1968-11-20
70.
MINUTES of the public hearing of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals held at the Town Office Building on
- November 20, 1968, at 8:00 P.M.
There were present:
John Fitzgerald
James Keller
George Kurosaka
Charles Sicard
Allison Ellsworth
being all the members of the board.
John Fitzgerald, the Chairman, presided and James Keller,
the Secretary, recorded.
The minutes of the public hearing held on October 23, 1968,
were read by the Secretary and upon motion duly made by George
Kurosaka, seconded by Charles Sicard, carried unanimously were
approved with changes.
Applicatmon for a Variance #62 by Harold S. Veeder - Shore
Colony, an overall variance, involving Mr. Veeder's ability to
sell non-conforming lots in a sub-division created prior to zoning
Mr. Wayne Judge was present as Attorney on behalf of Mr.
Veeder, "First of all, Ird like to request of the board, if it's
not objectionable, to argue both the Veeder and the Miller case at
one time. live prepared a Memorandum of Law on both cases, and
thB only problem is I didnrt make enough copies, so if it1s all
right with the chairman, at the end of the meeting I'll retrieve the
chairman1s copy and send a copy to the chairman in the mail tomorrowo.
James Keller, "I would object to your one point about discussing
both variances as one because I think they are in many ways two
distinct problems 11.
John Fitzgerald, "Mr. Keller, I think they are two separate
problems, but on the other hand, the Memorandum of Law finds common
points between the two of them~
Mr. Judge, "I'd like to make a short intorductory statement
and then lid like to call Mr. Leavitt as a witness, and then I'd
likà to make a short introductory statement, and that would be the
extent of our record. The board at this time is familiar with the
facts, I am sure. The petitioner, Mr. Ha~old Veederr filed a sub-
division map in 1957 setting out 94 lo~ in a sub-division and ap-
proved by the Department of Health and filed in the Warren County
Clerk's office, containing 96 lots and located on Assembly Point.
In 1967, or thereabout, the Town of Queensbury enacted a Zoning
Ordinance which required not only that the minimum frontage of
each lot be 75 feet, and the minimum depth be 100 feet, which all
of these lots are, but, in addition, the lots should contain a total
area of 10,000 square feet; many of the lots do not contain 10,000
square feet. After the enactment of the ordinance, Mr. Veeder
1
71.
conveyed one of these lots to Mr. George Miller, and that's lot
No.6 on Block G. Mr. Miller commenced building a summer residence
on the lot, was informed that it was a possible violation of the Zoning
statute and to follow the most prudent course, was advised and did
apply for a variance for permission to build on this lot. When
Mr. Veeder heard about this possible violation of the Zoning ordinance,
he also filed a petition on the theory that this was the most prudent
course,and with full knowledge that it was not at that time and is
still not clear that any of the lots violate the Zoning statute, and
that in either case a Variance is necessary. Now, with regard to that
point, that whether or not a variance is necessary in either case,
there is an ambiguity. And, the ambiguity arises out of Section 5-
103 of the Zoning statute and Section 5-501 of the Zoning statute.
Section 5-103 says in part, "that if any'lot already less than the
minimum required by the ordinance, the said area may be continued
not reduced~ Section 5-501 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
says, "a single family detached dwelling may be erected on a non-
conforming zone lot on official record that on the effective date
of this ordinance irrespective of its area, the owner of which does
not own any adjoining property which would create a conforming lot
if all or part of the property will combine with the subject zone
law." There is no language in either segion which prohibits the
owner of a lot which does not contain the minimum area, prohibits
him from selling a non-confID~ming lot. And, there is no language
in either of the sedions which prohibits the purchaser of that non-
conforming lot even after the enactment of the Zoning statute, from
building a dwelling on that non-conforming lot. As a matter of fact,
Seg[on 5-501 clearly authorized the owner, it doesn1t say when he
purchased, to build on that non-conforming lot. Now, it's obvious
to anyone who has had any experience with the construction of statutes
that they're construed most strictly against the draf~ers of the
statutes, and in favor of the property owners. And, that there is
no 1naguage in either of these statutes which would prevent the activi-
ties requested in our petition for a variance to be performed. Mr.
Veeder's variance petitions for permission to sell non-conforming
lots. There is no language in either of ~hose sections which pro-
hibits him from selling non-conforming loi~. Mr. Miller's applica-
tion asks for permission to build on a non-conforming lot, even
though he purchased the lot after the enactment of the ordinance.
There is no lançuage in either of those sections which would pro-
hibit Mr. Miller from building on a non-conforming lot. In my
Memorandum of law I picked out just as an example a Seétion of the
Zoning statute for the City of Syracuse, which could have covered
this situation, and the Zoning statute for the City of Syracuse,
which was enacted in 1961, reads¿~as follows, "The Board may permit
the construction of a building on a lot which does not meet the
minimum area requirements of this ordinance, provided the lot is
owned by the applicant and provided further that the ownership was
a record prior to the adoption of the ordinance, no such permit
shall be granted if the applicant purchased the property after the
adoption of this ordinance as amended, or if the applicant is the
owner of an adjoining vacant property so that he could comply with
the requirements of the ordinance. And, the implication is by the
addition of this property". The Town of Queensbury Zoning Statute
doesn't contain the language, doesn't cover this situation. The
petitioner Veeder asks for permission to sell lots, there's nothing
in the Queensbury statute that prohibits the sale of lots, nor is
there anything in the Queensbury statute that prohibits building on
a non-conforming lot. So, under the first main point, our argument
is simply that the zoning Board of Appeals simply does not have any
2
-
ï:<.
?hoice in the case, because the language of the statute is clear, and
1 t doesn I. t have the power to deny permission in this case. The
second point we would like to make, or the petitioner's second con-
tention is that even if the board should find the a variance is
necessary, in other words, even if the board can imply this language
into the statute and decide that the statute does proscribe this
type of activity, that a variance not only should be granted but
must be granted by the board, and once again, the board does not
have very much, if any, discretionary authority in denying the
variance. In an opinion handed down by the Court ôf Appeals of
the State of New York, which as you know is the highest court, in
January of this year, it was published in the January advance sheets
of the Court of Appeals report, Mr. Justice Keating made the following
statement, "The basic rule which has evolved from the cases", and
he's talking about regarding area ~ariances, "is this--where the
property owner will suffer significant economic injury, by the ap-
plication of an area standard ordinance, the standard can be justified
only by showing that public hèalth, safety and welfare will be served
by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance.
