1983-02-16
/~5
Regular monthly meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals was called to order on February 16, 1983 at 7:30
P.M. by Chairman Kirkham Cornwell.
Present: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Cornwell, Mr. Sicard and Mrs. Richardson.
The Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes of
the previous meeting.
Mrs. Goetz said she had a correction on the Resolution set
forth in the minutes for Variance 805. She wanted a period
after the word "established" and to start the next sentence
with the words "sales and services to be ...".
Motion was made by Mr. Sicard to approve the minutes with
the corrections and the motion was second by Mrs. Goetz.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Meeting on February 16,
1983 are approved subject to corrections.
Approved by five "yes" votes with one abstention.
INTERPRETATION NO. 17 - V.S.H. REALTY, INC. (Cumberland Farms)
Corner Route 9 and Kendrick Road HC-15
Zone
The application for interpretation and letter from Bascom,
Prime & Mulder, Town Counsel, were read by Mr. Turner.
Cumberland Farms was represented by Andrew McCormack.
Mr. McCormack stated that the Cumberland Farms people had
reviewed the letter of Town Counsel. Mr. McCormack stated
that in December, 1982, they had submitted the site plan
to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Approval was
not obtained that evening. The Planning Board wanted to
see more in the way of details regarding drainage. At the
following meeting in January, they submitted the further de-
tailed plan. The plan submitted to this Zoning Board of
Appeals is the plan that was approved at the January meeting,
the only addition being the 25 foot dimension from the Route 9
right-of-way line to the west edge of the gas pump. Shortly
after the approval in January, the Cumberland Farms people
attempted to obtain a permit and were denied because the gas
pumps did not meet a certain set back requirement. Up to
that point, the Cumberland Farms people had assumed that
the plan having been approved by the Planning Board with the
gas pumps in their present position (25 feet from the right-
of-way line) were an acceptable set back distance for a gas
pump. However, that was deemed to be only half the required
distance that they should be set back because it was determined
that a gas pump was a structure.
-'---
Mr. Cornwell asked if they were talking about a gas pump alone
or with a canopy.
Page :2
February 16, 1983
18~
Mr. McCormack said it was just a gas pump. The original
plan submitted in December did not have or call for a canopy
nor did the one in January.
The Cumberland Farms people originally had planned to have a
canopy. It was decided earlier that if the canopy were
removed that the gas pumps in their position would be in an
acceptable position.
Mr. McCormack said that having reviewed Mr. prime's letter
wherein he indicates or implies that a gas pump is a structure
and in this particular zone, a 50 foot set back is required
for any structure, they were bothered by the definition of a
structure and that is part of what they would like to get
clarified tonight.
Mr. McCormack referred to page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance
and under definitions, read item "99" defining structures.
Mr. Cornwell stated that anything made out of concrete that
comes above the ground tends to be a structure.
Mr. McCormack asked if they were to apply for the variance
at less than the 50 foot set back for the structure, then
would it later be construed that the gas storage tanks beneath
the ground be considered structures?
Mr. McCormack stated that the lighting poles were only
3 feet to 5 feet from the property lines , it being impractical
to move the illuminating lights back 50 feet.
There was then some discussion concerning the location of the
poles on this site.
Mr. McCormack stated that they wanted to go for a variance
that includes everything - curbs, poles, gas tanks, etc.
Mr. Cornwell stated that it appeared to him that a pole
would be a structure. He said that interpreting the ordinance,
he tends to feel that Item "99" says poles are included so
that they should be included as part of the application of
Cumberland Farms. He stated that inasmuch as the position of
the building was not concrete yet, why didn't they think about
moving it back so that they would not have to apply for such
a close pump to the road.
Mr. McCormack explained that the Company wants the pumps in
location as set forth because they are more keyed to the
distance from the building and the traffic flow around, in
and out of the building.
"'-...-
Mr. McCormack brought up another problem concerning the
required number of parking spaces. In the original December
submissic.n, they were showing 35 to 40 spaces; each space
Pa ge 3
February 16, 1983
It7
equivalent to the number of square feet in the building,
one space per 100 square feet.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they wanted the Board to say whether
or no·t the number of parking spaces required shall be
based on the net retail sales area.
