nonconforming
structure or use or a structure containing a nonconforming use may be continued and
maintained in reasonable repair, but may not be enlarged or extended. The applicant’s
proposed action was simply to replace the existing walls and flooring in a small portion of their
residence, because the structure had deteriorated and was in need of repair. They did not
remove the foundation of the structure, nor were they enlarging or expanding the
nonconforming nature of the residence. As a result, a determination or interpretation of the
Zoning Officer should be found to have been incorrectly made. It is our position that 179-13-
010A is only applicable in the situation where the nonconforming structure is being enlarged or
extended.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2004, Peter & Christina Collins, Meeting Date: May
19, 2004 “Project Location: 17 Holiday Point Road Description of Proposed Project: The
appellant is appealing the determination rendered by the Zoning Administrator regarding the
rebuilding of a structure.
Information requested:
Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine
whether or not the decision made by the Zoning Administrator that a structure cannot be
rebuilt without an Area Variance for setback relief is correct.
Staff comments:
Historically, the Town has held that the removal of a structure, which
violates the minimum setback requirements, can only be rebuilt with the issuance of an Area
Variance for reconstruction in the original “violating” location. An alternative in these
instances may be construction/reconstruction in a compliant location.
§179-13-010, Continuation, A. states that a single family dwelling may be enlarged or rebuilt if
all setback provisions of the zoning code are met. The Collins proposal does not meet this
requirement and therefore cannot be rebuilt in the original location without an Area Variance.”
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper. With me, Pete Collins to my right,
his wife Tina Collins is behind us in the second row. Bob Flansburg, the architect, to my
immediate left and Terry Martin the builder. As I started out a few minutes ago, this is, in all
seriousness, the most egregious and serious appeal that I’ve ever brought before any Zoning
Board. The Collins’, to begin with, have been residents of Cleverdale. This is their principal
residence. They’ve been there for about 35 years. They’ve raised their three kids there. The
house was pre-existing zoning. They didn’t construct it. They bought the house. It had been
there since the late 1950’s. When it came time to invest a significant amount of money in the
house, to renovate it, they decided that they weren’t going to ask for any Area Variances. We
spoke beforehand, they met with the architect, and even though there might have been some
things that they could do, propose, that would be nicer, they know that they’re on Cleverdale,
that they have a pre-existing building, and they chose not to do anything other than just to
renovate the building. I’ve submitted to you sets of the building plans which show the changes.
All on the existing foundation. On that basis, the architect and the builder were working
together to do the construction, and when it got to the point where they realized, a part of their
house, that there were structural problems, it all happened that day. The walls came down so
that they could be rebuilt, and they needed to be rebuilt for a number of reasons, which we’ll
get into in a few minutes, in terms of the State Building Code, the Energy Code, because there
are just a number of structural issues that the builder and the architect will document, but that
day the Zoning Administrator came and didn’t issue a written Stop Work Order, which is
curious, but insisted that they verbally gave them a Stop Work Order. What I want to focus you
on, to start with, just in terms of the nature of why we’re here, in terms of an appeal, there’s
nothing, no language in the Town Code that mandates this, that they could not remove these
walls, and again, this isn’t the case of somebody trying to get away with something. They had a
building permit. What they were in the process of building was exactly what the building
permit showed, and if at the end of the day, you wind up with what that shows, but you have a
structurally sound wall, there’s just no benefit, there’s no policy reason for the Town why that
wall shouldn’t be rebuilt on the existing foundation with new wood. There’s just nothing that
the Town has to gain from this kind of a, what I would consider a mean spirited interpretation.
They’re living in a boat tied to their property right now because obviously from, I’m sure
you’ve all been to the site, and that part of the house is not habitable, but what I want to start
with is, Mr. McNulty just read the language and the Staff comments, and I think this is the heart
of it. 179-13-010. What the Staff notes say is Continuation, they paraphrase, and they say,
Continuation A states that a single family dwelling may be enlarged or rebuilt if all setback
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
provisions of the Zoning Code are met, Collins proposal does not meet the requirements and
therefore cannot be rebuilt in the original location without an Area Variance. If we turn to that
language in the Code, that is not what it says. Reading from 179-13-010 it says, subject to the
provisions of this Article, a nonconforming structure or use or structure containing a
nonconforming use, which isn’t our situation, so I’ll ignore that, a nonconforming structure,
then continuing, may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair, but may not be
enlarged or extended, unless and until the exception. So it maybe continued and maintained in
reasonable repair, but may not be enlarged or extended. It doesn’t use the word “rebuilt”. It
doesn’t say that it may only be enlarged or rebuilt, which is the word that is quoted in the notes.
There is nothing that they were doing, other than continuing and maintaining. It was not an
expansion, and this Section, 13-010, talks about how you expand, what you have to do if you’re
going to do an expansion. So that Section that was cited by the Zoning Administrator to justify
the Stop Work Order I will argue doesn’t apply. It doesn’t have the word “rebuilt”, as stated in
the notes, and all they were doing was continuing and maintaining this. The part of the house
that was removed is the part that has water on both sides of it. It was water damaged over all
these years, mostly because part of it is built on a slab or next to a slab and the sill was rotted
and there were structural requirements for new headers and things that, the only, the
difference, if you agree with the Zoning Administrator, what that would mean is that you’d
have to take out each structural member. You’d take out a two by four. You’d put another two
by four in, and you’d keep some of it there while you were rebuilding it, and at the end of the
day, you’d have the exact same building that you have now, on the exact same foundation.
There’s just no benefit to interpreting that, but because this has happened, the Collins’ don’t
have a house, and basically three quarters of their house is sitting there, and all they were trying
to do was to hire and architect a builder to fix up a house that needed to be fixed up on the
exact same foundation. I also, before we leave the Code, I want to just turn your attention, this
is sort of by analogy, but if you look at dock repair, which is, in the Definitions Section it says,
normal maintenance or replacement of up to 75% of the total dock, and that’s the distinction
that I know this Board has looked at, that if you replace 100% of a dock, that’s different than if
you replace 75%. Here we’re probably talking about 15% of the house, and there’s no
analogous provision that talks about this with respect to houses, but this is just a case of
structural necessity that wasn’t going to expand the house and wasn’t going to get them any
more than what the building permit gave them the absolute right to do. So, at this point, I’d like
to introduce Bob Flansburg, and Terry Martin, and let them just tell you about the building
process and what they found and why they felt that this part of the house needed to be
replaced.
BOB FLANSBURG
MR. FLANSBURG-Good evening. For the record, I’m Bob Flansburg of Dreamscapes
Unlimited, and I did the design for the reconstruction of Pete & Tina Collins’ house. I think it’s
important to note, at the outset, when I first met with Pete & Tina about what we should do
with their house, and we discussed all of the above, you know, we should maintain the current
footprint. We shouldn’t go outside the footprint, especially on that site. It’s a very sensitive
site. It’s a very, it’s a great setting, I mean, and it’s surrounded on a couple of sides by water,
very near the lake. They were very sensitive to their neighbors, and any concerns that they
might have. So there was really, from the outset, no desire to expand on the current footprint,
given all that would entail. So, in the very forefront of the design process, my office met with
the Queensbury Building Department. We’ve worked with them on numerous occasions. I
know Dave Hatin well. I know the fellows in the office fairly well, and sat down with them and
said, here’s the project that’s before us, and we’re being hired to renovate this house on Holiday
Point, and what are we permitted to, and what aren’t we permitted to do. What are the zoning
regs and so on. So there was a height restriction of course, and Dave made it clear that you’re
allowed to stay, if you maintain the footprint, and you don’t expand the footprint, then you can
proceed with what you’re doing. So we devised a plan to meet the Collins’ needs by
maintaining and staying within the footprint, and the plans that you have before you is a
reflection of what was done. You can see, from the photograph, what the house currently looks
like, and I think of particular importance is the location of the large banks of windows. They’ve
been there for quite some time, I guess probably the better part of 30 years, or as long as you’ve
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
owned the place, that’s where they’ve always been. In the reconstruction plans, and I’d hold up
this. If you look at this elevation that’s before us here, the part that was removed, that
essentially 20 feet or so on the end, the end view would have ended up looking like this, and
this you have in your packages, but this is the north elevation of the building, and you can see
that we propose to put a bank of four windows loaded into this corner, and the reason for that
is because the family room being placed here, that’s the optimum view of the lake, and you can
really appreciate the lake that way. Their window is held into the corners, and so the point here
being that that was all approved and reviewed and a building permit was issued, and there was
not a single challenge in getting to that point. So we began construction. According to the
plans, and I think, as with any project, we got into this and as Terry will mention shortly, I
made several visits from Saratoga to the project, as he was doing the demo, and you’re
uncovering things that nobody can see until you uncover them. This was probably one of the
scarier structures we’ve been involved with, and I mean that respectfully, but it’s an old
structure, and it has evolved from camp into a home, and Pete could speak better to its
evolution then I could, but from a structural standpoint, I think on more than one occasion
Terry, when I was talking to him on the phone would say, this is interesting, there’s some
challenges here, and of course we were permitted to remove the entire roof and replace it.
That’s part of what has been issued under a building permit. That was never in question. That
roof was coming off, and that turned out to be a very good thing. We were also permitted to
put new sub flooring in the house, and in essence replace the walls that were there, and as you
can see, I think the issue, and the reason I brought up the windows earlier is that when you take
out the windows, and I don’t believe that you can see this all that well. We probably have a
larger picture, but when you take out the windows that are there, on that end wall, and you
attempt to board them up and put new windows in where they’re going to go, the case in this
end wall is there wasn’t one single stud, without exaggeration, that would remain as it existed,
and that’s just the nature of the design and what’s there. As Jon had mentioned earlier, the
portion that was indicated in the photo earlier, the, I guess it would be the east side of the
house, was built on a concrete slab, and so it became apparent as you opened the walls up and
you’re looking at the two by four studs, some of the headers were two by fours laid on the flat,
and in addition to that, the sill plates had rotted. It wasn’t pressure treated lumber, as is done
today when you put a sill on concrete, it’s pressure treated and it’s anchor bolted down. Some
of the things that we ran into, that the sill plate was beginning to rot. It was laying on the
concrete all these years, and had moisture damage. The deck was built flush with the house. So
the whole east side of the portion that was removed was rotted, and I’ll let Terry speak to that,
because he had photos of that, and so on, and I guess the remainder, at the end of the day, as we
looked at this process unfolding before us over the course of two weeks, you’ve just got to
wonder, we were trying to salvage a bathroom, a half bath, in the center of the house, because
Pete & Tina had remodeled that, in the last few years, and so this was done as a remodel, not a
rebuild, not an entirely new build, and as we got into looking at this, the floor had sagged two
inches to that bath. So when you’re standing in the corner of the proposed family room looking
across, you could see a two inch sag, and Terry and I had discussed, as we called Pete & Tina
when they were in Florida and said, this is what we’re looking at. This is what we found. I
don’t think it makes any sense for us to save this bathroom in its location, because if we level
this floor up, you’re going to have to step down two inches into that bathroom, and it’s just not
going to work. That was just some of the things that we found in this house. So the decision
became, you know, we’re permitted to do what we were permitted to do on those drawings, if
we didn’t exceed the footprint. We were permitted to take the roof off. We were permitted to
rebuild the walls, and we discussed this over the portion of two weeks, Terry and I, as the
project unfolded. So we finally agreed, you know, we don’t have any studs left, and the end
wall in particular, there’s not going to be a single stud that’s left uncut, and because that wall is
affronted with the wind that comes off the lake, in fact this is the most severe exposure category
in the Building Code, lakefront. There’s nothing there to attenuate the wind before it hits the
structure. That wall gets affronted, and there’s, the discontinuity in the studs that would
remain was a concern, from a structural aspect. So at the end of the day we said, you know, it’s
in the best interest of what we’re doing here to remove the wall, build a new one and stand it up
in the same spot, rather than try to rebuild that wall in place and so on, and part of this was,
Terry and I had discussed this on the job site, and we agreed, and in fact we said, let’s not do it
until we talk with the Town of Queensbury and we have them up to the site and we run it by
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
Dave Hatin, just to make sure that what we’re thinking we can do we can do, and so at the,
Terry had a footing inspection scheduled, and I’ll let him speak to this, for that, the next
afternoon, and I said, well, greater, rather than myself coming up from Saratoga to meet with
Dave on site, if he’s going to be here anyway, and you’re going to be here, walk him through
the building. Show him what we’re talking about doing, and the fact that the deck had been
built flush with the house and was propagating the rot. The deck had been built around three
trees, over the years, that are there. They’re integral with the deck. There’s a set of concrete
steps under there, and it just became practically impossible to lower the deck. So the thought
was, let’s raise the house eight inches on the current foundation. We’re taking the roof off.
We’re rebuilding this floor. We’re rebuilding the walls. Let’s remove the floor. Let’s raise it up
eight inches, and build it, as we intended to do on the plans. So let’s run this by the Building
Department. So, in fact, and I’ll let Terry speak to this, the Building Code Enforcement Officer
was at the site, walked through the building, and gave the indication that it was okay to
proceed. So when Monday morning came along, the contractor proceeded, and with his work,
what you see gone was in the dumpster at the end of the day. This is a good photo. This is in
process. You can see the windows that were removed, and this is prior to taking what was left
of the wall out, but this wall, had it been rebuilt in bits and pieces, would have been far less
structurally sound than if we’d built the new wall and stood it up, which is what, at the end of
the day, we would have ended up with. We would have had to reconstruct that wall. We
would have ended up with the windows in the exact same spot, and so on. In any event, at the
end of the day, this portion of the house is in the dumpster, and at 7:30 the following morning, I
was on-site with the contractor to look at the foundation to design new floor joists to keep him
moving, so he could order them, and we would have had that section rebuilt within a few days.