To state the matter more precisely, until it's demonstrated that
some legitimate prupose will be served by restricting the use of
the petitioner(s property, he has sufficient standing to challenge
the constitutionality of the ordinance~ Once it is demonstrated that
some legitimate public interest will be served by the restriction,
then before the property owner can succeed in an attack upon the
ordinance as applied~ he must demonstrate the hardship cause is such
that it will deprive him of use of the use of the property to which
it is reasonably adapted, and as a result the ordinance amounts to
a taking of his property. So what this most recently decided case
says, that unless there is proof in the record that there is compon-
ent damage outweigh~ng this significant economic loss, the board
has no choice but to grant the variance. Now, in order to provide
the record with proof of economical loss, I(d like to call an expert
witness, Mr. Robert Leavitt."
"My name is Robert W. Leavitt, Realtor & AppraÜsor, Lake George"
New York Ii .
Mr. Judge, "Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to spread
upon the record the qualifications of Robert W. Leavitt".
Mr. Fitzgerald, "We have them right here. I am sure the board
is aware of Mr. Leavitt(s qualifications, and we'll have them sub-
mi t ted to the record 11 .
Mr. Judge, IINow, Mr. Leavitt, are you familiar with the sub-
division of the owner of Shore-Colony on Assembly Point?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes, I am'!
Mr. Judge, "Have you personally visited the sub-division?"
Mr. Leavitt, "On several occasions".
Mr. Judge, "When was the last time that you had an opportunity
to visit the sub-division?"
Mr. Leavitt, "In the last two weeks".
Mr. Budge, "Mr. Leavitt, have you ever acted as a broker
3
73c
in the purchase or sale of the lots in Shore-Colony sub-division?
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes".
Mr. Judge, "Are you familiar with the value of raw land of
the Colony on the sub-division?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes, by that you mean lots".
Mr. Judge, "Yes lots".
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes".
Mr. Judge, "Now, Mr. Leavitt, have you had an opportunity to
look at the sub-division map; the original which is filed at the
Warren County Clerk's Office and is entitled "Map of Shore Colony
on Assembly Point, Lake George~ June 12, 1957, revised August 17,
1967"?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes, Sir" .
Mr. Judge, "And, have you, at my request Mr. Leavitt, determined
which of those lots have been sold and which of those lots remain
unsold?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I have".
Mr. Judge, "What are thè total number of lots on that sub-
division?"
Mr. Leavitt, "96 lots".
Mr. Judge, "And, how many of those 96 lots presently remain
unsold?"
Mr. Leavitt, "45".
Mr. Judge, "What would you say, on the basis of your experience
as an appraisor and on the basis of your personal inspection of this
sub-division, what would you appraise the total value of the unsold
lots?"
Mr. Leavitt, "There's one lot in Block B that remains unsold,
it isn't part of this. That has a value of $7,500, the balance of
the lots are more uniform in size, location and area".
Mr. Judge, "Let the record show that the lot to which Mr.
Leavitt is referring is Lot No. 2 in Block B that is not a lot in
issue, since the lot is landlocked in the terms of the Zoning
statute; Mr. Veeder owns no surrounding land so this is not a lot
in issue, but, excluding that Mr. Leavitt, what would you say to be
the total present market value of the unsold lots?"
Mr. Leavitt, "$88,000".
Mr. Judge, "Are you familiar with the area requirements of the
Town of Queensbury Zoning statute?"
4
¡
7'1,
Mr. Leavitt, "As lIve heard them tonight~~
Mr. Judge, "And, particularly with reference to the requirement
that if a property owners owns adjacent property that will be re-
quired to add enough property to meet the 10,000 foot requirement?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I understand that."
Mr. Judge, "If Mr. Veeder was required to combine the lots in
a manner in which I just described, in such a way as to comply with
the statute, how many lots would be available for sale?"
Mr. Leavitt, "31."
Mr. Judge, "I think the record shows that you originally said
that if at the present time, without complying with the statute, it
would be 45 lots."
Mr. Leavitt, "Well, I disregarded one, so it would be 44' ."
Mr. Judge, "And, therefore, how many lots will you eliminate
from the sub-division, assuming compliance with the statute?"
Mr. Leavitt, "He'd lose 13 lots."
Mr. Judge, "Have you been able to determine the approximate
market value of the remaining unsold lots, assuming Mr. Veeder
complied with the statute? In other words , the gross value after
you subtract these 31 lots."
Mr. Leavitt, "In my judgmeat, it would be $62,000."
Mr. Judge, "And, therefore, dò I understand your testimony
correctly that if this board grants the variance he would have
a total of $88,000, and if Mr. Veeder is required to comply with
the statute, he would have a total value of..."
Mr. Leavitt, "$62,000"
Mr. Judge, "Resulting in a loss of..."
Mr. Leavitt, "$26,000 and, in addition, he would have to resurvey
the balance of these lots."
Mr. Judge, "Now, how did you arrive at this figure of $26,000?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Well, he established a market for these lots at
an average figure of $2,000, and the market reflected the value, so
what I did was multiply the 13 lots by $2,000-market value of the
property-and, got my $26,000 that he would lose if he complied with
the variance."
Mr. Judge, "And, how did you arrive at the figure of $88,000
after you excluded the $7,500?"
Mr. Leavitt, "1 had 44 lots as they are presently laid out
at the market of $2000, for a total of $88,000."
5
7$'.
Mr. Judge, "Now, Mr. Leavitt, you put a value of $2,000 on
the lots before compliance with the statute, and after compliance
with the statute, and after the area of the lots is increased by
another 25 front feet you continae to carry the lots at a value of
$2,000; will you please explain to the board why you have not in-
creased the value of the lots after the additional front footage?"
Mr. Leavitt, "The whole sub-division is over 50% sold out.
The palter has been established from 75 foot lots, the relationship
of land improvement is established, I don't feel the increase sized
lots in the development will reflect any increase in price on those
lots."