Mrs. Richardson asked if this should not be part of a
variance request.
Mr. Cornwell said that the Board was not doing a variance
request and that Mr. McCormack wanted the Board to define
the rUles for various things here.
Mrs. Goetz agreed with Mrs. Richardson.
Steve Lynn stated that it would be the Zoning Board's function
to interpret the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCormack stated the net sales area should be the basis
for the number of parking spaces needed. He said that the
Planning Board that evening, even though Cumberland Farms
had the required number of parking spaces, did not like that
many, so the Cumberland Farms people found a way of reducing
them.
Mr. Cornwell then listed the three clarifications he under-
stood the Cumberland Farms people were requesting:
1) Are pumps considered structures?
2) Are poles considered structures?
3) Are parking spaces to be based on the net
retail sales area?
He then asked if there were any more clarifications being
requested.
Mr. McCormack stated there was another problem with access
points. The site plan calls for three access points, because
of the two streets involved. The Ordinance called for one
access point for industrial and commercial only.
Mr. Cornwell said that the purpose of that in the ordinance
was so you wouldn't have several places cars would be stopping
to come in off of Route 9. They will all go to one place
coming in and one place coming out.
Mr. McCormack said that the site plan approved has three
access points. Now on closer reading of the ordinance,
they find they should not have had three access points.
Mr. Cornwell stated that one should be in and one should be out.
He said it was the Board's opinion that they would need a
variance to have more than one.
"--
The voting on the interpretations was as follows:
18J
Pa ge 4
February 16, 1983
1) Gasoline dispensing pumps, as we know them, on
an island for the service of retail gasoline to cars
is a structure as in definition "99" in Article II,
Section 2.020,
Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz)
2) Poles are considered structures in definition "99"
Article II, Section 2.020.
Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz)
3) Parking spaces should be based on the net retail
sales area, that is the area of the building exclusive
of storage and service area.
Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz)
4) That a variance would be needed for access
points which do not conform to the description
of access points in the ordinance, Section 7.071(d).
Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz)
5) Below ground storage tanks would not be
considered structures.
Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz).
Mr. Cornwell made a motion that the interpretations should
be as read and Mr. Sicard seconded the motion.
Chairman Cornwell, at this time, explained that Mrs. Goetz's
term expired the day before the meeting and the Town Board
had decided to renew her term, but did not pass the necessary
resolution. To avoid any problems, Mrs. Goetz would not vote
on any matter that came before the Board that night.
INTERPRETATION NO. 18 - H.R. TYRER ASSOCIATES
G1enwood Avenue (Doyle Property) HC-15 Zone
Attorney Richard McLenithan appeared together with Bob Tyrer
for H.R. Tyrer Associates.
Mr. Turner read the application for Interpretation.
Mr. McLenithan explained what they were applying for.
Mr. Tyrer entered into a contract for purchase of the Doyle
property on G1enwood Avenue. There are five apartments which
they intend to keep renting and the main house in which they
intend to establish a retail antiques sales within that property.
'--
Mr. Cornwell asked if all the property is within the HC-15 Zone.
/81
Page 5
February 16, 1983
Mr. McLenithan said yes it was.
Mr. Cornwell said this interpretation only involves whether
or not Tyrer Associates can have retail antiques for this
service of the highway public in an HC-15 Zone.
Mr. McLenithan stated that was correct.
Mr. Tyrer explained that their intent is not to change any
structure, either exterior or interior, on the existing premises.
As far as the antique center, they plan to have a group of
dealers in the main structure. They are not contemplating
auction sales - nothing but retail sales. These retail sales
do have a tremendous drawing appeal, especially to out of town
people all through New England, all through New York City, the
whole area. They feel being on a highway is one of the assets
of the place. It should be a highway type of operation. It
will have set hours anywheres from 9 to 10 in the morning to
5 in the afternoon.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there are more than three dealers,
did they understand it became a center and they would get
only one sign covering the whole thing.