By the time I had returned to my office in Saratoga by 10 o’clock, I had a phone message from
Craig Brown saying stop all work, please instruct the contractor to stop all work, and I’ve got to
tell you, that’s probably one of the worst days I’ve had in my professional career, and I was
beside myself. I didn’t understand what had even happened. What are you talking about? We
had a meeting on site. We have done nothing. We have a permit to do what we’re doing. I
don’t understand, and, you know, we’re allowed to remove windows and build new ones in
totally different spots. There was nothing left of that wall. We were not exceeding the
footprint. So this is the nature. The following morning I met with Dave Hatin, Craig Brown,
and John O’Brien, who was the gentleman at the site on that afternoon, and I said, you’ve got to
help me out. I don’t understand where we went over the line, what propagated this stop work.
Can you help me? Can you point to chapter and verse? Because I have to call the client and
explain to them why we’ve got to stop work, and the response, and I think it’s a bit frustrating,
but it’s we can’t point to a chapter and verse. It’s just what we’ve always done, and so they
were unwilling to change their decision, and I respect that, but I’m still, as a professional in this
situation, at a loss. New York State Building Code is very descript. If I want to know how high
a handrail is, it’ll tell me. If I want to know that handrail returns to a wall and doesn’t end in a
blunt end, it’ll tell me that, but nowhere, and in fact the Town has told us, you have to maintain
the footprint, and that makes sense. Setbacks aren’t an issue. It’s a nonconforming structure.
It’s standing exactly where it’s always stood, but when you can’t point to that provision, and it’s
okay to take down ten foot of a wall, but it’s not okay to take down twenty feet or in this
situation, perhaps the end wall in its entirety, I think the frustration is, how do you know that?
Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Terry?
TERRY MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was introduced to Pete & Tina Collins through Bob Flansburg. My name
is Terry Martin. I’m a builder from Schroon Lake, and he showed me the scope of the project,
and I met with Pete & Tina, and preliminarily, to go over the project, and the thing that Pete
told me, a number of times, is to make sure that everything is done neatly. He didn’t want any
disturbance of the neighbors. He was, that was important to him. We wouldn’t start early,
leave late, and he also said that he would like to get enough of it done that in June, when it’s
busy, people would be coming and going, and we would pull off the job. So, we began the
project. We started, the first thing we tore down was this huge chimney in the middle of the
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
house, fireplace chimney. When we took that down, we noticed that there were holes in the
roof, leaks, there were different situations that we noticed were problems, and I kept in contact
with Bob Flansburg to alert him of some of the things that were taking place, and by the photos,
you’ll see that I braced the building, after we took the chimney off, because of, just the way the
structure was, and the way I proceeded to not be braceful enough without the chimney. We
proceeded to continue to tear things out, and the more we tore out, the more we discovered,
and like I said, I kept Bob alert. I alerted Bob to different situations that came up, and wanted
his input into it. I’ve never worked in Queensbury before. So, you know, these regulations, you
know, I’ve been working in the field for 34 years. So, the building is new, but, anyway, I
wanted to keep him abreast. We put, we kept everything as neat as possible, per Pete’s request.
We tried to keep everything, vehicles out of the driveway and so on, but anyway, when we tore
the building down, we noticed a lot of things that were in desperate need. One of them was the
deck that’s built a couple of inches above. In one area is was even with the floor. In another
area it was up above, water poured in, and there’s pictures here that show the rot on the sill,
and one of the walls, and the area was totally in need of being replaced. As far as the Energy
Code, it was two by four walls. There were just a number of things. It was on a slab, and on a
concrete slab, the back part that was rotted, and we had proposed to, when Bob and I talked
about it, to raise it up so we were able to put more insulation or insulation, better insulation in.
We also, Bob alluded to the fact that we put a footing in, and when I went to get a small footing
that we had to dig, and when we did, I talked to the Building Inspector, as Bob and I had
discussed, to alert him, after our discussion, Bob and my discussion, about the interior. I
walked him through, explained the situation. I showed him the situation, and I interpreted
what he said to mean to go ahead, and to continue with what you’re doing. I told him that I
was going to let Bob know. He said he was going to some fellow that I didn’t know, and I was
going to talk to Bob and let him submit the proposed drawings, and so we went ahead and tore
it down, and like Bob said, shortly after we had it torn down, I believe it was Craig Brown came
around and said that we couldn’t continue, but by that time, it was in the position that it was in
now. That took a day or so.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Terry.
MR. STONE-Let me just make a comment. We are dealing with a very narrow issue, as you
know very well, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And I have kind of bent over backwards to let you establish that, in fact, the house
was in very bad shape, and I certainly will stipulate, I think we all can agree the house was in
bad shape. Mr. Frank isn’t here. I wonder, was there anything ever in writing from Craig
Brown, a determination that we can talk to?
MR. LAPPER-No. We actually requested in writing, before we made the Appeal, we wanted to
see what they were citing, and the first time that I’ve seen anything is the Staff notes. That’s the
only thing that’s been put in writing is the Staff notes that I’m saying that I read you incorrectly
characterized that Section of the Code. So there’s been nothing in writing. The only other thing
I wanted to hand out, on the issue of the condition, is just a section of the new State Fire and
Building Code that says, this is the Property Maintenance Code which is a portion of the
Building Code, and it says structural members, all structural members shall be maintained
structurally sound and be capable of supporting the proposed loads, which should surprise
anybody, but that’s the reason why, when they were dealing with the wall that came down, that
gets all the wind and the water, that they had to take that down, and I just want to submit this,
to put it in the record, a copy of this.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just confirm. Mr. Frank, I asked the question, in your absence, was
there anything in writing concerning this determination, prior to Staff notes? Was there a
written determination, for example, last time we talked about an Appeal, we were dealing with
a written determination. Was there any?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. I believe, actually I think Stefanie Bitter had given me a call and
wanted to know if anything written was provided, and when I put that to the Zoning
Administrator, he told me no because they complied when I directed them to stop work. So I
believe that, I’m not aware of anything written being provided.
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly what transpired.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I jump in for a second?
MR. STONE-Sure, please, go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Later on I have five specific questions, but there’s a greater issue here. We have
had a number of applicants come before this Board on an Appeal based on a conflict of
information between the Building Department and the Zoning Administrator. In effect, what’s
happening, because of this confrontation, the applicants are no longer applicants. They’re
becoming victims. Something has to be done. There has to be greater communication between
the building folks and the Zoning Administrator and when these determinations are made, it
should be reduced to writing. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Allan, go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-When you, this is directed towards the builder, okay. When you determined
that there was some structural issues with the walls, did economics play into the decision
making process, as far as, was it less expensive to tear down the wall than to try to repair it? Is
that a?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, I’ll address that. I think, in hindsight, it always makes sense, and given
that situation, I would have to say, in particular the wall where you’re looking at windows that
you’re closing up and putting some back, in different locations, there’s some of that. That’s not
true in large for the portion that was removed because in the, the issues that we were faced with
on this particular corner and this particular situation is that there wouldn’t be one continuous
stud. You can’t replace a stud without interrupting a top plate, at least in this situation. To put
it bluntly, it would have been a comp job to end all comp jobs.
MR. BRYANT-You answered the question, or at least Mr. Lapper answered the question for
you. He’s good at that. Let me understand exactly what you’re doing on the building, because
you made some comments, during your presentation, specifically. You talk about replacing the
roof, because there were holes in the roof, and leaks after you removed the chimney. Then you
talked about the walls and you were going to change the windows on one side. That’s all part
of the building permit, and the interior bathroom and so forth and so on, and then you’re going
to raise the building eight inches, because now you’re ripping the foundation, whatever you’re
doing to the foundation. So you’re going to raise the building eight inches.
MR. LAPPER-Just a little corner of it. Just a corner was going to be raised.
MR. BRYANT-That whole corner, and how is that going to interact with the rest of the
building?
MR. LAPPER-Just where there was water damage, so that the water wouldn’t come on the sill,
so that there’d be a little bit of a joist to protect it from the sill. That was just on a corner.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re basically building this part of it on the original footprint of the old
building, right?
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-Here’s a picture of the foundation that’s there now that would stay.
MR. BRYANT-What about the rest of the building?
MR. FLANSBURG-Our intent, Mr. Bryant, was, the portion that Pete & Tina lived in, if we
raised, once a decision is made to raise that floor eight inches to eliminate future rot, and also to
provide anchor bolts, by the way. There was no anchor bolts holding this down, which violates
the, the Building Code calls for anchor bolts, you know, to anchor a house to a foundation,
every six feet. As it was determined, there’s nothing holding this house on the foundation. So,
all of these factors, you know, we were talking about this earlier, when you do this day in and
day out, you look at a structure, and you say, okay, this should be done in such a way, but in
reality, it’s the anchor bolts, it’s all these little things that play in to it. So to answer your
question, that’s going to stay, but if we raise the floor eight inches, we would follow suit in the
portion that Pete & Tina would be living in.
MR. BRYANT-When you say raise the floor, you’re not referring, you’re just talking about the
positioning of the floor, you’re not talking about the walls? You’re not, the building’s not going
to be eight inches higher? You’re just raising the interior of the floors.
MR. FLANSBURG-No, that’s not true. We would raise the foundation wall, and everything
that sits on it eight inches.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the whole building.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So in essence what you’re saying is, you’re going to raise the whole building
eight inches. You’ve torn down this wall that you’re replacing. You’re going to change the
roof. What are you going to do the other side, a bunch of windows?
MR. FLANSBURG-The permit drawings, what’s approved for us to do, and that’s our intent,
would be just to cosmetically address.
MR. BRYANT-We don’t have the drawings.
MR. FLANSBURG-Sets of drawings.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, yes, I do have them.
MR. STONE-No, I think we’re getting a feel. In all respects to Al’s question, the question before
us is the very narrow question, was the Zoning Administrator correct in interpreting the Code,
as far as 179-13-010 Continuation Section A. Mr. Flansburg, you kept referring to footprint.
Nowhere in the Town of Queensbury Code do we define footprint. We have always said,
proudly I think, that we don’t have a footprint provision in the Queensbury Code. Now, Mr.
Lapper, you’re saying it’s confusing because we don’t, and, okay, but our question, and I’m
only troubled by the fact that we don’t have a written determination. I don’t consider Staff
notes, written a few days ago, as the determination from the Zoning Administrator the day that
you stopped work, but that’s the narrow issue that we have to talk about, and I think we talked,
and we certainly established that what you did, from a construction standpoint, from an
architectural standpoint, a building standpoint, was the, quote, only thing to do. I mean, I’ll
agree, it certainly sounds that way, but the point is, was the stoppage. Right, go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Let me address where you did and did not violate. Question. Did you remove
the structure? That’s a question.
MR. LAPPER-Not all of the structure. A portion of the structure.
MR. ABBATE-You did not remove all of the structure?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-Here’s what’s remaining right there. That’s what’s there, with the end missing.
MR. MC NULTY-If you use the figures that are in the Staff notes, they removed 28%.
MR. ABBATE-Twenty-eight percent of the structure. Would that be accurate?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that sounds about right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. FLANSBURG-I think it’s too high.
MR. MARTIN-I think it’s less than that.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, I think it’s closer to 15%.
MR. MC NULTY-The Staff notes say that you’re proposing construction of 702.5 square feet,
and elsewhere, where did I get it here, somewhere else I found, they were calling the original
structure 2,535 square feet.
MR. STONE-That’s Staff notes for the next issue.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the next issue.
MR. MC NULTY-I was working on the same thing that Mr. Lapper was at the time he
mentioned the percentage of dock repair that’s allowed, and that’s where I was headed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have question number two, Mr. Lapper, if you’re ready.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-You’re ready. Okay. Did your client enlarge or extend the structure?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Question Number Three. Did you meet all the setback provisions of
the Zoning Code?
MR. LAPPER-No, because it was a prior none conforming, before zoning.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Number Four, you met, you claim, or your representatives met, you claim,
with the Building Inspector and several other individuals. Is that correct? And during that
particular time, you spelled out what you intended to do, is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that I have to explain. They met with Dave Hatin before, when they
presented the plans for the building permit, to explain why it wouldn’t need a variance, and
that was approved without needing a variance. Dave Hatin gave them a building permit.
There’s probably some disagreement as to what the meaning of the meeting on the site was.
These guys, or Terry showed John O’Brien where it was rotted and what he planned to do. I
mean, I think John O’Brien was probably looking at it from a building standpoint, in terms of
structural members, not from a zoning standpoint, but, I mean, we’re still saying that the Code
doesn’t tell you that you can’t replace rotted wood anyway. Because, you know, we’re not
expanding it.
MR. ABBATE-Was there any, when you presented your plans to the Building Inspector and
whoever else was there, was there any dispute as to what you intended to do?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-You mean on the on-site meeting the day that?
MR. MARTIN-No. He gave no indication. The only thing that he even said was eight inches,
and he looked, I don’t think that’ll be a problem.
MR. ABBATE-Anybody throw their hands up in the air and say, no, no you can’t do this based
upon this, and this and this? Were any specific regulations cited to you?
MR. MARTIN-If he would have indicated, if he would have even had no in the conversation, I
would have never, ever even gone ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Then let me ask you a question. Was there a no during this conversation?
MR. MARTIN-There was no noes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me go on to the next question.
MR. BRYANT-Before you do, can I extrapolate on that question? I just want to understand.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead, please.