Mr. Judge, "In òther words, in view of the fact that 44 lots
have already been sold at 75 front footage, that if the man next
door were to buy a lot at 100 front footage it would not reflect
a proportionate increase in the purchase price?"
Mr. Leavitt, "No, that's right."
Mr. Judge, "Mr. Leavitt, are you familiar with the water treat-
ment facilities that Harold Veeder instalEd a short while ago in
the Shore Colony?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes"
Mr. Judge, "Have you ever seen it?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes, I have."
Mr. Judge, "Have you any idea of the cost of the water treatment
facilities?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I've understood that it was approximately $35,000,
and based on what I've seen there, and what knowledge I have, I
would assume that was correct."
Mr. Judge, "Does the board have any questions of Mr. Leavitt,
or anyone else?"
Mr. Fitzgerald, "We ask Mr. Leavitt to remain to answer any
questions the opposition might have."
Mr. Judge, "Assuming we are consolidating the cases, if Mr.
Miller would have to sell his land without obtaining a variance,
his land would be worthless. For purposes of the record, I will
ask Mr. Leavitt to direct his attention to Lot 6 Block G of the
sub-division map." Assuming a hypothetical owner of that lot No.6,
and assuming the Zoning statute prohibilted the construction of a
seasonal dwelling on that lot, what would you say the market value
of that lot would be?"
Mr. Leavitt, "There would be no market value."
Mr. Judge, "I have no further questions."
6
70.
Mr. Judge, "The recent court of appeals case that I just
sited contained a greatJdeal of language, all of which I feel
relevant because the case is almost exactly the same. One of the
~ items that Judge Keating thought was relevant in that case, was
that the particular zone lots involved in that case sat in the
development where all the other zone lots had been zoned under a
prior zoning ordinance, and contained less area. Then, the zoning
ordinance;came in and imposed the 12,000 square foot area requirement,
whereas all the lots around this particular petioner's property was
also petitioning for a variance, had area very much less than 12,000.
Some lots had frontage of 40 and 60 feet. (He quotes from Judge
Keating...."It is queer that we contemplate here an island of 12,000
minimum size lots in a residential area of substantially less res-
tricted zoning".) This is precisely the same situation that pre-
vailed here. On the zoning map, almost all of the outlying lots
have been sold and contain less than 10,000 square feet. If there
is any damage, or if there is any derogation to the outlying areas
or surrounding community, the damage is already done prior to the
zoning ordinance. The island of great concentration of lots in
issue, which are in the middle of the development, and, therefore,
can't in any way prejudice their neighbors. And, furthermore, I
think it's a matter of public record that a great many lots on
Assembly Point do not meet the 10,000 square foot area requirement,
and, therefore, a granting of the variance in this case will not
change the character of the Assembly Point Community and, therefore,
will not increase the population density of the Assembly Point Com-
munity. We're talki~g about a loss of 13 units, possibly less, if
we make so-called 'þothandle" lots we could run these lines around,
we tried to figure it out and we got down to as small as 8, but the
population density of 13 units as opposed to all the present units
on Assembly Point now, is so dimininimous that could almpst be in-
consequential. There's one further, but I think 'very important,
fact that I'd like to make. Mr. Veeder entered upon this enterprise
of this Shore-Colony sub-division i. 1957, and in order to do that
he had to have all these lots surveyed. On a survey map submitted
to the Department of Health, he was required to lay out s~ptic and
drainage systems in his sub-division which would comply with all
their Department of Health requirements, and still comply. This
sub-division is in the middle of Assembly Point, so if there was
any danger of a seepage of effluent, it would be much less than
on those lots on either side of Shore-Colony sub-division. After
he received these approvals from the Department of Health, he went
to the proper authorities in the town for permission to put in this
development and received, as far as I can see, their approval. He
went to the expense of grating roads in the community, dedicated
those roads which were originally part of his property to the town.
Went to the expense of putting in a completely independent water
treatment system which draws water from the lake, however, it contains
a separate chlorinating and filter system of its own, and has an
outlet in front of each one of these lots. All that is part of his
capital investment. And, he did this relying on the law as it was
at that time, and relying on the unspoken and unwritten contact with
the town that he had the right to do what he was doing, and he clearly
did have the right to do what he was doing. After he made all this
capital investment, and after he had barely received the return on
his money, the rules of the game are suddenly changed by the Zoning
statute and now the town, through the statute, says to him "wait a
minute, we're not interested anymore in hearing about what your
7
11,
capital investment was, or what it had to be in order to get the
sub-division off the ground. Now we have a Zoning statute, and all
bets are off". There's no legal obligation on the town to continue
this sub-division~in fact, there's a statute in the Town law book,
however, there is I think a serious moral issue involved here~ when
you weigh the financial drainage on a petitioner against the theoreti-
cal maintenance established by this statute. AIl¿during these hear-
ings the record has not shown one iota of proof, the kind of proof
that this court of appeals case requires. The proof that the public
health, safety, and welfare will be served by upholding the applica-
tion. There is not proof in the record that a l~gitimate public
interest will be served by the restrictions. There is no proof in
the record of any health hazard¡ There is no~proof in the record
of any change in the character of the commumity. There is not proof
in the record of any change in population density. There is no
proof in the record of any derogation of the public injury. However,
tonight we have put proof in the record of significant economic in-
jury to both the petioners. And, on the basis of that proof, and
on the basis of law, it is the petioners contention that the Zoning
Board has no choice but to find (a) either no variance is necessary,
or (b) the board has no power to deny a variance."
Mr. Fitzgerald, "Taking the issue of having no proof, the
application has never really been considered. It's been postponed,
except for noting of opinions. We have been waiting for legal
opinion as a guidance. There have been gentlemen in opposition
who have not appeared yet, or submitted a memorandum of law.
Mr. Katz (Town Attorney), "I have not really had a chance to
study it. Before rendering an opinion I would like to study the
Memorandum of Law which has been presented."
(Some general discussion at this pøint as to the map being
filed with the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Judge said that he did not
know, but he did mention that there is a provision in the Town Law
that these maps must be filèd in the County Clerk's office.