Mr. Tyrer agreed.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they contemplated any problems with
storage or expansion.
Mr. Tyrer said no.
Mr. Cornwell asked where they will store the stuff that is
not on display.
Mr. Tyrer said that what will be in the structure itself
will be only items that will be ready for sale. Most of the
dealers that will be involved have other faci1ties which will
be off the premises.
Mr. Cornwell asked that if they get too many dealers, would
they gradually encroach on the apartments.
Mr. Tyrer said they have no plans of encroaching on the apartments.
They want to leave the existing apartments in existence and
they do not plan to put in any more dealers than they feel they
can get into the existing structure.
"--
Mr. Cornwell said that what Tyrer Associates wanted the Board
to decide is whether or not the practice of retail sales of
antiques to the travelling public serves the needs of the travel-
ling public under the HC-15 Zone.
Mr. Cornwell asked if any members of the Board had any questions
for Mr. Tyrer or Mr. McLenithan.
/10
Pa ~ 6
February 16, 1983
.~
Mr. Griffin wanted to know if there was ample room for
parking.
Mr. Tyrer said they will have three and one-half acres and
ample room for parking.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there was entry from the back side of
the building.
Mr. Tyrer said yes.
Mr. Griffin asked how much renovations would be required.
Mr. Tyrer said there will be no renovations.
Mrs. Goetz asked if it was a lot like Bay Street Antiques.
Mr. Tyrer said he organized Bay Street Antiques seven or eight
years ago. This business will be on the same order, but on
a bigger scale.
Mr. Cornwell asked how many floors.
Mr. Tyrer said there are two floors.
Mr. Cornwell said there were no further questions of Mr. Tyrer
and Mr. McLenithan.
Mr. Sicard made a motion that the sale of antiques would be
permitted under businesses which primarily serve highway
traffic. Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion.
There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz).
VARIANCE NO. 808 - The Silo (Harry Troe1stra)
Aviation Road, Glens Falls NY
Harry Troe1stra appeared for the Silo requesting a sign
variance for signs on the building that did not meet the
sign ordinance.
Mr. Cornwell asked how they got there.
Mr. Troe1stra said he just put them up. He did not know
he needed a permit. There are six signs.
Mr. Cornwell asked if he had permits for the other wall
signs and the free standing signs.
Mr. Troe1stra said yes.
......
Mr. Cornwell asked if they were advertising or directional
signs.
Mr. Troe1stra said they are advertising signs. They say what
the business is.
/1/
Page 7
February 16, 1983
'-
Mr. Cornwell stated that it was an unfortunate use of words
in the application saying advertising signs, because advertising
signs are not permitted in the ordinance. Directional signs
are.
~1r. Cornwell asked how many feet did Mr. Troe1stra have in
the signs that he got the permits for - how much of the
allotment did he use up on the words "THE SILO" on the tower and
the sign on the west side of the building.
Mr. Troe1stra said according to the first meeting he went to,
they considered the six signs to be in place of the other sign
that was permitted. He has one big sign they felt that these
six signs should take the place of.
Mr. Cornwell said he already had the sign that was permitted
that said "The Silo" on the tower. He asked if he was going
to take that down.
Mr. Troe1stra said no.
Mr. Cornwell asked how he was going to have these six
signs in place of that sign if that sign was going to stay
up too.
Mr. Troe1stra said he did not understand that.
The Board then referred to the minutes of that meeting.
~1r. Cornwell said that why he asked Mr. Troe1stra how many
feet were the signs that he had up is because he is allowed
a rather ample sign. If the 36' plus those would go in, it
would throw a different light on it.
Mr. Troe1stra showed the Board a picture of the signs.
Mr. Cornwell stated he had a sign facing Carlton Drive and
a sign facing Aviation Road and a free standing sign, all of
which are legal. What he asked, is the sign on Carlton Drive
or the sign on the tower less than the largest one he could
have under the ordinance, because if it is, the Board might
consider adding the 36 feet to that.