MR. BRYANT-It’s very difficult, first of all, to ask you questions about what somebody else
said.
MR. MARTIN-That’s true.
MR. BRYANT-He’s not here, okay, and there’s nothing in writing, but, during that
conversation, did you indicate to Mr. Brown that you were going to remove the wall at all, or
you hadn’t discovered?
MR. MARTIN-It wasn’t Mr. Brown. It was Mr. O’Brien.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Brien.
MR. STONE-The Building Inspector, the Building Department.
MR. BRYANT-Did you say you were going to remove the wall?
MR. MARTIN-I indicated the situation that we had, that we were going to basically, in my
recollection, that we were going to remove it. We were going to raise the deck eight inches on
the foundation because of, and I showed him the deck and the rot in the back.
MR. STONE-Okay, but we are getting off the issue. Apologies to everybody. I mean, the thing
is, are we prepared to say that the Zoning Administrator was correct in his determination?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but here’s my final question, which leads up to this. I’d like you to show me
correspondence from the Zoning Administrator spelling out the zoning regulations that you
folks have violated. Do you have that?
MR. LAPPER-The only thing I can show you, but that’s exactly consistent with what’s been
going on, is the Staff notes, and it’s a mischaracterization of what 179-13-010 says, and I’ve got,
you’ve got that in front of you, and I know that the Chairman had the Zoning Code, I read it,
but you can turn to that language, and it doesn’t say that you can’t rebuild it. It says that you
can’t enlarge it.
MR. STONE-The only question I would ask is what’s the definition of extend?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. URRICO-Could I just say something, Mr. Lapper. It says Continuation A, A does say
single family dwelling or mobile home may be enlarged or rebuilt as follows.
MR. LAPPER-But you don’t get to, if you look at the, you’re right about that, but if you look at
the paragraph before that, you don’t get to A, unless, it says may be continued and maintained
in reasonable repair, but may not be enlarged or extended, and the A through F is what you do
if you want to enlarge or extend.
MR. URRICO-You’re right about that. That wording is under A.
MR. ABBATE-So I guess, Mr. Chairman, my question is how can we determine if the Zoning
Administrator is in error, if we don’t have anything in writing from the Zoning Administrator?
MR. STONE-That’s where I was going.
MR. ABBATE-I mean, there’s something radically wrong here. There’s something radically
wrong with a lot of the Appeals that are coming before us.
MR. LAPPER-But the question is, is it okay for them, if they have a building permit, which is a
unique situation.
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’re going to get to that, Counsel. Don’t get hyper.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Could I interject something? Was there a request for a written determination by
the applicant or the applicant’s agent?
MR. LAPPER-I think the only request was when Stefanie called you to ask if there was one,
because we were preparing the Appeal at that point.
MR. FRANK-I did bring it to his attention at that time. He said I didn’t issue a written
determination because I requested them to stop work and they stopped work. I believe his
policy is you have to request a written determination, and I think you have to request it in
writing, and then he’ll make a determination. So, again.
MR. LAPPER-That’s an unusual position to take when someone’s told to stop work, and won’t
give you the reason unless you ask please.
MR. STONE-Let me just make a statement that I should have made earlier. Mr. Brown is not
here. He is available within five or ten minutes, if we wanted to talk with him, but where we’re
going, I’m not sure it’s necessary. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Is it really necessary to have it in writing? I mean, what we have to do is
determine whether the Code that was quoted, whether that was, his interpretation was right or
not.
MR. STONE-Yes, and no. I understand what you’re saying, but the point is they stopped work
on a particular day because a verbal comment was stop work. Now, Mr. Lapper or Mr. Frank is
saying that it would have been better on the architect’s and the builder’s job to say, in writing, I
guess, we want you on record as saying this. It would have made our job easier, but the point
is, we have no record. We have something that was stopped because these gentlemen thought
they better do it because the Zoning Administrator said this, and they’re now saying, did he say
it in error, and that’s the only thing we have.
MR. BRYANT-Let’s look at the other side. We have a couple of Board members saying, he
didn’t issue a stop work order, he didn’t give you a written determination. My question to the
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
builder is, why would you stop work without a written Stop Work? I mean, you know,
somebody says stop work.
MR. LAPPER-Well, because the Zoning Administrator shows up on the site and tells you to
stop work, you call the lawyer, and we called the Zoning Administrator.
MR. BRYANT-And it was your advice to tell him to stop work without some kind of written?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because we’re not trying to violate the rules, the procedures. Absolutely.
MR. MARTIN-That’s why I asked, Bob and I, when we were going to deviate from our original,
because of what we saw, we were going to change, make a few changes, we talked and Bob
recommended to me, when he knew I was going to get the Building Inspector out there, to walk
him through, I had to specifically take him around the building. I didn’t have to do that, but
Bob and I recommended that we do it. I walked John O’Brien, he was there specifically to check
footings. I said, John, could you come around and take a look at something, and this is what we
propose, and I walked him through. I showed him the situation that was there, and, like I said,
I had no indication from him that I was to cease and desist until he got back to me. So we
proceeded, and then the next day we were just cleaning up the mess, and there was Craig
Brown came with a camera. He said we’ve had a call in. You can’t continue work. We said
okay, until this thing is straightened around.
MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s where we are right now.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and so it was never our intent to try to pull a fast one on anyone.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Because I’m going to open a public hearing, but with
very detailed instructions to anybody who comes forward. Are we all done for the moment?
All right. I’m going to open a public hearing, and I want everybody to come up here, at the
threat of being silenced, to talk only to the Appeal thing. This is not, I’m not being prejudicial
when I say this. This is an Appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator that once
having taken down this building, that work must stop until variance was sought. I won’t even
say was obtained. Certainly obtained would be the next step, but that was sought. Bruce, am I
sure that you’re happy with what I just said? That we’re talking, I want people to talk about the
decision, quote unquote, made by the Zoning Administrator, not the fact that it had to come
down. Not that the Collins are nice people. Not that the house is wonderful. I don’t really
care.
MR. FRANK-I agree. That’s what you’re reviewing now, the Appeal of the decision.
MR. STONE-Okay. So I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak, within
the framework that I described, talking about the Appeal only. Not about the possible variance
that may come next, and the result of this, if we say, and I’ll make it very clear, if we say that the
Zoning Administrator is wrong, I assume building can recommence, on the, quote, footprint,
per the building permit.
MR. FRANK-Are you looking for an answer from me?
MR. STONE-Yes, I am looking for an answer.
MR. FRANK-I don’t think I can answer that question. I think you’d have to ask that to either
the Director of Building and Codes and the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STONE-Well, what are we here for, if you can’t answer that question? Because if the
Zoning Administrator is correct, we know we have to go into a variance hearing. If we say he’s
wrong, that means we don’t have to go into a variance hearing and therefore building can
continue. That’s what I’m going to say.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-I believe that’s logical, what you’re stating.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’m saying.
MR. FRANK-Maybe I should call the Zoning Administrator and have him get here, if you
request that.
MR. STONE-If you want to do that, fine, you may do that.
MR. FRANK-Would you prefer that, or does anybody prefer that? Because he made that offer,
if anybody requested, he would come here.
MR. STONE-I mean, it seems very logical and clear to me that we have two items on the
agenda. We have the Appeal, and the second item is on the agenda, if we agree with the
Zoning Administrator. It wouldn’t be there if we say the Zoning Administrator is wrong.
That’s my interpretation, and I’m going to stick to it.
MR. ABBATE-I think the Chairman is right. This whole administrative procedure on this, it’s
all wrong. It’s all wrong.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’re going to go. Anybody wishing to speak per my requirements?
And I hope nobody is thinking that I’m being prejudice one way or the other. I’m merely
saying this is a very narrow issue, and every time we have one of these Appeals, it is very
difficult. Anybody who was here last Wednesday would know that. This is a very narrow
issue. Mr. Salvador?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. Firstly, this Board has subpoena
powers, and you can subpoena Mr. Brown here any time you want to. Secondly, it seems to me
the most expeditious thing to do is to agree with Mr. Brown and proceed with this Area
Variance. It’s simply a minimum shoreline setback, and those are not hard to obtain. Thank
you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else? Any correspondence, on this subject?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve looked through this. There are five or six letters here. For the most part
they, I believe, in essence, say they support continuing with work on the place. There’s also a
petition with 27 signatures that basically says the same thing. Part of thing says we’re in favor
of continuation of the project as was approved by the Building Department in February. I do
have one letter here from a Steven and Catherine Schonwetter, at 15 Holiday Point Road, and
they’ve got a couple, I think this one I probably ought to read in. I’m not sure it’s totally
germane, but they say “We are direct neighbors of Peter and Christina Collins. We have owned
this property at 15 Holiday Point since 1997. We would like to see the Collins family renovate
their home and bring the site to the standards of the surrounding homes. However, we have
concerns that we would like to bring up. 1) The septic system should meet the current
standards of the Town of Queensbury. It is very important to us that all the homes on Lake
George have adequate septic systems to protect our drinking water. Their septic should be
evaluated and upgraded if necessary to meet these standards. 2) The Collins home has recently
been converted from a single family dwelling to a duplex. There are now 2 separate entrances
and 2 separate living areas and 2 separate kitchens in the home. We do enjoy both families that
are occupying the home, but we are concerned about what will happen in the future. The
project that Pete Collins is proposing updates one side of the house, but the plans did not show
the entire house. We hope the Town of Queensbury looks at the entire house when considering
this site. We are concerned that this duplex situation taxes the existing septic and could be sold
in the future as 2 units, which could dis-enhance property values of surrounding homes. Thank
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
you for your attention to our concerns. Respectfully, Steven and Catherine Schonwetter 15
Holiday Point Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. STONE-Thank you. I think that’s, I would interpret that being more for the variance. If
you want to comment, I’ll give you a couple of minutes, but I’d just as soon not comment.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that any of those issues are relevant.
MR. STONE-Right. Well, no, that’s a different statement.
MR. LAPPER-They’re taxed as a, they’re assessed as a two family residence. It was like that
before they bought it. That’s not an issue before the Board. I want to comment on.
MR. STONE-Well, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Wait a minute. Let me ask the Board. Are you happy with Chuck’s
summary of what he believes is in there?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think it’s accurate.
MR. MC NULTY-I think if we get to the variance part, then we probably should read the entire
set.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I want to just respond to what Mr. Salvador said, and I agree that, I mean, I think
that we have a very good argument for an Area Variance under the circumstances that, if we
have to get to, of course we’ll get to. There’s a very small building envelope. What concerns me
about the Area Variance is two fold. There’s nothing in the Code. I mean, my main simple
argument is that the language in the Code doesn’t say that you can’t repair what’s there, that
you can’t replace what’s there. We didn’t expand the foundation, and if the intent of the Town
is to say that you can’t remove a wall or replace it after you have a building permit, which is a
very unique case, when you have a building permit. Then the Code should be amended to
specifically state that, but based upon what’s there, there was nothing saying that they couldn’t
make the walls structurally sound because you get the exact same building that they got
approved in the building permit, and that’s my simple argument, but in terms of the Variance,
even though, obviously, I think we have a good argument, good case for the Variance, what
concerns me, as this Board has recently been made aware of, the Adirondack Park Agency Act
wasn’t changed when Town Law was changed. So they don’t have the benefit, the balancing of
the benefit and the burden test. A variance, under the APA, is based upon the old practical
difficulty standard. So if we go through that, and then they have the right to review within 30
days, any variances granted by the Zoning Board when it’s in the Park. So I think we can
establish the practical difficulty standard also, based upon the pre-existing configuration, nature
of the lot, but it’s just that to go through it, we have to do that as well, to make sure that if the
APA looks at it in 30 days, they’re not going to overturn because they say that you didn’t apply
the right standard to variances that are in the Adirondack Park. I’d rather not go there for that
procedural reason, and also because I think that, on our application, that there was nothing that
justifies the Zoning Administrator saying that they couldn’t replace the wall, but obviously
that’s a decision for you, but before you make that decision, Pete would like to address you.
PETER COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-You’ve heard what’s happened to my home. You’ve heard what’s happened to
my property. My name is Peter Collins. I’m the occupant of 17 Holiday Point Road. You’ve
heard what’s happened to my home and my property. I’d like you to hear what’s happened to
me. We realize that our home was so close to the lake it would be difficult to get a variance, and
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
did the renovation plans accordingly. We complied to the Building Codes, kept within the
footprint of our existing home, kept the roof considerably lower than the Code permits, and
plan to do nothing that would require a variance. We emphasize to our architect and our
builder the necessity to comply with the zoning and building laws. If our building permit was
not approved in the first place, we could have modified the plans to conform or simply done
nothing at all, if it was outside our ability to finance it. At least we would still have a home to
live in. We were out of the area at the time the structural deficiencies were discovered, and the
discussions occurred between the contractor, architect and the building inspector. We were
convinced that our architect had obtained proper approvals from the Building Department, or
we never would have allowed the walls of our home to be removed. We discussed, many
times, with the architect and builder, than any changes from our approved plans had to be
approved by the Town of Queensbury. Now we have ended up in the worst possible situation.