Mr. Fitzgerald suggests that Mr. Judge answer yes or no as
to whether this map has been filed, and send this answeritn the
fD~m of a letter to the Board as soon as possible)
Mr. Fitzgerald, "Mr. Katz, as far as lots which are physicilly,
as Mr. Veeder pointed out, landlocked, where Mr. Veeder has sold
all the property around those lots, is a variance necessary?
Mr. Katz, "No, it's may opinion when they're landlocked and
there is no way of making them conform to the present standards,
that no variance is required."
Mr. Fitzgerald, "So, the only lots which we are concerned with
at this particular point, are lots which are unsold but which are
adjacent to an area which should be consolidated, Mr. Mr. Eeavitt
explained. I have not really had an opportunity to digest this
Memorandum of Law which Mr. Judge has submitted, and would like to
give the opposition an opportunity to submit a Memoradnum at the
next meeting."
8
¡t.
Discussion at this point as to the date of submittal of
Memorandum of Law by the opposition.
It was decided that the opposition will submit their Memorandum
of Law by December 11, 1968, and Mr. Judge will submit an answer to
it by December l1>f 1968.
In opposition, Mr. Michael Cipollo, 4 Pine Street, Albany,
New York, speaking for himself and his wife who are owners on
Assembly Point, and for members of Shore Colony.
"I agree that this has corne down to a question of law. When
we had a Zoning meeting we had a fairly large representation at
the Queensbury school. We didn't see Mr. Veeder or anyone repres-
enting him at that time, so it was safe to assume that he agreed
with everything. Then we discovered that Mr. Miller had purchased
a lot from Mr. Veeder on August 15th for $1,500 and proceeded to
build',on it, and was told he had to go to the building conunission
and was told he couldn't build on that lot because of the size.
Now, something was said about proof not beæng presented here.
We have not been informed by Mr. Miller,or anyone else,of his
proof of good faith in this thing. And, even though there is good
faith here it must be noticed too. I say that because I also
have cases which say that anyone purchasing one of these lots knowing
that the lot was not conforming is in no position to ask for a variance.
That's in Town Law Section 267. Now, we're going on the strict in-
terpretation of 5.500, that"in our district only a single family of
taxed dwelling may be erected on a non-conforming zone lot of official
record, the effective date of this ordinance irrespective to this
area or with the owner of which does not own any adjoining property
which would create a conforming lot if all or part of said property
were combined with subject's own lo~, provided, however, that no .
lot or lots in single ownership shall hereafter be reduced so as to
create one or more mon-conforming lots." Now, it is safe to assume
that the Town Board created these ordinances, and created a valid
law here. We are not taking exception to these lots, that only a
single lot; we say Mr. Veeder is entitled to sell those one lots
but he has other lots here which he can make into conforming lots.
This particular lot of Mr. Miller; there are four lots. Mr. Miller
facing south, has one lot vacant on his left, and two lots vacant
on his right facing south. Now, Mr. Veeder could easily create
three con£Ðrming lots, of 400 feet,and could sell this for $1,500
and probably get $1,700. We fail to see èhe hardship there. The
other lots which are locked in where he does not own any adjoining
lots, wersay that the law is clear, definite and concise, and I
think the only way in which you could create a variance is to say
that this law is unconstitutional. The Town Board created it, and
we relied upon it. You say you have no economical hardship on our
part; the water settled on the place and when you go to the building
zone,and when you go to the health zone they'll tell you when you
go there to build. All we1re interested in at this particular time,
is the granting of the variance. The reason we are interested is
these people are members of Shore Colony, and they're being crowded.
So, they're interested to see that these ordinances are upheld. I
wanted to argue with Mr. Miller separately and Mr. Veeder s~parately,
because Mr. Miller would clearly corne within a factual situation,
because the law is very definite. Section 267. In that case,
9
~9,
"a variance would be denied a property owner who acquires his
property knowing that the zoning ordinance prohibits the use for
which the variances is sought~ Mr. Miller waited almost a year
and a half to purchase, and ón his deed it says subject to law
and easements of record. And, I assume he's represented by an
attorney; if he didn't have actual notice, you gentlement know,
that constructive notice is there, and Mr. Veeder certainly
knew this."
(Mr. Cipolla then questions Mr. Leavitt)
Mr. Cipolla, "I am aware of your credentials as a Real Estate
Appraisor and so forth, and I've known of you for a long time, and
I'd like to ask you a few questions. How many lots have you sold
on this development"?
Mr. Leavitt, "I've said before I've sold a finished house on
that area."
Mr. Cipolla, "You've sold just one house?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes".
Mr.- Cipolla, "Did you sell any lots?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I never sold a lot."
Mr. Cipolla, "Have you sold many lots in and around Shore-
Colony Assembly Point?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes".
Mr. Cipolla, "What would you say is a fair price of a lot in
Assembly Point, per foot?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Of course, it's all according to where the lot
is, I'd say the value is at $2,000 a lot."
Mr. Cipolla, "So, that if Mr. Veeder had 4 lots at 75 feet,
what would be $8,000, right?"
Mr. Leavitt, "That's correct."
Mr. Cipolla, "So, if he split up those lots into 3 he'd have
to get approximately $2,750, right?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I don't think he'd get it."
Mr. Cipolla, "You based your total value on a $2,000 lot,
did you not?"
Mr. Leavitt, "As it's laid out."
Mr. Cipolla, "So, if there are 4 lots at $2,000, it would be
$8,000. Now, you say it's not worth that much a lot, yet you us
that the whole works is worth $88,000. Now, let's get back to my
question. The, if he sold the 3 lots at $2,750 he'd still get the
same money would he not?
10
g-o.
Mrs. James Fraser
John & Dorothy Black
Mrs. Leon B. Streeter
Mr. & Mrs. Bonaquent
Dr. & Mrs. Berwyn Mattison
Mr. & Mrs. Ottmanp
Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Adamson
Arthur & Florence Turnball
Henry & Lila Desormean
Mr. & Mrs. Carlton Garrand
Mr. & Mrs. Harold Buse
Dr. & Mrs. Young
Wm & Emily Sherman
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Shay
Ward & Catherine McMullen
Joseph & Frances Schmidinger
Vincent & Dorothea Mahoney
Mr. & Mrs. Irving Bush
Another Petition was submitted in opposition as follows, "To the
Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury: As Assembly Point
residential property owners we petition the Zoning Board of Appeals
to deny a blanket Variance to Harold S. Veeder, of Lake Goerge, "for
selling all lots in SHORE COLONY which require a Variance due to the
fact that they do not domply with the 10,000 sq. ft. area requirement".