Mr. Troe1stra said he did not know the square footage on the
sign. He did not know how they figured it. All that was
stated at the first meeting he went to, it was instead of the
other signs.
Mr. Cornwell said that if he got a permit for the signs, some-
body knew the footage of it.
',,---,
Steve Lynn said the size of the signs were well under the 100
square feet which is allowed.
I~
Page 8
February 16, 1983
Mr. Cornwell said if Mr. Troe1stra could write that in
on the application, he was sure it would make it a10t easier.
Mr. Troe1stra said they are approximately four letters of
2' x 1', so it was about 8 square feet, and the other three
letters are one square foot which consist of the words "The
Silo".
Mr. Cornwell said he was allowed 100 feet or 25% of the face
of the building.
Mr. Troe1stra said he had much less.
Steve Lynn referred to the permit and stated the wall sign
on the Silo was 15 square feet and the sign on Carlton Drive
was 64 square feet. He is allowed 100 feet on either one.
Mr. Cornwell said if he is allowed 100 feet on either sign,
if he added the 36 feet to either one, he would still be within
the limit of the ordinance.
Mr. Turner read the Town Planning Board recommendation.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the public
within 500 feet of the site who wished to be heard on the
subject. He asked if there was anyone for this application.
He asked if there was anyone against the application. No
member of the public wished to be heard on this application
and Mr. Cornwell declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Sicard made a motion that the six l' x 6' small signs,
totalling 36', be included with flThe Silo" sign for the purposes
of the ordinance.
Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion.
There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz).
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves
Variance No. 808, that the Silo may include the six l' by
6' small signs as part of the overall requirement for a sign
on the South side of the building.
At this point, Mr. DeSantis, appearing for Top 0' the World
Development agreed to let the Board hear the request for
variance No. 810 before Variance No. 809.
VARIANCE NO. 810 - Adirondack Baptist Church
East Side Country Club Road.
'--
Mr. Turner read the history of the application.
Robert Lynn appeared for the Adirondack Baptist Church.
Page 9
February 16, 1983
/93
Mr. Cornwell asked Mr. Lynn if they planned to build a school
too.
Mr. Lynn said no, just the meeting house.
Mr. Lynn stated the building would be a log building. He showed
the Board a drawing of the proposed building. He said it
would be a 36 foot by 50 foot log building with a full basement
with a seating capacity of fixed seating at 100.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they had made borings to make sure they
could have a basement without water.
Mr. Lynn stated they had not yet.
Mr. Cornwell asked if it was not possible, would they be
able to build it on a slab.
Mr. Lynn said he would think so.
Mr. Cornwell asked if this was to take the place of their
downtown location now.
Mr. Lynn stated the address that is given in the application
for the Church is his home address. They are presently meeting
and have been for the last three years in the Queensbury Hotel.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they needed just twenty-one parking spaces.
Mr. Lynn said the parking spaces were determined by the amount
of seats. One parking space for five fixed seats in the auditorium.
Mr. Cornwell said he assumed as with any church, there would
be funerals and weddings and asked if that would cover their
requirements too.
Mr. Lynn said he believed so.
Mr. Cornwell asked if the plot was not fully wooded.
Mr. Lynn said all except a small clearing near the front.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they were going to set it back further.
Mr. Lynn said they would have to remove some of the trees
at the back of that clearing, but will be in that clearing
for the most part.
Mr. Cornwell asked what was what looked like a small stream
across the back of the plot. He asked if it was a road or
a stream.
Mr. Lynn said it was a stream.
''-.,--
Mr. Cornwell said they were limited as to how far back they
could go.
P~ge 10
February 16, 1983
I~i
Mr. Lynn said they have no present plans to be using the
remaining part of the property.
Mr. Cornwell asked if any member of the public wished to
be heard on this application.
Mr. Ed Graney, Customer Relations Representative from
Lincoln Log Homes, spoke regarding the foundation of the
proposed church. Their chief engineer, George K~rosaka,
said that due to high table marks, the foundations can be
put on piers. A full foundation, etc., would hold the
weight of the church. There would be no problems with the
construction of the building itself.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there would be any problems with
the cellar being full of water.