Our home is torn down. We can’t live in our home. To continue building our home, we are
belatedly being required to get a variance. We knew before we started a variance would be
difficult to get, and possibly prohibitively expensive for us. A Stop Work Order alone has
already extensively penalized us. We will be unable to complete the construction in time to live
in our home this year. We have experienced extensive costs to close up and protect the
remaining portion of our home after the work stoppage. Additional legal and architectural fees
have already run into several thousand dollars. We are begging and pleading with the
members of the Zoning Board to realize that whatever happened here, it definitely was not our
intention to violate or get around the zoning codes. In fact, we felt certain we were in
compliance, as that had been our goal from the start. We are desperately hoping that common
sense will prevail, and you will allow our home to be built in compliance with the building
permit that has already been issued.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Ready to talk about? Let’s start with Chuck Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Collins, I’m convinced that you and your wife
are here in good faith. There’s no question at all. You’re right. Commonsense. You couple that
with a balancing act, and we, indeed, should take into consideration all of the circumstances
that are surrounding the fact that you have become victims, and are being forced to live in a
boat. You were victims because the administration was inappropriate. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. STONE-How would you vote on this?
MR. ABBATE-I’d vote to state that the Zoning Administrator is in error.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Al?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’d like to speak just to the issue at hand, and that’s this determination by
the Zoning Administrator. You’re correct, Mr. Lapper. There are a lot of things that are not in
the Code. A lot of wording that’s ambiguous, and that’s why we’re here, I guess, but from my
standpoint, when they talk about maintain in reasonable repair, in my view it doesn’t mean,
you know, lift the building eight inches, tear down the walls, and so forth and so on. We have
variances like this, on nonconforming lots, where houses are built on the same footprint. This is
an every day thing for us, and I know that you have other administrative issues, but that’s
really not for us to deal with. In my mind, I’d have to agree with the Zoning Administrator that
removal is not necessarily normal maintenance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I believe there are certain safety valve aspects included in zoning laws,
specifically so that the applicant is not, the straightjacket is not put around the applicant, in
order to try to preserve what we have as a Code, and the reason it’s there is so that hardships
are not unnecessarily created, and I think in this case one was, and I would be in favor of the
appellant appealing the determination.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, when I first looked at this, my inclination initially was to say, well, we’ll
deny the Appeal and probably approve the Variance, but having listened to this and looked at
the various aspects, and started on a couple of things that the applicant’s attorney brought up
right after I started on them here, lacking the specific wording in the Code, I’ve got to go back to
partly my understanding of the standard practice, and maybe back partly to a question that Al
Bryant asked. I’m not sure if he got the total answer or not, but the way I’m looking at this is
there’s 28% of this building that was torn down, if you will. Using the same logic that the
applicant’s attorney suggested, the only guide we’ve got is what the criteria is for
repairing/replacing a dock. If you go up to 75%, it’s repair. If you go over that, it’s
replacement. Applying that logic to this, it strikes me this is repair. Certainly if you look at the
part that was torn down, if that was all torn down, you could say, you need a variance, but
that’s not the entire building. It’s only a portion of the building. A question that Mr. Bryant, I
think, was at least from my view starting to get at is, what are you going to do with the rest of
the building? When you replace this, are you then going to tear the other part of the building
down? Now, if the answer is no, you don’t expect to have to do that. Then it strikes me that
this is repair and not replacement.
MR. LAPPER-Because this is where the water damage was, on this corner of the house.
MR. MC NULTY-That being the case, I would vote against the Zoning Administrator and
support the applicant.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, when I heard Mr. Salvador’s suggestion, I thought it was a good idea, but I
have changed my mind. It might be expedient, but I don’t think it’s fair to the applicant, and
even Staff notes talk about removal of a structure. Well, I don’t know that a wall is a structure,
and I would certainly be in favor of the applicant. I think that they have been ill-treated. I
would vote yes.
MR. STONE-You would vote?
MRS. HUNT-For the appellant.
MR. STONE-For the appellant. Okay. I would echo Mr. Abbate. I wish we didn’t have these
things. The Zoning Code, we thought, was a very good one when we revised it a couple of
years ago, but, like all living documents, we find defects as it gets older, and we get smarter,
and new information comes in, and while I’m a very big supporter of the no footprint rule,
because I think it gives us an opportunity, in Queensbury, to repair some nonconformities, and
certainly the nonconformity on this property is large, visa vie our Code, but as has been pointed
out, it’s been there a long time, and the fact that nature worked its wonders on this piece of
property, and rendered it difficult to live in, not impossible, but difficult to live in. I tend to go
with the majority of the Board and say, in this particular case, because of some of the things Mr.
McNulty said, the size of this thing, the logic, if you will, if you try to put a window in and the
window caused the old two by four to fall, that’s maybe an act of nature, and we will go back to
the act of nature that is in our Code. So I would also agree that, in this particular case, that the
Appeal is valid, and having said that, I need a motion to say that, and at the same time, in this
motion, if you would, put in the fact that it is the interpretation, or the ruling of the Chairman,
that this negates the need for the subsequent Variance, 33-2004. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-I knew that was coming. I’m writing all kinds of notes here as it’s coming, I see
it. Okay, Mr. Chairman, fine.
MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2004 PETER & CHRISTINA
COLLINS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
17 Holiday Point Road. I base our support of the Appeal on a number of things. Number One,
the fact that the applicant did not remove the structure. Two, the applicant did not enlarge or
extend the structure. Three, that they did meet, in good faith, with the building inspectors and
several other individuals, and, Four, Mr. Chairman, that the Zoning Administrator was non-
specific. Add to that the fact that your interpretation of the ruling by you as the Chairman, is
indeed correct. It seems to me that, this approval will, indeed, negate the requirement for the
applicant to submit the Area Variance 33-2004.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question, for clarity?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Are you agreeing with the appellant because the structure was not taken down in
its entirety?
MR. STONE-That was one of the concerns.
MR. FRANK-Is that what the main reason? I just want to get that clear.
MR. STONE-That was one. That it also was a repair. As they were working, they realized that
certain structures, certain materials in there would not support the renovations. How’s that
sound?
MR. FRANK-Okay, because the Section of the Code, Sub Section A, where it says a single family
dwelling or mobile home may be enlarged or rebuilt as follows. The rebuilt, do you think that
means the entire structure?
MR. STONE-No. Partially. I think we said the limited amount that was torn down.
MR. ABBATE-I wouldn’t go any further explaining our position, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-No, no. I said I wouldn’t go any further justifying our position.
MR. STONE-I know there are a lot of people in the room who came, I assume, in support of Mr.
Collins and there may be some people who came to talk against the variance. I appreciate you
coming. I appreciate you taking part in Town of Queensbury activities. I applaud you for
being here, and thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II WOLFRAM SCHILLE OWNER:
WOLFRAM SCHILLE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 382 CLEVERDALE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF A 2,127 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, WHICH INCLUDES REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN ORDER
TO DOWNSIZE THE HOME TO 1,802 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 414
SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO, FRONT, SIDE SHORELINE, AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. WARREN
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
COUNTY PLANNING: 5/12/2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-58 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-13-010(A1, B AND E)
WOLFRAM SCHILLE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2004, Wolfram Schille, Meeting Date: May 19, 2004
“Project Location: 382 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
to renovate a 2,127 sq. ft. single-family dwelling (with no garage), part of which includes
eliminating one of the existing five bedrooms. The proposed dwelling would be 1,802 sq. ft.
with a 414 sq. ft. garage.
Relief Required:
1) 5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement, per §179-4-070 (southeast corner).
2) 23.9 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement, (proposed
garage).
3) 6.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement, (southeast corner).
4) 3.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement, (northwest corner
of proposed garage).
5) 14.3 % of relief from the 22% maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement.
(Relief 1-5 per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone).
6) Relief from the Continuation requirements, per §179-13-010(A1, B and E).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None found.
Staff comments:
The applicant while reconstructing the interior of the dwelling was directed by the Director of
Building and Codes (Dave Hatin) to apply for a building permit for the replacement of a
portion of the east facing exterior wall. The portion rebuilt includes an extra 26 sq. ft.
(approximately) of living area at the southeast section of the dwelling that did not exist prior to
the interior reconstruction work. The new construction was determined to be within the
shoreline and south side setback area. The owner was directed to apply for an area variance.
The additional relief requested is for the other proposed construction. Overall, the applicant is
proposing to increase the site permeability to a compliant 70% (currently 58%), and to decrease
the number of bedrooms from five to four. The current FAR is 34.9%. The proposed FAR is
36.3%; however, the proposed total is only 29.6% not counting the 414 sq. ft. garage proposed
(actual living space is proposed to be decreased by 325 sq. ft. or 5.3% of the FAR).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12,
2004 Project Name: Schille, Wolfram Owner: Wolfram Schille ID Number: QBY-AV-04-34
County Project#: May04-37 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes renovation of a 2,127 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which
includes reducing the number of bedrooms in order to downsize the home to 1,802 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling with a 414 sq. ft. attached garage. Relief is requested from the floor area ratio,
front, side, shoreline, and continuation requirements. Site Location: 382 Cleverdale Road Tax
Map Number(s): 226.12-1-58 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes several
alterations to an existing non-conforming dwelling. A portion of the existing dwelling will be
converted into a garage where the front setback is 6.1 ft. and 30 ft. is required. The side setbacks
are proposed to be 8.5 ft. and 11.5 ft. where 15 ft. is required. The alterations also involve the
shoreline part of the home that is to be located 45 ft. from the shore where 50 ft. is required. The
information submitted indicates the existing living floor area is 2,126.87 sq. ft. and the proposed
is 2,215.00 sq. ft. 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” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 5/17/04.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. SCHILLE-I’m Wolf Schille. I’m the builder and the owner of the property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us?
MR. SCHILLE-No. I think everything’s been said. Incidentally, it happened in a similar form as
Collins. I did not get a permit, and I started inside replacing what (lost word) already, and it
came to a point of almost falling in itself, and I think I was stopped by Dave. He said since I
had added, by removing the beam on the (lost words) which was, and the house basically on
rocks. So I put cement columns (lost word) go by the Codes and everything else, and I had to
extend that one corner, which meant, indirectly, I added 25 or 26 square feet on that one corner
of the house facing the lake. So he said, under the circumstances, we definitely need a permit
and a variance. Of course I stopped immediately. Sent the workers home. That was six months
ago. I’m retired. It’s not necessarily a burden, except I have built in four different states, houses
in, or repaired houses, done houses over, in four different states. I’ve owned three. This is the
third one in Cleverdale, since I’ve been here 28 years, and it seems to be the only time I’ve had a
problem is in Cleverdale. Not in New York. Not in Florida. Not in Pennsylvania. Not in the
State of Maine.
MR. STONE-But you do understand the limitations on the properties in Cleverdale.
MR. SCHILLE-I do know, and I know I should have thought of getting the permit, but since I
wasn’t going to change anything. Now I did make the proposal, and hope that I can take the
back off, to make it smaller. So this 25 feet would obviously disappear. I think there’s a
mistake. I’m going to three bedrooms, not to five.
MR. STONE-We’ll get it right. You’re going from five to three?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SCHILLE-It said in the other one, I think. Somehow it got changed, but the drawings all
indicate that. You have all drawings of the house and layout and everything on it. Of course I
had to go to the resurveying. There was a lot of cost, but.
MR. STONE-Just for the record, you own the property to the north?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s where you live?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Fortunately that one’s still standing.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, but unfortunately I had a permit at one time there, too, on the cottage, and
was stopped after I had finished, actually, 99.9% finished, and then I was told at that time, also,
I think there’s too many cubic feet.
MR. STONE-You have a perfect record in Cleverdale.
MR. SCHILLE-I wasn’t going to make the same mistake. So I got in trouble again.
MR. STONE-Okay. Questions of Mr. Schille?
MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions. I just want to review the various reliefs. The lake,
the shoreline setback requirement you say now is three? Is that what you’re saying?
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-No, that’s five. It’s the bedrooms.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. SCHILLE-No, no, no. I’m using the whole area.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s existing. You’re not changing anything there, right?
MR. SCHILLE-I don’t change any of the blueprints.
MR. BRYANT-On the second item, the 23.9 feet from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement, that’s actually where the garage is. Is that correct? Where are we talking about?
MR. SCHILLE-No, the 23 feet on the lakeside.
MR. STONE-Which one of these is what you’re proposing?
MR. SCHILLE-It should be written on it.
MR. STONE-Where is the house going to be?
MR. SCHILLE-The house is (lost words). The only corner which got extended which I need.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Schille, do me a favor, let him look at that chart, please.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to know where the reliefs are, what is an existing condition and what
is a new condition. Okay. So you have, Lake George, okay. So this is the 23 feet here. Right?
MR. SCHILLE-No, no, no, no. Yes. Here. The 23 feet.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s the 23 feet. So where’s the, to the setback, five foot relief from the 50
foot minimum shoreline setback. Where is that?
MR. SCHILLE-That would be on (lost words) corner. This is supposed to be 15 feet here. It’s
8.5.
MR. BRYANT-So now the 6.5 feet of relief from the 15 foot, that’s new? Yes, because the garage
is going there.
MR. SCHILLE-The garage is going there, and it’s now 6.2, and I think it’s going to be.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the garage. That’s affected by the garage. The 3.5 foot relief from the side
setback, 15 feet. That’s the garage, too.
MR. FRANK-The northwest corner of the proposed garage, and that’s right there. That’s
proposed.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So, Item Number One and Two are existing conditions. Item Number
Three and Four directly relate to that garage. That’s all I want to know.
MR. SCHILLE-Correct. Yes.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the same as this, actually, it’s just nicer.
MR. SCHILLE-Where you see that square window, I mean, the door there, that is where the 25
feet was.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-Do you have a permit to do all that?
MR. SCHILLE-No.
MR. FRANK-He didn’t need a building permit to do the interior work which he proposed to do.
It wasn’t until Dave Hatin said, now I think you’ve exceeded the limits of the interior work and
Dave said you’re going to need a building permit, and that triggered a review by the Zoning
Department, which indicated you need relief from the Zoning Code.