We oppose this application for the following (and other) reasons:
1-
-
2.
3.
4.
5.
The applicant has offered these lots, specially priced
for quick sale, as an opportunity to build camps for sale or
a rental colony.
The construction of camps (potentially 47) on non~conforming
(7,500 sq. ft.) lots would start an undesireable trend in
residential development at Assembly Point.
Most of the existing residential property at Assembly Point
is high grade and very valuable.
Many of the homes are constructed and used as year-round
dwellings. This is a trend.
Wide scale residential development 6f the remaining vacant area
of Shore Colony on non-conforming lots would injure
all of the owners of residential property at Assembly Point
because seasonal overcrowding and generally depreciated
property values would follow.
6. We sympathize with the applicant, but believe he can replan
the lot sizes of most of his unsold developed area to make
them conform; and then sell them profitably. That way no
one will be injured.
7. With the exception of a few unsold 7.500 sq. ft. lots that
are blocked on both sides, we do not believe separate lot
Variances would be justified on the basisfof "hardship".
We do believe that granting of a blanket Variance to the
applicant would be precedent making and would seriously
weaken the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. This, as supporters
and beneficiaries of the ordinance, we would regret."
Dr. Edward Blsey
George O. Boivin
Mrs. George O. Boiwin
Mr. & Mrs. George Brown
Mr. Marsolais
Mrs. George Wertime
14
g' I.
a copy of the letter to this meeting, because it applies as
well to Mr. Veeder's application as well as Mr. Miller's.
Because the applications are similar, I suggest that all records
for Mr. Miller's application be submitted to this hearing with
Mr. Veeder's. The variance of the Miller application and the
Veeder application could bring about undesirable property devel-
opment and decrease property va~ues at Assembly P01nt. Letter
sUbmitted to record.
Separate letters were sent out by Mr. Frank Adamo in the form of a
A petition wålth approximately 150 signatures in"opposition to the
granting of a blanket variance to Mr. Harold Veeder or a single
variance to Mr. George Miller on the lots in the Shore Colony of
Assembly Point which do not conform to the Rl Zoning Ordinance!!
was submitted to the Board: (These :.;peöple are mernbe:œ of the
Shore Colorty AssLn and/or Assembly Point Ass'n)
George & Marilyn Wasserman
Charles & Kathryn Christopher
E.H.&Lena Harris
Dr. & Mrs. William H. Schwab
Walter & Anne Way
John & Virginia Quinlan
Mr. & Mrs. Edward J. Brown
Mr. & Mrs. David Jones
Dr. & Mrs. Robert H. Randles
Mrs. Edward J. O'Hanlon
William & Doris Hopper
Charles H. Cavron
Michael & Anna Cipollo
George & Lydia Ernst
Mr. & Mrs. E.F. Alexanderson
Mrs. Jane Sheres
Mr. & Mrs. J.G. Harris
Ernest Wright
Mr. & Mrs. Bonakcer
Mrs. Jarry Eddy Young
Mrs. Marcus J. Mead
Sigmund & Martha R. Weiss
Mrs. Ruth D. Fratus
Mr. Philip R. Peck
Lyle & Heleà Morton
Guy & Edith Ham
R.L. & Joyce Henry
Paul & Marie Laursen
Francis & Margaret Marsolais
Mr. & Mrs. J.Milton Lang
Walter & Clara Englert
Mrs. Marcella Weed
Mr. & Mrs. Charles M. Young
Mr. Bert S. Harrington
Dr. & Mrs. John Roach
David & Bernice Stark
Thos. & Laura Turncos
John & Jean HeathI:
Charles & Lillian Adamson
Mr. & Mrs. Beals
Dr. & Mrs. EŒward Elsey
Kenneth & Claire Simpson
Mr. & Mrs. E~A. Wilkins
Mr. Vincent J. Parisi
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph DeCamilla
Raymond & Alice Aubin
Robert & Margaret Delehanty
Robert & Mrs Walden
Mr & Mrs. Francis W. McGinley
Raymond & Anna Komp
Robert & Jennie Bulman
Henry & Lois Merrill
Mrs. Cordelia Smith
Mr. & Mrs. Van Valkenburgh
Mr. & Mrs. A.J. Milinaro
Ðr. & Mrs. Daniel O'Keefe
Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Smith
Mr. & Mrs. Collins
Clayton & Henrietta Vedder
Mr. & Mrs. Emil Steiner
Mr. & Mrs. Malcoln Oanner
Stanley & Margaret Finik
Frank & Jame Piltman
Mr. & Mrs. Clark
Clyde 5 Clarissa Stewart
Robert & Mary Hodgkins
Benjamin & Mabel Qudekerk
Mr. & Mrs. James Walsh
Emil & Irma Bialous
Jacob & Trudi Koch
Mr. & Mrs. D. Mac Elroy
John & Mabel Cary
Mr. & Mrs. J.S. Parks
Mr. & Mrs. George MacDonald
Mr. Collins
Mrs. Richard Fielding
Mr. & Mrs. John Wallace
Dr. & Mrs. Donald Guyer
Mrs. Elizabeth M. Klèin
Paul & Alice Hirni
~3
8'1.
Mr. Leavitt, IIIf you sold them as one lump sum, it would be
a totally different pricture than as he's sold them. II
Mr. Cipolla, IIIf Mr. Veeder sells these lots at $42,000 would
he have an economic loss?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Not if he sells ih one lump sum.
~-1r. Cipolla, "And, if he holds it at $2,000 a lot he would
not lose because he has a prospective future profit."
In opposition, Mr. Frank Adama, 19 Gramercy Avenue, Yonkers,
former President of Shore Colony Association, and now President
of Assembly Point Association.
"I was about the fourth or fifth one to buy in the Colony.