Mr. Graney said no. He said he discussed this with Mr.
K~æosaka who said that he would be available to come over
and speak to the Board, if they so wished him to appear.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the public
wished to be heard on the application, for or against it,
or who wished to contribute any information.
Mr. Cornwell then declared the public hearing portion
of the meeting closed.
Mr. ~urner read the Planning Board recommendation.
¥r. Sicard said he was a little concerned with the water
problem.
Gary Nelson, a member of the church, stated that the stream
was way beyond where the church building itself would be.
As for the site that exists right now, it is already elevated
above the water table, probably four feet. He said he could
see no reason why it could not be set in the ground two to
three feet.
Mr. Sicard made a motion to approve Variance No. 810 on
the basis that a hardship is imposed by the ordinance.
Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion.
There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz).
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approve
Variance No. 810 for the building of a church building for
the purpose of public worship services on the basis that a
hardship is imposed by the ordinance.
'-
Approved.
Page 11
February 16, 1983
/1~
VARIANCE NO. 809
Top 0' The World Development, Inc.
Off Lockhart Loop on Lake George
Attorney Frank Desantis appeared for Top 0' The World
Development, Inc.
Mr. Turner read the history of the application.
Steve Lynn c1arfied that the Zoning Designation is LR 3A
not LR 1A as on the application.
Mr. Cornwell said that this application is just for a variance
for the use of the shoreline. It does not effect whether or
not there will be a development on the top of the mountain.
The Board is only concerned with the use of the shoreline and
maintaining quality of the neighborhood on the shoreline.
Input will be received from neighbors on the shorelines and
all comments to be addressed to the use of the shoreline.
Mr. DeSantis described the request for the variance. He
referred to the proposal which is Exhibit "A" with the
application.
Mr. DeSantis said the proposal was orally presented to the
Queensbury Planning Board at an informal session on November
10, 1982. It was presented in written form in a letter to
Richard Roberts, Chairmon of the Planning Board on December 7,
1982. On December 9, 1982, it was discussed in a meeting
between the applicant for the variance and the Lake George
Association in the offices of the Lake George Association.
On January 25, 1983, the applicant received written notice
from the Building Inspector that a variance would be necessary
in response to a written request from Mr. DeSantis.
'-
Mr. DeSantis stated the proposal involves the use of a 330 foot
wide parcel on the shores of Lake George for essentially con-
tractual access from individuals who will be purchasing an
interest in the Top 0' The World Development at the top of
French Mountain. These individuals would use the 1akefront
pursuant to a reservation procedure as set forth in the annexed
statement to the application. The would reserve the time to
utilize the 1akefront; they would be brought to the 1akefront
by a shuttle bus. There will be no private parking of automobiles
and no other access to other members of the public. The parcel
currently uses one large dock and it is proposed that two docks
would be on the property. The proposal restricts the type of
boats. There will be no private water craft. All water craft
would be the property of Top 0' The World Development and would
be limited to 30 with only 3 power craft. The power craft would
be necessary for safety reasons, rescue, etc. Other craft would be
canoes, small sailing craft and possibly wind surf craft. All
such craft to be stored on land except when in use; only three
boats docked. There are three existing structures which will
not be altered, but refurbished. The existing septic and sewerage
disposal systems would be updated and contained in a holding tank.
Page 12
FeÞ~µ~~y 16, 1983
Ir~
Mr. Cornwell asked if it is possible to upgrade those without
a holding tank.
Mr. DeSantis said they were advised by their engineer that
the possibility of upgrading them is small as they are in
deteriorating condition. They believe this would be the
best system given the location of the buildings and rockiness
of the soil.
Mr. DeSantis stated that activities such as jet skiing
would not be allowed on the parcel. The property would not
be allowed to be used as a base £or para-sailing. There would
be a limit to number of individuals at anyone time who would
be allowed access to the property - a limit of 150 people.
Mr. DeSantis stated there was a problem in that the ordinance
speaks of lots, sites, parcels or multiple family dwelling units
to be allowed deeded or contractual access and that it failed
to derive a number of people from this.