MR. BRYANT-So what point did he exceed the work?
MR. SCHILLE-This corner.
MR. FRANK-According to Mr. Hatin, this section of the house now is on now piles, and this is
the support beam that rests on those new piles, and Mr. Schille explained to me that, if you look
on the opposite side of this, there’s the original entryway. He just, instead of making this a 90
degree angle, he extended this out, and if you look on your plan, you’ll see a little triangle, and
that’s the new area that didn’t exist prior to the re-work
MR. BRYANT-When you say new piles, is it like a new foundation?
MR. FRANK-A new foundation, piles, Mr. Schille can.
MR. SCHILLE-Actually not, since on the corner where he’s pointing, there was a foundation
there. I just actually only dug, instead of going in this way, I went in at an angle.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know. You made a little cut on the corner.
MR. SCHILLE-There was a foundation underneath here, and there’s a foundation here. This
one I replaced, and there was a wooden post, okay. I now have got three feet, which I did all
the way across. I (lost words) entire house (lost words) put three feet under the (lost words).
This whole house was sitting, since 1896, on stone. It only went down by four inches. I’m
surprised, but anything inside was rotted. I mean, that’s why I started. (Lost words). You
don’t have the picture from the other side, do you?
MR. FRANK-Here’s the first photo.
MR. STONE-All the questions answered?
MR. ABBATE-Anything you do is going to be an improvement.
MR. STONE-Anymore questions for the moment?
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. BRYANT-Not right now, thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-You’re decreasing the number of bedrooms from five to four?
MR. SCHILLE-Five to three.
MR. URRICO-Five to three. Okay, and we’re increasing the permeability?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, since basically I’m taking out where before there was cement and was tall, is
now going to be grass, and so actually it does (lost words). If you look at the blueprint on the
house itself, you will see what I changed and what is going to be changed. (lost words).
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Have you ever considered not building this, putting this property on your own
property and making it less nonconforming?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, I have, but I’ve got two daughters. At some point I think they want to , but
I’ve got two daughters. At some point I think they want to live on the lake, (lost words).
MR. STONE-Well, one of the reasons we have the Zoning Code, and this is not prejudicial. I
just wanted to get it out, that we have our Code, is that we have one acre zoning on the lake.
Now, I know there are very few one acre lots, but one of the, at least my understanding when
the Town Board, eight, nine years ago, adopted this WR-1A zone, was to try to get more
conforming lots by hopefully getting people, if they want to build some of the homes we’re
building these days, to get a bigger lot, and I just want it on the record.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, I have, but I just figured that was one way, and I almost went that way, and
the reason I wanted to make it smaller, since I figured this way (lost words).
MR. STONE-It is a very small lot.
MR. SCHILLE-It is, but on the other hand I had some people say, why didn’t you restore it to
what it used to look like in 1896, and I’m trying to come as close to it as I can, but it’s not going
to be like it. Not quite, if I can do it.
MR. STONE-Well, thank you. Any other questions? Well, having said my peace, let me open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I, again, will
echo a similar request that I had earlier. I am neither for nor against. I am just simply taking a
look at the site and hoping that there could be a condition regarding the septic system.
Although the number of bedrooms are being reduced, and that’s what you base your system
design on, I would think that the site has been vacant for a while, but I think that the system
should be evaluated and have an evaluation done. That it be consistent with the new
Department of Health fact sheet, which requires evaluations for all additions and alterations.
There may be more water usage with the site, such as, I don’t know if there’s going to be
garbage disposal or other items that may add to water consumption, and wastewater
production, and again, I’m also always trying to get some additional stormwater management
for the site. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Bruce, question. Will the proposed plan of Mr. Schille trigger
upgraded septic?
MR. FRANK-No. The short answer is no. The expanded answer is, and I very clearly got
answers from Dave Hatin, the Director of Building and Codes, and from Craig Brown, the
Zoning Administrator. Only when you expand your living area are you required to provide
proof that the septic system can meet the new demand, and again, what Mr. Navitsky stated
was correct. The system is rated by the number of bedrooms. This proposal actually to
downsize the bedrooms from five to three. Even though our floor area, you also include the
garage in the floor area, that’s not considered living space, living area. So, even though his floor
area is proposed to increase, because of the garage, he’s actually decreasing the living area,
which is not a requirement that you have to prove, for New York State Building Code, should
this be approved, the variance, and he goes forward with the building permit. He does not
have to prove that the system is adequate because he is not expanding the amount of living
area.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Is it a condition that we can impose?
MR. FRANK-Well, if you think it’s appropriate, at times you have, and I think you have made
that condition. I don’t think it’s completely out of line. I did ask that question of the Zoning
Administrator. I didn’t get a very specific answer, but he thought that it could be prudent for
you to impose that condition. By the way, this also would go before the Planning Board for site
plan review, should you approve a variance.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. FRANK-And I didn’t comment on Mr. Navitsky’s comment for the Tarrant application, the
way I’m explaining it now. That application, they would have to show that the septic system is
going to meet the increase for the linear area. Even though they’re not increasing bedrooms,
part of that space is living area.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject?
SUSAN MORRIS
MRS. MORRIS-My name is Susan Morris, and I’m a neighbor of Mr. Schille, although I don’t
really personally know him, we just wave as we pass each other, and I’m delighted he’s going
to fix up this property. I’m kind of surprised to hear that it hasn’t been empty lo these many
years, because I’ve not seen much activity there, and from the looks of it, it looks like it might be
empty and abandoned. However, I really think you need to address the septic. Whether you
have to or not, I’m just concerned for the lake, and I think the septic is probably inadequate for
today’s living, and I assume this will be used more than it has been in the last many years, and,
you know, I wish him well, and I’m thrilled to have the property picked up, but I also love the
lake, and don’t want anybody to.
MR. STONE-Okay. Where do you live in relationship?
MRS. MORRIS-I’m at 371, and he’s at 382, or something.
MR. SCHILLE-On the other side.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. MORRIS-Right, across the street, and down this.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. MORRIS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak?
SUSAN BARDIN
MS. BARDIN-Good evening. Susan Bardin, representing the Lake George Association. I
submitted a formal letter to you, Mr. Stone, today, and I just want to reiterate my comment in
that letter, as well as what Mrs. Morris and Chris Navitsky have stated, that the LGA is very
concerned about old septic systems, possibly failing septic systems, especially this close to the
shoreline on lakefront lots, and we would appreciate a condition for granting these variances.
Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else?
STEPHEN BENSON
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BENSON-My name is Stephen Benson, and I live at 364 Cleverdale Road. I live south of
Mr. Schille. I would just like to echo the concerns of the previous two speakers. I do drink the
water, and we’re very concerned about the septic system, and we’re also very concerned about
the fact that the house apparently has not been used for several years, and I would just raise a
very serious question about the maintenance of the quality of the water in Lake George.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
CAROL FREIHOFER
MS. FREIHOFER-Carol Freihofer. I live at the end of Cleverdale Road, at 400, and I pass this
property every day, and it’s been a mess for years. There’s holes in the ceiling, or in the roof.
Their windows are broken, and it’s really an eyesore, and I’m thrilled that he’s going to fix it up.
I am not approving of any variances at all, as far as that property is concerned. It’s very narrow.
It’s very small, and I don’t want a garage, and I’d agree with everybody else about the water
situation.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just summarize. You want him to rebuild, but you don’t want us to
grant any relief at all?
MS. FEIHOFER-I’d like him to fix up the house.
MR. STONE-All right.
MS. FREIHOFER-But not to have any variances.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MS. FREIHOFER-Especially a garage.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, ma’am? Do you have a garage?
MS. FREIHOFER-No.
MR. STONE-Never ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
MS. FREIHOFER-I have a very small piece of land.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? What correspondence do we have?
MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces, both of which have already been summarized. One was
from Mr. Navitsky and the other was from Susan Bardin.
MR. STONE-Basically saying exactly what they said?
MR. MC NULTY-I believe so.
MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody happy with that summary? Okay. Let me close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. What is the actual size of the garage?
MR. SCHILLE-I think it’s 19 by, 23 by 18.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So it’s 23 this way, by 18 this way?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Four hundred and fourteen.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. SCHILLE-Now it does sit on the same blueprint, okay. It only goes out to the back on one
side, to make the house square.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SCHILLE-What I take off in the front, partially, I add on in the back to make the house
square, okay. (lost words). The living size goes down by, as I said.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Can you comment, a couple of people have said that property’s been abandoned
for a few years, and you’ve said that it wasn’t. I just want to clarify.
MR. SCHILLE-No, it wasn’t. It was always rented, and I can produce the rentals. I used to
have it rented always to 10, 15 people, and it was a rooming house. That’s why it has as many
bathrooms. It has a sink and toilet in every room, and I’ve got even somebody who lives on
Cleverdale lived there as a child, and he’s the one that wants me to leave it the way it is, but, he
said, no, I don’t want the pollution either. I drink the water. I have kids. I live next door. I
don’t want to pollute the lake anymore than anybody else.
MR. URRICO-And currently there’s no garage, and you feel a need to have a garage.
MR. SCHILLE-No. I’ve got, I’m taking away a bedroom, two bedrooms. I’m taking away a
shed. I’m taking all this away. So I think I, somehow, feel I’m somewhat entitled to something
in exchange. I mean, I can build it up the same way I want to, and then I’m going to be back to
the five bedrooms. I don’t need a variance for that. I know that.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan, let’s start talking about it.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Basically, the first two reliefs requested, relative to the shoreline and the
front setback, those are really not affected by your construction. It’s not a new relief, and I
really don’t have a problem with those. They’re existing. The areas of the new garage, we’re
getting awfully close to the road at that point. They’re basically six feet away from the property
line. I do have a problem with that somewhat, although the existing house is actually six feet
away from the property line.
MR. SCHILLE-It changes by two and a half inches. I have calculated that.
MR. BRYANT-I believe that you’re taking away some of the living space. The garage is not
necessarily, you know, a necessity. However, it’s desirable in the winter. This is going to be a
year round house.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, it does. It will be and was, but basically it’s never been used all year round.
I can tell you that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I think items number one and two are pre-existing. Number Three is really
pre-existing, except we’re rebuilding the garage, and then the fourth one, I think the relief
requested is minimal, and I’d be in favor of the application.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think, when we look at this in total, we’re actually, should end up
with a better project than what we started with. I think the reliefs that are being requested are
basically what was there prior to this. We’re reducing the number of bedrooms. We’re
increasing permeability, slightly increasing the Floor Area Ratio, but not to a great extent. I do
think, though, there is concern about the septic system, and I would like to make that a
condition of any approval process that we put in place, but I would be in favor of it at this
point.
MR. STONE-Chuck McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess for a fair amount, I agree with what’s been said already. While
there’s a lot of relief requested here, a lot of it’s pre-existing, and certainly there’s some
tradeoff’s with improvements. The garage bothers me. I understand that there’s a tradeoff with
removing part of the house and what not, but I guess it strikes me that, while it’s nice to have a
garage, in that part of Cleverdale, I’m not sure it’s essential. So I think I’d be opposed to the
garage. I would support the rest of the relief, and I would endorse a condition for an
investigation of the septic system.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with what’s been said before. I don’t have a problem with the garage.
I do think there should be a condition about checking out the septic system. I think that’s
important, with a house this age. I would be in favor of the variance.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I would echo what my fellow Board members said. I would also
echo what the neighbors have indicated as well. Anything he does will certainly make an
improvement over that property, based on the pictures that were shown to us, but I think also
there is a consideration for, take a look at, if you will, the septic system, and I would also go
along with the approval of the Area Variance, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Normally, when we see an application with six different variances, we get
concerned, but as the majority of the Boar members have stated, three, at least, are existing, and
the others are fairly minor. I mean, the one that always concerns me a great deal is the setback
from the lake, and you’re not changing that, and certainly five feet is, forty-five feet is still
pretty far from the lake, and I congratulate you on renovating this house, but I, too, would
insist, and I don’t even suggest. I would insist that the septic system be brought up to as close
to Code as possible, recognizing there may be some limitation, but I think you need to get
professional help on the septic system, so that it does as good a job as it possibly can do in
protecting the lake that you and I, and a lot of other people love. So, having said that, I need a
motion to approve Area Variance No. 34-2004, and I would include a statement about
upgrading the septic system.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, the condition is that the septic system is proven to be?
MR. STONE-Well, let’s see how the motion goes. I’m saying that I recognize the lot may not
support a totally.
MR. FRANK-When you said brought up, or you said?
MR. STONE-Brought up to current Code.
MR. FRANK-If it is brought up to Code, or check to see if it is okay, because you’re implying
that it’s not okay, when you say.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a good point. That we ensure that it is up to Code.
MR. FRANK-Okay.
MR. STONE-I don’t care how we get there.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-What are the consequences if it isn’t?
MR. STONE-We’re not approving the variance. Let’s see what the motion says. Hopefully
whoever is going to do it is going to say that.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2004 WOLFRAM SCHILLE, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
382 Cleverdale Road. Applicant proposes to renovate a 2,127 square foot single family dwelling
with no garage, part of which includes eliminating two of the existing five bedrooms. The
proposed dwelling would be 1,802 square feet, with a 414 square foot garage. The relief
required. Number One, five feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement per Section 179-4-070, the southeast corner. Two, 23.9 feet relief from the 30 foot
minimum front setback requirement, proposed garage. Number Three, 6.5 feet relief from the
15 foot minimum side setback requirement, the southeast corner. Four, 3.5 feet of relief from
the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement, the northwest corner of the proposed garage.