At that time, the lots varied and the maps had been drawn up and
the prices of each lot appeared on the map, and there wasn't
anything there higher than $5,000. These 46 remaining lots that
Mr. Veeder has on the map and which has been talked about at $88,000,
we had the opportunity to buy them at $26,000 because we intended
to keep the land as it exists now. In fact, within the last month
I had a telephone call from a lawyer who is handling this,and who
is a member of the Shore Colony,and who has asked me if I would
contribute and buy some of the stock which they are trying to create
to buy the remaining lots to veto future building. This is how
interested the people of the Shore Colony and Assembly Point are
that these quick camps and overnight camps that they're building,
want to be done away with. We intended to buy this land, at the
fixed price of $26,000. Now, Mr. Leavitt said he had been in the
Colony within the last two weeks. And, Mr. Cipolla asked him if
he had seen anyone digging on this land. Now, on Sunset Lane,
which is the street that I live on, a fellow who lives there all
year round, is now drilling water there. Mr. Hopper, who has
another home there, has had water put in all year round. The
water system is inadequate, the people want to stay there during
the winter months, they want to come up during the winter. So, the
people are now beginning to install their own water. Judge said
there were layouts for septic tanks. I don't know where the lay-
outs were and I built four houses in the Shore-Colony. He also
says that the lots are all crowded. I disagree with that. Mr.
Veeder has also been threatening us with trailer camps and different
camps to sell his property which we are opposed to, and here are
150 signatures which I received this week who want the Zoning
ordinance upheld. We don't want the place overcrowded, we don't
want these camps."
In opposition, Mr. Lyle W. Morton, year round resident at
Assembly Point.
"To oppose the granting of a blanket variance to Harold
Veeder for selling all lots in Shore Colony which require a variance
due to the fact they do not comply with the 10,000 square foot
requirement. Mr. Veeder's application is clmsely related to the
application of Mr. George Miller, which was considered by the
Board on October 16th. I introduced a letter to Mr. Fitzgerald,
which became part of the record on October 16th. I wish to submit
12
g- 3.
Mr. Leavitt, "Close to it."
Mr. Cipolla, "Would you say Mr. Veeder is a competent real
estate man and knows the value of property on or about the lake?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I believe he does."
Mr. Cipolla, "Now, if I showed you an advertisement put out
by Mr. Veeder whereby he wishes to sell all of them for $42,000
what would you say to that?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I'd say, on the basis of his $2,000 éale as
he's going, it would probably reflect that."
Mr. Cipolla, "Mr. Veeder is satisfied with a sale of $42,000,
you wouldn't criticize it?"
Mr. Leavitt, "Only on a basis of a complete sale."
Mr. Cipolla, "So that if he compared a price for each lot
than at $42,000 each lot would not be worth $2,000?"
Mr. Leavitt, "I'm implying a one lump sum sale."
Mr. Cipolla, "Now, did you ever see anyone digging wells there
or anything?"
Mr. Leavitt, "No Sir"
Mr. Cipolla, "So that your only knowledge of the comparative
values of Shore Colony is the fact that you sold one lot? (Correction,
one house)"
Mr. Leavitt, "Yes, Mr. Veeder had his own sales.
Mr. Cipolla, "So evidently your appraisal and Mr. Veeder's
are different?"
Mr. Leavitt, "No, we're reflecting the value of these lots
~s they were sold at an average figure of $2,000. When you lump sum
the whole thing that's a different story."
Mr. Cipolla, "Well, how would you justify Mr. Veeder's willing-
ness to take $42,000 as a fair and accurate value?"
Mr. Leavitt, "If you took $88,000 as the value of those lots,
over the time that it takes you to sell them, over the time that
you have accumulated taxes on the unsold lots, and take the present
worth of a dollar and reflect it, you'd probably come out with
$47,000 value as of today.
Mr. Cipolla, "So, the economic factor would certainly not
bother Mr. Veeder, would it?"
11
Mrs. Margaret Marsolais
Mr s. Anna Kemp
Raymond J.. Komp
Edith Ham
Guy Ham
Mr. & Mrs. Delehanty
Jessie Weinman
Philip Weinman
Mr. & Mrs. Brayton
Dr. & Marjorie Young
Robert Randers
Robert Van Dyke
Louise Van Dyke
John Goetz
Mildred Goetz
James W. Wahar
George ERnst
Henrietta Wagar
R. Lund
Edward Wilkins
Eunice Wilkins
Lydia ERnst
Raymond Murray
Betty Murray
MaryAnn Bruining
John Bruining
Irene Ortman
Anne Ortmann
Rosamond Young
Charles & Julia Jerling
Frank Adamo
Clayton Vedder
Henrietta Vedder
H. Woodruff
Florence K. Woodruff
Lysle Morton
Helen M. Morton
Lois Merrill
Henry Merrill
Alicia Roadh
John Roach
Elizabeth M. Kelin
Berwihn Mattison, M.D.
Ann B. Mattison
Kenneth Simpson
Claire Simpson
Kathryn O'Keefe
Daneil Q'Keeffe
Anna S. Cipollo
Michael A. Cipollo
Ruth D. Fratus
Joseph Schmidinger
Frances Schmidinger
Anson Collins
Harriet Collins
Isabella Lee Elsey
Laura Turner
15
$'4,
Mr. & Mrs. Beals
Mrs. Wm.. Smith
Trudi Koch
Jacob Koch
Clifton Barker
M. Louise Barker
Edith A. Nordlauder
Charles M. Young
Robert J. Bulman
Jennie C. Bulman
Beatrice E. Weber
~6,
A letter submitted to the record by Mrs. John J. Black, Lake
George, New YOrk in opposition to the application for a variance.
She thinks the granting of the variance would be in contrary to
the objectives of the Lake George Assoc. in preserving the purity
of the Lake water, and would devalue the property of the residents
of Assembly Point.
Alletter submitted to the record by Francis W. McGinley, Glens
Falls, New York, stating he would be unable to attend the public
hearing for this application. We states his opposition to the
application in this letter, and thinks the granting of the variance
would make the area even more congested that it might already be.
He also feels there are not signs of hardship on the applicant's
side.