Mr. Cornwell asked if it was their intention to give deeded
or contractual access to every owner on the top of the hill .
Mr. DeSantis said no, that 150 individuals would be allowed
access .
Mr. Cornwell asked if Mr. Desantis found anywhere in the ordinance
a limit to the number of people than can use the plot.
Mr. DeSantis said he did not. He will be submitting a letter
asking that it become a part of the record. The letter sets
forth the manner in which they determined the 150 individuals,
using the ordinance.
Mr. Cornwell asked if they planned on giving lake privileges
to everybody at the top of the hill.
Mr. Desantis said no, privileges would be subject to the
reservation system and no more than 150 people from the top of
the hill would be allowed to be on the parcel at anyone time.
They want to make access to the lake available to a limited
number of people at anyone time.
Mr. Cornwell expressed the concern over the possibility of
every person up there thinking they had legal access to the
lake and for one reason or another, they wanted to keep a 50 h.p.
outboard or cabin cruiser died to a dock, there would be a
problem.
Mr. Desantis said he agreed with him. That the ordinance
right now allows thirteen fami1i~s to do everything Mr. Cornwell
recited.
Mr. Cornwell said that 13 families could have a boat there if
'- the three docks would hold them.
Mr. Desantis said that 13 lots, sites, parcels, or multiple family
Page 13
February 16, 1983
/i1
dwelling units could have deeded or contractual access to
this shorefront without restriction as long as it was a legal
use under the ordinance. What they proposed to do is to restrict
some of those uses and define the numberof people. He said there
is no limitation now for anyone who has deeded or contractual
access or owners 1akefront to limit the number of people they
can have on that 1akefront or what they can do as long as it is
a legal activity.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there is a limit to the number of guests
somebody can have on their own peroperty at the lake.
Mr. Desantis said none whatsoever.
Mr. Cornwell said that since people are not counted in any other
aspect of the ordinance and there is no other place in the zoning
ordinance where people are counted, it did not seem likely that
the Town would embark on a people counting venture just for
one applicant.
Mr. Desantis said they proposed to allow the Town to define
and the Board to define exactly that.
There was discussion between Mr. Cornwell and Mr. Desantis on
the Town keeping a count of the number of people at the shoreline.
Mr. Cornwell stated that all they could ask this Board for is a
variance from the strict requirement of the three docks for
thirteen units and they would have to prove those were not adequate
or that they had some terrible hardship.
Mr. Desantis said that given that the ordinance does not speak
of people and if thirteen units were given deeded or contractual
access without any restrictions as to the use of 1akefront, parking,
boats, docks, etc., a question arises as to how many people does
that allow. This issue given the purposes set forth in the
ordinance needs to be addressed.
Mr. Desantis said that in the alternative, the parcel would
possibly stay the way it is, although it is unlikely, and that
under the ordinance, thirteen units could have deeded or con-
tractual access with the resulting problems just discussed. He
felt that their proposal attempts to address the purposes and to
create some safeguards for Lake George and the visual character
of the shoreline.
Mr. Cornwell suggested that perhaps not everyone at the top
would want to go down to the shoreline at all.
',,-
Mr. DeSantis felt that after one visit down to the shoreline, the
people would find the pools next to their townhouses and the
indoor-outdoor pools much more inviting than Lake George. However,
with the total on-site population of 1,300 at build out, they felt
150 people maximum to the 1akefront was not out of line.
Mr. Cornwell asked about the possible commercialization of the
parcel, i.e., what if the individuals were to bring their own
Page 14
February 16, 1983
/1'g
jet skis as they could not obtain them commerica11y from somebody,
couldn't they just use them on the property.
Mr. Desantis said no, it would not be allowed. There would be
a restriction. All the individuals would be members of the
homeowners association subject to rules and regulations. One
of the rules and regulations is going to restrict the type of
activity that can take place on the parcel.
Mr. Cornwell stated the original application talked about food
being sold on the premises and there being a snack bar.