Five, 14.3% of relief from the 22% maximum Floor Area Ratio, FAR requirement, relief one to
five per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Six, relief from the continuation requirements
per Section 179-13-010, Sections A1, B & E. Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by granting the
Area Variance? Number One, whether or not an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. I do not
believe so. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance, I do not believe
so. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. It could be, but on
balance I think that it’s acceptable. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district. I do not believe so. It will improve the neighborhood. Number Five, whether the
difficulty is self-created. I suppose it is, but it’s limited by the existing structure and the size of
the lot. Approval is contingent upon the septic system being proven to be satisfactory
according to the Code.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. SCHILLE-Can I have a question?
MR. STONE-When you get what you want, don’t ask for too much, but go ahead.
MR. SCHILLE-No. I only was going to ask, what do you mean by, since I think the size of the
lot, the septic system can be put on there.
MR. STONE-You go to the Building Department and let them tell you where you stand on the
thing. They’re the experts when it comes to septic.
MR. SCHILLE-Okay.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-And it may be necessary, and I don’t want to tell you what they’re going to do, it
may be necessary for you to get a variance from the Board of Health for something there, but
we’re saying that, to get the variance, we’ve got to get agreement that the Town is happy, the
Town is satisfied. Okay?
MR. SCHILLE-Okay. I’m willing to make changes, obviously.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Next on the agenda is Area Variance 36-2004 Doris Farrar.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, Matt Steves, for the record. I wouldn’t have any objections, since
I’m also last, since there’s another small application on, and I’m going to be here anyway. It’s
totally up to the discretion of the Board, but I have no problem with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, if we talk about a pool, then you wouldn’t mind it at all, then. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Steves.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II CHRISTOPHER COOK, MICHELLE
PINEDO OWNER: CHRISTOPHER COOK, MICHELLE PINEDO ZONING: SR-20
(SHERMAN PINES SUBDIV.) LOCATION: 34 FAWN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 24 FT. DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 99-042 SFD, BP 2003-261 DECK LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.18-1-60 SECTION: 179-5-020 (C2)
CHRISTOPHER COOK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2004, Christopher Cook, Michelle Pinedo, Meeting Date:
May 19, 2004 “Project Location: 34 Fawn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes placement of a 24-foot diameter aboveground swimming pool.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback
requirement for accessory structures, per §179-5-020(C2).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-261: 05/23/03, 200 sq. ft. deck.
BP 99-042: 03/01/99, 1008 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a one-car attached garage.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s choice of location for the 24-foot diameter pool appears to be in the only useable
area in the rear yard due to the location of the septic system. The proposed 14-foot setback is to
a forever-wild area, which is part of the Sherman Pines Homeowner’s Association.”
MR. STONE-Go, sir.
MR. COOK-Hi. I’m Chris Cook, proposing the installation of a 24 foot diameter above ground
pool in my back yard.
MR. STONE-The neighbors won’t let you use theirs?
MR. COOK-Actually, the neighbors don’t have one.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-I know we’ve been there a few times with pools.
MR. COOK-Across the wooded area, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add to your?
MR. COOK-Not really, it’s fairly clear cut, as I see it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? Again, Bruce, just a question. That’s what I’m looking up,
and I always forget. Pools, it’s only on corner lots where pools have to be completely behind
the house?
MR. FRANK-A pool can’t be in any front yard.
MR. STONE-Any front yard, right, yes. Thank you for saying it that way, because I always, all
right. Any questions of Mr. Cook?
MR. BRYANT-Let’s talk about it.
MR. STONE-Go ahead. We have a public hearing.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
Anybody at all? Any letters?
MR. MC NULTY-No letters.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Allan, let’s start with you.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. This is simple enough. I disagree with the premise that you don’t think
that 30% is significant. It is significant, but given the circumstances that you have the forever
wild space behind you, I think it’s no impact to the neighbors, and it’s a no-brainer, and I’m in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I essentially agree. We’ve already allowed some other pools in this area, for
the same reasons, and I think they’re still applicable here.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. Even though this, in one sense this probably is an
example of some of the things I’ve been crabbing about, our changing the zoning, because we
seem to be consistently changing the zoning in this neighborhood, but I think there’s
justification with the 100 foot common area that’s between the homes, and that both makes it
easier to grant the variance, but it also really is what requires the variance, is because the lots
are such short rear yards. So, I’ll agree. I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with the rest of the Board members. I would be in favor. I think the
100 foot buffer is a mitigating circumstance, and I would be in favor of the variance.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-I agree with the rest of the Board. I also would be in favor of the pool.
MR. STONE-And so would I. I think, it’s just interesting that, with the buffer, it makes our job
very easy, and as long as that’s going to stay there, then we’re probably going to allow other
people to do it, because it’s, why not. All right. I need a motion to approve this Area Variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2004 CHRISTOPHER COOK,
MICHELLE PINEDO, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roy Urrico:
34 Fawn Lane. The applicant proposes placement of a 24 foot diameter above ground
swimming pool. The applicant requests six feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback
requirement for accessory structures per Section 179-5-020(C2). How would the applicant
benefit from the Area Variance, he’d be able to install the swimming pool in probably the only
location left in his yard. Would it affect the character of the neighborhood? Absolutely not.
The pool, the back of his property borders on a forever wild area and his nearest neighbors are
quite a distance. There are feasible alternatives to this variance. There aren’t really any feasible
alternatives, other than a smaller pool, and that’s not really a feasible alternative. Is the amount
of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. The amount is moderate, but given the
circumstances, it’s acceptable, and will the variance have an adverse impact on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, absolutely not. For those reasons, I move that
this variance be approved.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. COOK-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Get it in before winter comes.
MR. COOK-Can I just pose a question, not really a question but a scenario? It’s six feet on
paper, but say I get home from work on the day of installation and it’s six inches over, or even a
foot over what I’m asking for?
MR. STONE-We’ll take it out. You’ll have to take it all down.
MR. BRYANT-So are you saying he needs seven feet of relief?
MR. STONE-We’ll give you seven feet.
MR. COOK-Okay. I didn’t know if I would have to apply all over, in that circumstance.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you should have said that before we voted it and made the motion. Do
you need seven feet, is that what you’re saying?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-No, he’s wondering if they don’t quite get the measurements, I think that’s what
you’re saying.
MR. COOK-Exactly. Right.
MR. STONE-He’s not going to be there to check on them.
MR. ABBATE-I would suggest you go home.
MR. STONE-Yes, we don’t need an as built survey on this, do we, Mr. Frank?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. COOK-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II DORIS FARRAR AGENT: VAN DUSEN
& STEVES OWNER: DORIS FARRAR, RACHAEL ALLEN ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION:
1070 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT 1, AS IT DOES
NOT HAVE TWICE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT FOR
CREATION OF NEW LOTS ON REGIONAL ARTERIAL ROADS. CROSS REFERENCE:
SUB. NO. 9-2004, AV 66-2002, SUB. NO. 1-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 12,
2004 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES, 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 290.06-1-70.1, 70.2 SECTION: 179-19-020
C
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2004, Doris Farrar, Meeting Date: May 19, 2004 “Project
Location: 1070 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide
a 4.03-acre parcel with a pre-existing single-family dwelling into two lots. Lot 1 is proposed to
be 1 acre with an approximate average width of 154 feet, and Lot 2 is proposed to be 3.03 acres
with an approximate average width of 441 feet.
Relief Required:
The applicant has not requested any specific amount of relief from the lot
width requirement. Staff has determined approximately 146 feet of relief is required from the
300-foot minimum lot width requirement (twice the minimum lot width requirement of the SR-
1A Zone) for a newly created lot fronting on a regional arterial road, per §179-19-020 and §179-
4-030 for the SR-1A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 66-2002: 09/18/02, same as current
application.
Staff comments:
The current application is the same as that of AV 66-2002. The relief granted in 2002 has now
expired, as the applicant never applied for the subdivision within one year of the date of the
approval. Even though the application is the same as that of AV 66-2002, the amount of relief
required was misidentified in 2002 to be 100 feet (the 200-foot road frontage was incorrectly
used in place of the average lot width of approximately 154 feet). Being the average lot width
has been determined to be approximately 154 feet, 146 feet of relief is needed from the 300-foot
minimum requirement.”
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12,
2004 Project Name: Farrar, Doris Owner: Doris Farrar, Rachael Allen ID Number: QBY-AV-
04-36 County Project#: May04-27 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision. Relief requested from the lot
width requirements for Lot 1, as it does not have twice the minimum lot width, which is a
requirement for creation of new lots on regional arterial roads. Project Location: 1070 Ridge
Road Tax Map Number(s): 290.06-1-70.1, 70.2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes a two lot subdivision that does not meet the lot width requirements due to the
location on 9L. The information submitted indicates lot one is to be 1 acre has road frontage
with of 200 ft. where the average lot width requirement is 300 ft. on 9L noted to be a regional
arterial road. Lot 1 also has an existing dwelling located on the parcel. Lot 2 is to be 3.03 acres
has a 431 road frontage lot width. The plan shows the proposed subdivision. Staff does not
identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends
no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/17/04.
MR. STONE-Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Doris Farrar and Rachael Allen on this
application. The only thing that has changed on this application, since the last time I was in
front of this Board, and obtained the variance, is that the house did, in fact, sell. That’s the
reason I couldn’t get a Planning Board approval. It was delayed a month after this Zoning
Board, because a two lot subdivision had to have a variance, isn’t allowed in the two lot
administrative because of the lot width. We then had to apply for the subdivision and
subsequently, before the time we were able to submit the application, unbeknownst to me, they
had sold the house to Rachael Allen, and therefore Mr. Brown informed me that I needed both
signatures of the current owner, or the former owner of the house, Doris Farrar, that she also
owns the vacant land as well as the signature of Rachael Allen, and it took u s a year to get her
signature, because she just didn’t understand what was going on. We weren’t trying to
subdivide her property. Her property existed just as she bought it on her deed, but it took a
while to get that, and so subsequently the variance has expired and we’re back in front of this
Board, but the property is now owned by two separate entities. Rachael Allen owns the house
lot, and Doris Farrar owns proposed Lot 2. So what you have is basically an illegal subdivision,
because the variance has expired, and the lot was sold prior to the hearing at the Planning
Board, and that was over a year ago.
MR. STONE-Has anything else changed in the neighborhood, the immediate neighborhood?
MR. STEVES-Nothing.
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Steves?
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to come back and subdivide Lot Number Two?
MR. STEVES-I’m already on the docket. No, I’m sorry. I have to get Planning Board approval.
Sorry. Am I coming back in to subdivide Lot Number Two? No, I’m not. I thought you meant
am I coming back in for the two lots. Yes, I have to come back in for the Planning Board to get
the approval so that we can file to make it a legal subdivision. Are there any intentions of
coming back in to subdivide Lot Two? No, the owner has that for sale in its entirety.
MR. STONE-How did they sell, they sold the one acre?
MR. STEVES-They sold the one acre.
MR. STONE-Without being a legal subdivision?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and the deed’s filed, and she has title, and there’s a mortgage on
the property.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-And there’s a mortgage? The bank gave a mortgage, or somebody?
MR. STEVES-Yes, they did, and, no, I did not do the mortgage survey.
MR. BRYANT-In these kind of cases, it would be very helpful if we had the minutes.
MR. STONE-That’s exactly what I was going to say.
MR. BRYANT-And we had the, you know, the final motion and the minutes relative to this
thing. Because I was, you know, it was a year ago, and I have trouble remembering what I ate
for breakfast.
MR. STEVES-And as far as the applicant is concerned, we have no problem with whatever
stipulations that the original had.
MR. BRYANT-What were the stipulations.
MR. STONE-Do we have, do you have the minutes there?
MR. FRANK-I have the resolution.
MR. STONE-That’s what we want.
MR. BRYANT-Can I read it a minute, just one second, please.
MR. STONE-Well, then while we’re doing that, let me open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JERRY BECKWITH
MR. BECKWITH-Jerry Beckwith. I live at 1023 Ridge Road, just down the road about an eighth
of a mile from this property, and I went over last night to talk to Rachael Allen who bought this
house, and she was livid about this piece of paper, because she knew nothing about it, and said
it’s all in her lawyer’s hands right now because there’s a conflict between her and Mrs. Farrar
about the property lines, and the taxes she’s been paying on this and stuff. So she says this is in
litigation last night, and she had had a copy of this, and she was going to give it to her lawyer
today, so I don’t know where we stand on, that, and I was basically coming tonight to hear
what, you know, what exactly was going on here, because I didn’t understand it, because of the
problems, and from a year and a half ago, what transpired then, I was looking at that before,
because I was always worried about that new lot being subdivided. Originally we talked about
putting, I think Mr. (lost word) talked about putting one driveway in there going to two homes
or something. So that’s my concern. I was just here tonight basically to find out what was
going on, but I was kind of surprised that Mrs. Allen’s name was on here, yet she didn’t know
anything about this, and there was some litigation going on there last night.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Shouldn’t there have been public notice on this?
MR. STONE-It should have been, yes.
MR. FRANK-It was, that’s why her name was put on it, so it could be advertised correctly.
MR. STONE-Well, wait a minute. Anybody else? Nobody else going to speak? Any
correspondence?
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have one piece of correspondence.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’ve got to read the correspondence.