Letters from others in opposition to the granting of the variance
to Harold Veeder and who are unable to attend the public hearing
are: George R. Wasse~~an, Mrs. Leon B. Streeter, Robert C. Hodgkins.
Letters in opposition to the granting of a variance ~o George Miller:
Charles Adamson, unable to attend the public hearing, and sees no
hardship in this case.
George & Lydia Ernst, against any movement to "downgrade" this
colorful community.
Clayton Vedder, the granting of the variance will lower the value
of the property on Assembly Point. (For this same reason le~ters
were written by: Lyle W. Morton'., .Walter Englert)1 Munroe Grldley,
Mr. & Mrs. Bertram Harris, Bert. Harrington, Mrs. Jonh Faunce Roach,
Other letters from people who are opposed to the variation of the
zoning ordinanee who feel these laws must be enforced are:
Dorothy Black, Gertrude Young, M. Canner, Robert L. Walden, Mr.
& Mrs. E.F.W. Alexanderson, C.W. Christopher, F.L. Marsolais,
Edward Brown.
16
tb.
Application for variance ~66 by Cummings & Company to
instaLl and maintain signs in accordance with the attached
drawings. (4 signs in all)
Mr. KelLer, "For the record, these were the same drawings
that were suomitted prèviously.
Mr. Albert Myers, Devon, Massachusetts, Vice President at
Cummings & Company, representing Zayre Corporation.
"The Zayre corporat1on, as everyone in Glens Falls knows
right now, is a chain of 125 self-service department stores.
I've got some photographs I'd like to submit to the Board. The
Company tries to maintain a nat10naL image. The store in Glens
Falls employs approximately 300 people. It has a local advertising
budget of about $125,000 that is used. On that property, they did
a very delightful building job, and we thought we did a very neat
sign installation. We appeared before this board the 1st of January
for a variance put out by us allowing us to put up 12 foot letters
on the roof of the building, a special double faced ground sign,
which was made for this door only because the board requested that
we drop the word "fabulous" which is a trademark; we put up under
canopy sign, and 4 traffic signs to indicate the interim exists
of the driveways. We found out after a short while, I presume it
was in May, that there was some change of events; the permits
involved were~evoked and we were living under a fine situation where
the Zayre Corporation was being fined per week for signs that were
illegally installed. I've come back today to ask you to please
reconsider and to give us a variance to allow us to keep the signs
that we now have. I have three reasons for this. My first reason
being that the Planning Board approved and set up what we could
use for a store sometime prior to September 1967, which was before
the new sign ordinance. We had our plans at that time to go ahead
with the store, and we made up, redesigned, or done several other
things that we could n-bt> have had proper signing. Number 2, because
of the variance we received, in January, we now have a hardship
because the ground sign is a non-conforming sign, and the cost of
$10,000 it would be again a hardship to just remove it and dispose
of the same. Number 3, we know that this7tore is in an area that
depends greatly on summer trade. The Zayre store is setback actually
high and behind a hill, and if you drive down Route 9 by the store,
you can barely see the top of it, you can see part of the letters,
but it's way bake. We feel that the ground sign is of utmost
importance to us to get the spontaneous business that we do look
forward to in the summer, and, of course, in that way keep our
store thriving and keep our employees busy and employed."
Mr. Fitzgerald, "Do you have anybody else appearing on behalf
of Mr. Myers?
Mr. Myers,
"I do not,Sir."
17
g7,
Mr. Fitzgerald, "Is there anybody appearing in objection
to the application?"
Mr. William Richardson, 16 Greenway Drive.
"First off, this gentleman who is representing Cummings, and
I guess also Zayres, indicated these signs that are up are typical
of some 120 some odd stores, and to add to this, that it is pleasing
to the country, there is an article that was written in the New
York Times of March 10, 1968, and I just wanted to quote for the
record concerning this pleasing advertising; this does not have to
do with Zayre, but it does have to do with the Holiday Inn, and
their sign which also is quite large,and says "How They Ensign
Coast to Coast Atrocity". It says, "this visual monstorcity poisons
the environment wherever it is, and it is everywhere because the
Holiday Inn Corporation insists on it as identification allover
the country." That's just to answer his argument that this is in all
his stores and is a necessity. Also, since wer an up and coming
community, there is a bulletin that was sent t061ery town in New
York State. It's from the Natural Beauty Commission, and there was
an article even in our local paper where the Governor Rockefeller
adopted this and is a sample provision for a local law to regulate
signs. And, In Section 5 of ~eneral Regulations Sub-C, they speci-
fically state "no signs shall be placed on the roof of any building."
Now, these are just guide lines. What I'm trying to say, is the
trend of the country. Zayre came to this town and put up a building
and in my conversation with our previous supervisor, Mr. Webster,
he indicated to me prior to construction, that Zayre was going to
leave up a border of trees. Zayre removed all trees. We, a few
months ago, had a rezoning hearing, which Zayre agreed to certain
things they were going to do. During this meeting, one of the
residents complained about the trash coming over and one of the
requirements was a fence was going to be put up and I believe the
gentleman's name was Mr. Rubin, and he said that this fence was
going to be put up immediately. This had not been done. In other
words, Zayr'es intent has been all Zayre and nothing for th~s
community. I don't know if they're going to put up the fence or
not, I have no idea."
Mr. Fitzgerald, "Is this from another case?"
Mr. Richardson, "No, the Planning Board when they planned the
original planning, that property was, I even believe half of the
Zayre store was residential, R-4 district, now the apartments are in
the back, they want this to be R-5, and they also want the residen-
tial to change to commercial. The only other question I do have
for the board, is for Mr. Katz, who I see has left. (Poses question
directly to tape recording). I understand that this is going to
our town, according to Mr. Solomon at a public meeting indicated to
me that Mr. Katz was prosecuting this or going out and getting an
injunction for the removal of the sign on the 22nd of November, it
seems that we have a conflict here whether this is being done, or
being withheld? The Other question I have: On what grounds are
we rehearing this application again?"
18
9:1.
Mr. Fitzgerald, "This is no rehearing, anyone can continue
to make applications indefinitely, and if they are refused they can
submit again with additional evidence. The original application
was approved, it was upset by Court in termination so that it ceased
to existi, so that they are non-conforming so that they are again
in a position to make an application, which is the subject of the
present proceedings."