MR. MC NULTY-This is from Elizabeth Miller. She says, “I’m writing in regard to a relief
request from the lot width requirement. As a homeowner living at 1071 Ridge Rd. for the last
22 years, I am strongly opposed to the approval of this variance for a number of reasons. First,
there has already been a lot change on this parcel of land within the last two years. At this time,
there was also a great deal of discussion regarding the separation of this lot from the original
house, thus changing the character of the homes on Ridge Rd. from larger homes on larger lots
to those of smaller homes on smaller lots. This has lead to a change in the quality and value of
the homes in this area. Secondly, the house across the street and to the south of this parcel had
a change in the last few years. This particular house is within 20 feet from the property next
door. This house alone created an unfavorable look to the area which in turn lowered property
values. Thirdly, that particular lot is on a precarious curve on Ridge Rd. There have been a
number of accidents in this section and I believe the addition of two homes will add a concern
to an already dangerous area. In addition, the area across the street is also very wet, especially
in the spring. Pools of water have been seen for weeks, which would lead me to believe that
two homes on this lot would be detrimental to the landscape and bring unfavorable
environmental conditions. Finally, I believe with the number of homes presently being built
directly on Ridge Rd., rather than in a development the road is losing its natural character and
charm. Due to increased traffic, the addition of a lot with two more houses will continue to
negatively affect the charm of this area as well as cause traffic concerns. Therefore, I
respectfully implore you to adhere to the minimum width requirements of housing lots and to
deny a request for this variance. The charm and beauty of the Queensbury area has been
compromised enough.” And that’s it.
MR. STONE-That’s it. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Anybody want to comment, because I’ve got some questions based upon.
MR. STEVES-Okay. If you want me to comment after the questions or?
MR. STONE-Well, you just said that the one acre lot is the minimum lot. That’s the one we’re
giving the relief for, primarily.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And that’s the one that is occupied and owned by somebody else?
MR. STEVES-By one of the applicants now, Rachael Allen.
MR. STONE-And that is not going to be, obviously, subdivided.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now the other lot, which is a legal lot in all respects?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Can it be subdivided?
MR. STEVES-Yes, it can be subdivided, because it’s in a one acre zone of up to three lots, but we
had the stipulation, at the last variance, and we put it on the map because of the stipulation. Lot
Two may be only subdivided into two lots, and that way they must share the driveway and the
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
location as we show. As we discussed before, the reasoning for the 300 foot lot width is to
maintain separation distances on the driveways, and that existing house, which doesn’t comply,
it’s a very small house, and the existing driveway, and you can look on the map, how would
you share a driveway with that, you know on that existing lot? So we said that any new lot, or
any subdivision of that lot, would only be two more lots, and would meet the Code, and would
have to share a driveway and the location where we show it, which would be centered on the
lot, on the apex of the curve, which is the best sight distance in both directions.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the house that’s already occupied and sold is the minimum size lot, one
acre lot, and that’s not going to go anywhere.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-And the other one is three, and you’re stipulating, or will stipulate, that there
would be one driveway for two lots, if and when it were subdivided.
MR. STEVES-And plus the fact that this Board realizes that that subdivision would be under the
review of the Planning Board. It has to go to the Planning Board again.
MR. STONE-I understand. Well, this is the longest motion I’ve read in a long time.
MR. STEVES-The comment of the neighbor, you know, I don’t know the whole legalities of it. I
have a letter from Stan Pritzker, who is Rachael Allen’s attorney, saying kindly note that this
office represents Rachael Allen. I enclose herein the documents for the Area Variance. He’s the
one that got her to sign it, because she understood my dealings with four different attorneys,
Mr. Pritzker being the last one for Rachael Allen, is that when you close on a piece of property,
think about it, when you close on it, and it’s been just one tax parcel for I don’t know how many
years, when you close and you get your pro-rated taxes, it’s based upon the entire parcel, and
she didn’t understand that, and I believe that the, and my belief, or understanding is that this
dispute is between the amount of pro-rated taxes paid, not over the parcel at all. She had an
attorney representing her when she purchased the property. It’s over the amount of taxes she
paid, whether she should have paid 62% or 38% or whatever amount.
MR. STONE-But if we get there, and we’re not there, you could live with the last motion.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Whether or not those of us who voted no.
MR. STEVES-She says she doesn’t know anything about this paper being the application. She
has signed that application.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question relative to Lot Number Two, okay. If that lot is
subdivided right up the middle of the driveway, are you going to need a variance for the lot
width?
MR. STEVES-No. The Code in the one acre zone is 300 feet of frontage or share the driveway,
150 foot minimum.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you would, by sharing that particular driveway, you would get
around the 300 feet?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. You would comply with the Code.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and I noticed in the resolution, they say that the lot cannot be split into
more than two lots.
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-More than two. That was the end, yes.
MR. STEVES-And we just want the exact same thing we discussed before.
MR. STONE-Yes, but all right, explain to me, because I can’t remember, why did three of us say
no? Do you remember?
MR. BRYANT-Were you one of the ones that said no?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I was one of the ones that said no, was I not?
MR. STONE-No, you seconded the motion.
MR. ABBATE-See, I can’t remember.
MR. STONE-I can’t, either.
MR. STEVES-I’ll try to refresh. My memory is we were discussing the width of the driveway,
and I think after 15, 10, 15 minute discuss, is the purpose of the lot width requirements is to
separate the driveways, and therefore if we were able to get three lots in here, we still would
have two driveways. One shared. One original, or share this one and the next lot would have
their own. So no matter how you slice and dice it, you could have two driveways on this
property, and that’s what we’re going to end up with is two driveways on this property.
MR. STONE-Two on the original property.
MR. STEVES-Two on the, right, on the total property.
MR. STONE-Yes, on the original property.
MR. STEVES-And I think that’s what we discussed and what carried the vote at the last.
MR. STONE-I wish I had the minutes. Only because, I see no problem with this, and I don’t
know why I did at the time.
MR. BRYANT-That’s because you’ve matured, and you’re more mellow now.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk, then. Let’s start with Roy. Where do you come down?
MR. URRICO-Well, to be honest with you, I think this is parallel to somebody building on a lot
without getting prior approval. I think we have, well, I have two problems. Number One,
having double the lot width on an arterial road is there for a reason, and the reason is to try to
limit the number of driveways that feed out onto that road, because of the amount of traffic, and
especially on this location, which is a pretty rough turn, rough curve. If you have another
driveway spilling out onto there, it just seems to be leading to some amount of, some
catastrophe happening there, but besides that, I think, you know, I’m reluctant to get in the
middle of something that appeared to be permitted without a variance in the first place.
MR. STEVES-It received a variance in the first place. I understand your concern. I really do.
MR. STONE-No. The woman bought a lot because she was told there was a one acre lot for
sale. There was a house on it, I mean, I don’t want to argue with you. There was a house on it,
and what that meant was it was going to be a one acre lot, and that’s all she wanted, she
thought.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STEVES-And the two driveway issue is that, no matter what you would do with this
property, if they were both compliant lots and they didn’t need a variance, the argument was
last time that you would still have two driveways on this.
MR. URRICO-Well, to make an excuse for myself, I wasn’t here when this was voted on the first
time, and I would have voted against it then. So I’m going to take the opportunity to vote
against it now.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I was looking up my notes from before, too. I don’t know. I’ve got
several problems with it. My notes before, I think the summation of them is I was looking for
some compelling reason to approve this, and my notes said if we would approve this kind thing
for anybody on Ridge Road, that we shouldn’t approve it because then we’re changing the
zoning. That, then, says I need something unique here that justifies it, and I couldn’t find it
before, and I’m not sure I can find it now. It would strike me a little different, too, if it was just
splitting this into two lots, but we’re really splitting it into three lots. We’re approving
subdivision into two, making the allowances we are, but it kind of indicated that it’s eventually
going to end up being three lots. New stuff that bothers me with this is the ongoing litigation
right now, whatever it is, to begin with, whoever listed this, there’s a piece of State law
somewhere which I haven’t been able to find lately, but I do remember reading it, that says a
piece of property should not or cannot legally be listed for sale until the subdivision is
approved. So somebody screwed up there to start with, and beyond that, it looks like there was
a chain of errors for this to go on through and get on the tax map without it ever being a legal
subdivision, but I don’t see the compelling benefit to the applicant. I do see some detriment to
the neighborhood, as was indicated by the one letter that we got. So I’m going to be consistent.
I’m going to oppose it again.
MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I voted yes the last time, and I really don’t see any difference in this application. I
would vote yes.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to blame Mr. McNulty. He used the word compelling, the last
time I voted for it, and I’m going to take Mr. Bryant’s word, maturity. When I combine Mr.
McNulty’s word, “compelling” and Mr. Bryant’s word, “maturity”, I suspect I may have been in
error, and I also am concerned with the impending litigation, and based upon that, Mr.
Chairman, I’m afraid I would have to vote no.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I view this, very simply. We get one of these every meeting, and that is,
somebody builds a house, or builds a garage, or builds a shed, and then they find out they need
a variance, or, you know, and so here we are caught between a rock and a hard place, and we
can’t make them tear it down, and we can’t, you know, and we have to kind of live with it, and
we face this every meeting, and this is really no different. You’ve got a piece of property that
was sold, according to the real estate experts, illegally. Probably a legal sale, but there’s just a
question about the definition of the border lines. So really we’re caught in the same kind of
situation, and my test for that type of situation is would I vote for it, before they built the
garage, would I have voted for it, and given them the variance, and in this case it’s clear,
because we can look at the motion and I voted for it last time. So it passes my test, and I’m
going to vote for it this time, with the same stipulation.
MR. STONE-Well, I voted against it the last time, and I honestly don’t know why I did it, to be
very honest. I don’t have my notes. Mr. McNulty is the most efficient one of us all. I wish I
had the minutes, and that would be the only thing I would try to come up with. I cannot
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
reconstruct why I would have voted no. The house was there, two years ago. The house was
there probably a few more years than that. So it was one house on a four acre parcel, which was
overkill, in terms of the zoning in the area. What we’re proposing is three houses on four acres.
MR. STEVES-Two at this point.
MR. STONE-Well, four total, three total.
MR. STEVES-Potentially, right.
MR. STONE-Yes, potentially of three, is what I mean, on the four acres, again, all legal lots. The
one stipulation on the, this lot is because it’s on Ridge Road, we have to have one driveway. I
mean, we’re granting the relief on the existing parcel, which may have been sold illegally, but
it’s the only cleared portion of that lot. That looks like a one acre lot to me, and I don’t have a
problem, the fact that it doesn’t have twice the lot width.
MR. STEVES-Right, and my point was, two points. No matter where you place that line, that
existing driveway is going to stay right there.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. STEVES-The other point you bring up, some of the Board members said pending litigation.
I have a letter from her attorney stating, here’s her signed application, please present this to the
Zoning Board. So I don’t know what pending litigation that the neighbor brought up. I said
there wasn’t a litigation. There was a concern over the amount of tax payment, pro rated. It
wasn’t a litigation, as far as I know, and if it was a litigation, her counsel is the one that went
and got her signature and asked me to please attend this meeting and clean up the property
because his client has a property that is illegal.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you see, but the problem, again, is this. I don’t have that piece of paper. The
person who owns the property is not here. The attorneys involved are not here.
MR. STEVES-I have a letter signed by her, authorizing me to represent her at this meeting, and I
have a letter from the attorney stating please bring this to the meeting, here’s her signature.
Now, I mean, if it was her attorney, and there was a litigation, I think, and he didn’t want this to
happen, he’s acting as her legal representative, and he said this litigation is going to be taken
care of before this zoning issue is brought in front of the Zoning Board, he wouldn’t have
allowed me to bring it here and say here’s your application signed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll re-word the phrasing on my part, Mr. Chairman. I’ll say, instead of
pending litigation, I’m uncomfortable, and I still would vote no for it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well unfortunately, we have come (lost words) of six people, and I
apologize, and I should have apologized for that before, but we cannot make a decision. So we
will table it.
MR. ABBATE-No, no, Mr. Chairman, a three to three equals a negative, by law.
MR. STONE-That’s not true.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it is true.
MR. STONE-That’s been changed. Interpretations have been changed. That does not.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. STONE-Town Counsel said that.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. FRANK-Our legal counsel, Town Counsel has informed us do not go in that direction.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-It’s a no action.
MR. STONE-It’s no action.
MR. ABBATE-No action.
MR. STONE-So the only thing we have to do is we have to make a motion to approve it, and get
the vote, so that we know it’s no action. That’s all.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-If you go for an approval, and you don’t get the vote, it’s not approved.
MR. STONE-But it’s not denied.
MR. SALVADOR-But it’s not approved.
MR. STONE-No. We would table it afterwards.
MR. BRYANT-Why can’t you just table it now? The applicant requests to table.
MR. STONE-Fine. You would request to table?
MR. STEVES-Please.
MR. STONE-Okay. Done.
MR. STEVES-Could I ask a couple of questions?
MR. STONE-Well, let me make the motion first.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Please.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2004 DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
1070 Ridge Road. We table this to determine the legal situation of the sale of one of the
proposed lots, prior to the approval of the subdivision, and this will be considered again within
62 days.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. STEVES-My question was, would the Board, those that had concerns with that, feel better if
both the attorneys for both sides, because like I say, you do have two separate ownerships now,
and I don’t disagree with you, but at the same time, you do have two separate distinct
ownerships now. The only thing it does by not granting the variance is it still allows Mrs. Allen
to reside in that house and pay her mortgage and Mrs. Farrar to pay the taxes on it, and just
leaves that other lot that she can’t do anything with it at this at this point, until we resolve this
matter.
MR. STONE-Well, I think we need a statement, we don’t need the attorneys to be here. We
need a statement from both attorneys that the only question before us is the subdivision of the
lots, that everything else has been taken care of legally.
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STEVES-Either getting that statement in writing and handing it to the Board or having
them here, would that be sufficient enough for your concerns?
MR. ABBATE-Well, you know what would be sufficient for me, if the Town Attorney went over
this first, our Town Attorney.
MR. STONE-Well, whatever’s written, yes, but, I mean, I don’t want them to go through the
expense.
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. STONE-I mean, you’re expensive enough. We don’t want the two attorneys.
MR. BRYANT-I think one thing that I would like to see is I’d like to see the minutes of the
original meeting. There were some members who didn’t vote the way they voted the first time
around, and I’d like to maybe shed a light on what they said and what convinced them to vote
in the way that they did the first time.
MR. STONE-That’s reasonable.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. STONE-But, I mean, as you say, we can change. We look at things differently, but I need a
second to the tabling motion.
MR. ABBATE-Second.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II ETHEL NAATZ AGENT: VAN DUSEN
& STEVES OWNER: ETHEL NAATZ ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 585 CORINTH
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL
CREATE 2 EQUAL SIZED LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
AND WIDTH REQUREMENT FOR BOTH LOTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
5/12/2004 LOT SIZE: 1.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-54 SECTION: 179-4-030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2004, Ethel Naatz, Meeting Date: May 19, 2004 “Project
Location: 585 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary
line adjustment. Presently, the Naatz parcel is 1.08 acres and the Langworthy parcel is 0.29
acres. The applicant proposes to create a 0.69-acre parcel with an average lot width of 99.92 feet
(Naatz), and a 0.68-acre parcel with a lot width of 100 feet (Langworthy).
Relief Required:
For the Naatz parcel:
1) 0.31 acres of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement.
2) 50.08 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement.
For the Langworthy parcel:
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
1) 0.32 acres of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement.
2) 50 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement.
All relief required per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None (Naatz).
BP 99-437: 07/16/99, 24’ x 50’ roof over mobile home (Langworthy).
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between two parcels. The Naatz parcel is
currently conforming to size and width (average width is approximately 157.6 feet), and the
Langworthy parcel is currently nonconforming to size and width. The proposed adjustment
would result in a more compliant Langworthy parcel relative to size and width (still
noncompliant to both of the minimum requirements), and the Naatz parcel would become
noncompliant relative to size and width. However, the proposed adjustment would result in all
of the structures meeting the minimum setback requirements (the Langworthy dwelling and
detached garage currently do not), and the existing single drive is proposed to still provide for
the access to both dwellings. Additionally, numerous other preexisting nonconforming parcels
are found in the same general area.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12,
2004 Project Name: Naatz, Ethel Owner: Ethel Naatz ID Number: QBY-AV-04-38 County
Project#: May04-33 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment which will create 2 equal sized lots. Relief
requested from the minimum lot size and width requirements for both lots. Site Location: 585
Corinth Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.18-2-54 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes a boundary line adjustment where parcel is changed from 0.29 acres to 0.68 acres and
a second parcel is changed from 1.08 acres to 0.69 acres. The property is located in the SR-1
zone where the lots will be considered non-conforming. 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” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll,
05/17/04”
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, again, for the record, and I represent Virginia
Langworthy and Ethel Naatz on this application. Real briefly, the map speaks for itself. The
Naatz’s have owned this property for a long, long, long time. I believe in the late 50’s, early
60’s. In 1974 they conveyed the portion off to their daughter that contains the modular home,
and the configuration, as you’ll see on our map that says original lot line, that went right
through the garage that existed on the property at the time, it still exists on the property, but is
used for the mobile home, modular home parcel. Mrs. Naatz is getting up there in age, and her
daughter, Virginia Langworthy, wanted to try to straighten this out, now, and that’s why we’re
in front of this Board. As you can see by basically making the two lots equal size, the small lot
on the northerly end, which is Langworthy, is a very small nonconforming lot. Their driveway
that they share was completely, or is completely on the Naatz’s property, and this is putting the
garage in compliance, and all the buildings in compliance, and allowing the shared driveway
that has been used since 1974 to remain a shared driveway, centered on the lot line, and the
reason for the variance is because we’re taking a nonconforming lot and making it extremely
less nonconforming, but the one conforming lot, we are now making it nonconforming in area
and lot width, but if you look at the overall, I think the benefit is an improvement to the
character of the neighborhood and the benefit to the applicants are both very good.
MR. STONE-Okay. To the best of your knowledge, this was done without coercion on the part
of Langworthy?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, yes.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-Because you mention Mrs. Naatz is older, and sometimes.
MR. STEVES-No, but she came to my office, she’s very spry.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. STEVES-She goes bowling every Tuesday night, or something along those lines, and she’s
pretty sharp.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-A question for Staff. I recall, and I hope I recall correctly, that a while back when
the Zoning Administrator was here, we were talking about utility buildings on a lot, and he
indicated utility buildings were fine, as long as not more than one utility building served the
same purpose. Is that correct?
MR. FRANK-Under today’s Code, you’re allowed one accessory structure per parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, we see two sheds here.
MR. FRANK-Pre-existing.
MR. ABBATE-Pre-existing sheds. You’re satisfied?
MR. FRANK-Very old sheds. They pre-date the current Code.
MR. STEVES-They were there back prior to the 1974 conveyance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Before Matt was in the business.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s fine. I just asked the question. No problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s just start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I really don’t see a problem with this. It seems like a logical step for the
applicants to make, and I would not be opposed to it.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. Even though we’re creating a nonconforming lot, we’re improving
the other one. The whole thing seems to make a lot of sense, and I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
68
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MRS. HUNT-I agree. I think it balances out, and this would be a good solution.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I agree. Commonsense and balancing out, and I would support the
application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t like the fact that we’re making another lot that’s totally conforming
nonconforming, so that we can deal with it somewhere down the road, but when you look at
the other lot, there’s really no other alternative and I agree with everybody else. It makes sense.
MR. STONE-Yes. I think the fact that you’re taking essentially the same piece of land that Mrs.
Naatz owned totally at one time and dividing it in half, seems to me like a logical step. It goes
against the Code, but that’s what we’re here for, and I think it’s a reasonable thing. Having said
that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2004 ETHEL NAATZ, Introduced by
Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
585 Corinth Road. The applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment and proposing to
create a .69 acre parcel with an average lot width of 99.92 feet, and a .68 acre parcel with a lot
width of 100 feet. Specifically, for the first parcel, relief required for the Naatz parcel is .31 acres
of relief from the one-acre minimum lot size requirement, and 50.08 feet of relief from the 150-
foot minimum lot width requirement. For the second lot, belonging to Langworthy, relief
required is .32 acres of relief from the one-acre minimum lot size requirement and 50 feet of
relief from 150-foot minimum lot width requirement. In considering this, it appears that there
won’t be any detriment to the neighborhood or community. There apparently are several other
nonconforming lots in this area, and this change, while it creates one additional conforming lot;
it drastically improves a situation for the existing nonconforming lot. Since the benefit to the
applicant appears to outweigh any possible detriment to the community, I move that we adopt
this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’ve got two sets of minutes that Sue has asked us to approve.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 18, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2004, Introduced by Charles
McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
69
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
NOES: NONE
February 25, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2004, Introduced by Charles
McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Okay. Board members, Mr. Salvador has asked for five minutes, he asked for ten,
but I’ll grant him five, since it’s late.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I’d just like to say a couple of words on the Collins application. As I
understand it, a Stop Work Order was issued, and that Stop Work Order was issued by the
Building and Codes Department, that’s Mr. Hatin and his Building Inspectors. Those people
are empowered to enforce the Uniform Building Code of the State of New York, not the Zoning
Code of the Town of Queensbury, and that Stop Work Order was issued, and it’s based on the
violations that they saw on that site to the Uniform Building Code. As I believe those people
applied for a renovation, and what they were really getting into was new construction. That
was the problem. That’s why the Stop Work Order was issued. Now, Mr. Brown gets into it,
now this can be cleared up. This Stop Work Order can be cleared up, if you go for an Area
Variance, which would then convert the application from a renovation to new construction.
Okay. Now, I don’t know what your denial of Mr. Brown’s determination means visa vie the
Stop Work Order. That was issued by the Building and Code Department for violations to the
Uniform Building Code. That’s the only thing they can enforce. Now we’re in this area and
we’ve been over it many, many times, renovation versus new construction. The Uniform
Building Code defines the two, and believe me, you can hardly touch a stud without it being
new construction. There’s a table of things that, of criteria, for defining renovation, but you
touch a structural element, new construction, and that’s what wall studs are all about. So, I
don’t know, anyway.
MR. STONE-No, we appreciate that, and obviously it’s a.
MR. SALVADOR-I mean, these people learned from Takundewide. They learned from, you
should have heard them out in the hall after your meeting. Okay. They learned from
Takundewide what was done. So, in any case.
MR. STONE-Well, the only thing that I would ask, not of you, I would ask, and hopefully Staff
will be aware, to me, you’ve got to have a written determination, and we didn’t have a written
determination. We have very little to work on, and therefore we had to say it was wrong.
Forget the Stop Work Order. I don’t know anything about a Stop Work Order.
MR. FRANK-There was no Stop Work Order issued from Dave Hatin, either, just to let you
know.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the names Hatin and O’Brien were mentioned in this meeting.
MR. FRANK-Right. They weren’t here to defend themselves, either, in that, and I have no
knowledge, other than I did ask Dave Hatin, did you issue a Stop Work Order. Stefanie Bitter
called me up, would you ask Craig and Dave, neither one of them ever issued a written Stop
Work Order. That’s all they shared with me, by the way.
70
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. STONE-We’re going to look into it again, John.
MR. SALVADOR-I know this builder, the work he does, okay. I know the work he does and
the type of business he’s in, and it’s prefabricated, panelized construction, okay. Those things,
those units are designed, they’re fabricated in the shop, and they’re delivered to the site ready
to go out. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Why didn’t you say that in the meeting?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it comes together after you deliberate. The public hearing is closed, and
you can’t say it. I mean, I don’t have the wealth of knowledge on these applications that you
have, that you have. You come here and you hear a short description. You start to piece the
pieces together.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s why I asked the question about economic impact, because, you
know, they started talking about, well, it would be easier. The guy builds prefabs. So, yes, of
course it’s going to be easier, because you can’t put a prefab where a building exists.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s not to be expected that you’re going to go to work on a 25 year old, 30
year old structure, and be able to just do a renovation. It’s not to be expected. Especially in an
atmosphere like Lake George, dampness, close to the ground, you know.
MR. STONE-Then why do we issue building permits without everything in place? Why do we
issue building permits until everything is in place?
MR. SALVADOR-What do you mean everything is in place?
MR. STONE-Well, how can someone, how can the Town of Queensbury issue a building
permit for a building which is a foot and a half from the lake? I don’t know how we can do
that.
MR. FRANK-It was all interior renovations, what the building permit was for.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. It was all interior. Okay. All right. Let me get to why I’m here.
As you know, I wrote a letter to the Zoning Administrator asking for a determination. I think
you all got copies of that, and today, late in the day today, I got home and I received a reply
from Craig Brown that I didn’t think you folks were aware of, and I made copies and brought
with me tonight, but I understand that you have been, you have received copies of that.
MR. STONE-I got it by snail mail today.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It turned around quickly. Very good. Let me tell you what my
intentions are. He’s failing to make a determination that I’ve asked him to make, and his failure
to make that determination is a basis for an appeal. I can appeal his omission of a
determination. I intend to do that.
MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question. Okay. I respect you, and you bring a lot of good
points to the table always. Isn’t it logical to assume that his response to you, relative to the fact
that we have another case pending, which, you know, addresses the paintball issue, isn’t that a
logical, he’s just waiting for us to make a determination.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it doesn’t affect my, I’m in a different zone. I’m in a different zone.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the only thing is that the only thing that’s before us is, is paintball an
amusement. He has said, it’s an amusement, and therefore, since it’s not excluded, it is allowed
in that area, and that’s what’s before us.
71
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/04)
MR. SALVADOR-In that area. In that area, that’s the law of that case. Okay. I have a different
area, a different zone, different allowable uses. I attached it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, what does it say in the book? Are you allowed amusements?
MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all, I’m not allowed amusements.
MR. BRYANT-Well, then obviously then you need a variance. So what’s the discussion? If it
says it in the book.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. If it’s determined to be recreation or a sport activity, it’s an
allowable use in my zone.
MR. STONE-We are not determining that.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I want you to determine that in my zone. I want him to determine it in
my zone.
MR. STONE-We’re going to do the first one first, and even if you appeal it, I can guarantee you,
you will not be heard until after we make our decision next month on the other one.
MR. SALVADOR-Maybe you should consider joining them.
MR. BRYANT-Joining who?
MR. SALVADOR-Join the two appeals.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then there’s only one other consideration, that’s to determine if you have
standing.
MR. SALVADOR-I understand. I’ve got to jump through that hoop.
MR. URRICO-Will this be underwater paintball?
MR. SALVADOR-The variations are incredible. Okay. The land that I’m talking about here is
used in the wintertime, okay. Boggles the mind what we could do, as those activities are
allowed in 42 acre zone. I mean, I’m thinking the zoning people were, I mean, the foresight
they had to put those kind of activities in a 42 acre zone, before paintball was even heard of.
MR. BRYANT-Paintball has been around for a long time.
MR. SALVADOR-Has it?
MR. STONE-But we never mentioned it in the Zoning Code.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the only other thing, Mr. Salvador, that reminds me. That same issue came
up tonight when I was talking to three surgeons, but we’ll let that go.
MR. STONE-We’re adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
72