Mr. Richardson, "Now, this gentleman pointed out that he was
going to have a hardship for the loss of the amount of money put
into these signs. My knowledge is,prior to the installation the
actual physical installation of these signs, Zayre was giving
notice that this decision was being appealed in a court but-
they went right ahead and put up these signs. I am not sure, but
Cununings must also have something to do with the Saveway signs."
Mr. Myers, "I might say, there are a couple of things that
Zayre might not be responsible for. I'm sure that Zayre does not
own the shopping center, Zayre is a ·ëenant. And, I will look into
this fence situation and if it was promised by Zayre, then it will
be instàlled."
Mr. Richardson, "I will quote for the record, the decision of
Justice William Harvey, "the granting of a variance by the Board
of Appeals under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury,
is governed by Section 10.202, from a careful reading of the ordin-
ance and all papers submitted, is impossible for the Court to under-
stand why the variance was allowed in this particular case." "
Mr. Fitzgerald, "May I recall your attention Mr. Richardson.
Our legal record did not contain sufficient evidence that was taken
at the hearing, and at the present hearing we are taking all testi-
mony in order that this error be corrected. This is the main point
that Judge Harvey made in overruling. He made no statements as to
merits other than the fact there were no grounds upon which we
could show in the record upon which we could judge a variance."
Mr. Richardson, IIHe is also saying, that he carefully reviewed
an entire section, and based on reviewing the entire section, and
also of the things that were submitted, he's taking the two things
into consideration."
Mr. Fitzgerald, IIWelll consider Justice Harvey's decision as
part of the record. These are legal questions he intended for the
Town Attorney. II
Mr. Richardson, "I do hope that you will deny this ppplication
for the simple point of view, I would like to see this town grow
in a nice way. And, I don '. t think signs are the answer, not large
signs. I think if you take a ride up Route 9 it's not a very
pleasing site, and I think we have some ground work in which to
build, but I don't thing we should go from a junkie thing to a
greater junkie thing. We have a set of rules and regulations that
we can make something good out of this community, and I hope you
people,in your decision,will take all of this into consideration."
19
~i.
Mr. Keller, "I have a letter here signed by Mrs. William
Richardon in opposition to this variance." *
Present in opposition and presenting a letter was Mrs. J.P.
Stecher, 18 Carlton Drive~* Another letter was presented in oppos~ion
from Colin and Mary Gray~**
Mr. Kurosaka, "I see here so far no mention as to the modifi-
cations that we requested on the sign before they erected it."
Mr. Keller, "We reduced the size of the sign of the I1restanding
sign, and removed the lettering "fabulous".
Mr. Kurosaka, "And, the signs that were going under it. Plus
we removed two of the occupancy signs."
The result of the decision of the Planning Board has not been
presented as yet.
* Mrs. Richardon states in here letter of opposition that she does
not object to the signs themselves, but, she does object to the
precedent that will be set if they are ãllowed. Alae, she thinks
that the signs contribute nothing to the visual attractiveness of
the community.
** Mr. Stecher opposes the granting of a variance not because she
opposes the signs erected by Zayre, but the continuing granting
of variances that can lead to a sign jungle in the communíty. She
does not agree that these huge signs harmonize with other signs
already erected.
*** Colin and Mary Gray state in their letter of opposition that
they "deplore the continuation of the haphaaard and unattractive growth
which pre-dated our Zoning Ordinance."
20
10.
Application for a Variance #65 by Prince Floors, Quaker
Road, to erect a sign one foot from the right-of-way. Mr. Prince,
Owner of Prince Floors, was present in his own behalf, and Mr.
H.K. Hoffman, Signs of Progress, Glens Falls, was also present
in favor of the application.
The existing sign is 4 feet by 3 feet, and is located on the
right-of-way at the present time. Mr. Prince says he cannot move
the sign back any further because it would be too close to the
building. At the time of installation of this original sign,
Mr. Prince was no~ in a position to buy a larger and more expensive
sign, but he says that he can now afford one.
There was some discussion between the board and the applicant
as to the clarity of the plot plan~ and after further discussion,
upon.motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously, it was
RESOLVED that ~n view of the
practtcal difficulty due to the
great distance between the edge
of the Quaker Road pavement and
the Right-of-Way, and because the
proposal is in general harmony with
the established uses in the area, be
it ORDERED that Application for Variance
#65 by Prince Floors be approved as
requested upon receipt by the Zoning
Board of an approved Plot Plan.
Aþplication for a Variance #68 by Stephen Lapham for the
remodelling øf a barn to be used as a book store, located on Glenwood Ave.
Mr. Lapham, present in his own behalf, explained that he would
remodel the structure and,at the same time,keep the rustic motif.
Because the structure is now resting on a concrete slab, he would be
unable to change the location. The parking area would be located
on the west side of the property. Mr. Lapham also mentioned that the
exterior of the structure would be repaintted and he would replace
the windows.
Appearing in opposition to this application was Dr R.G.
21
9/.
~JJ fJ :.."
GriswaM( stating this was already a busy residential area, and
the store would bring more traffic to the area. He said it would
add nothing to the improvement of the area. He also.denies that
this would be a hardship.
Dr. Robert Wescott was also present in oppostiøn declaring
his view that this was an awkward location for a business.
After discussion, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried
unanimously, it was resolved that the board withhold a decision
pending the opinion of the town attorney on whether or not a variance
is necessary.
Applicat~mn for a Variance #'~y Agnes Rosell & Elizabeth La pointe
to proceed with plans dating back to 1954 when the building was
first being constructed, to construct a motel over a store and
shop block on Main Street, West Glens Falls. The zoning ordinance
was adopted after completion of the first floor.
No one present in oppositon to the variance.
After discussion, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried
unanimously, it was
RESOLVED that since the proposal
is in general harmony with the
established uses in the area, be
it ORDERED that Application £or
Variance #67 by Agnes Rosell and
Elizabeth LaPointe be approved as
applied for.
There being no other business to come before the meeting,
upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried unanimously( the
meeting was adjourned.
J o.Yne6 W. Je-lIeí
Secretary
22