Mr. Desantis said their application is the same as its always
been and food would not be prepared on the site. There would
be picnicing on the site, but no restaurants.
Mr. Cornwell said the application indicates certain filling of
the lake to make a beach.
Mr. Desantis said that referred to what was already there.
Mrs. Goetz referred to the minutes of the October 26, 1982
discussion of the Town Board. She indicated it mentioned Mr.
Boice's comments that they will have access to the lake, a
beach, rental boats, etc. and perhaps that is where the Board
was thinking beach.
Mr. Desantis said that the plan indicated people would be able
to walk from the land to the water and that there is some sand
that exists there. There is not a plan to fill in and create
a beach there.
Mr. Cornwell stated that until the fourteenth unit is completed,
the applicant had adequate use of the property and had no hardship.
Until they could project ahead far enough to make some market
surveys to show how many people are going to actually want to use
this, he could not see the Board conjecturing how many people on
one afternoon would want to come down. They did not have any
projection as to whether it would be worthwhile to have a bus
service.
Mr. Cornwell felt if the Board were to grant a variance, they would
be writing a blank check for something that did not know what the
situation would be.
Mr. Turner asked how they applicant was going to regulate these
people.
Mr. Desantis said through the reservation system. There would be
an employee there to monitor the people coming in and out. There
is going to be a shuttle bus and no automobiles there.
Mr. Turner asked what would be the total number of facilities
'- when completed.
Mr. DeSantis said there would be 170 projected after build out.
/97
Page 15
February 16, 1983
~-
At Phase I, there would be 46 units and they go up in varying
numbers up to 170.
Mr. Turner asked how many people that represented.
Mr. Desantis said 680 plus guests for a total of 1,360.
Mr. Desantis stated there is going to be pools outside of each
cluster of units. There is going to be a central indoor-outdoor
pool and that they would be much closer than the beach. The
pools are not going to be restricted and there would be no reser-
vation to use them.
Mrs. Goetz asked when would the pools be constructed.
Mr. Desantis stated that in the first phase, cluster pools
would be built simultaneously. By the third phase, they will
be having the pools built.
Mr. Cornwell said that he thought that to do down and make a
lot of changes to the lake at this stage only serves to get
the neighbors alarmed and get people made at you when probably
you never need to. Perhaps some of the people might want to
go down and enjoy the lake as it is now in the present setting,
more or less undeveloped.
Mr. Desantis said that they are really now changing the physical
features of the shoreline in any other way than adding one dock.
Mr. Cornwell said he did not see how they made a case for an
unnecessary hardship, that 330 feet is quite a bit of lakeside
and they did not know how many people will be using it. He said
he would be for a denial of the variance.
Mr. Desantis stated he did not agree with Mr. Cornwell's term
of unnecessary hardship. That one of the problems as stated
in his letter is people have rather loosely made statements as to
what is necessary and what they are going to do there. It is
necessary they look at the facts - what is the impact on the lake,
what is the impact on the visual character on the shoreline.
Mr. Cornwell said he did not feel they would need any variance
if they stayed within the limits that are allotted to them by the
lake, the people and the town, on the docks. The place is adequately
protected .
Mr. Desantis said they did not seek out getting a variance, it
was at the insistence of the Lake George Association that the
Planning Board felt it was necessary that a variance was necessary.
Mr. Brian Harrison stated at this point, that the Board has the
legitimate right to restrict a variance. From their point of
'- view, what began the whole scenerio was the desire by the Town
Planning Board as well as other people who have expressed concern
that there ought to be some specific defined restrictions.
Page 16
February 16, 1983
d 00
-
Mr. Cornwell said that any variance that is given is supposed
to be the smallest possible variance that will accomplish the
purpose of relieving the hardship or difficulty. It was his
point that the difficulty was no negu10us it had not been proved
or projected by a market survey. He said that no other ordinance
that he knew of had legislated the number of people per square
foot or per square yard of frontage and the Board had no way
of enforcing that. They could not really do much about the
density of the people.
Mr. Harrison agreed that enforcement was an issue.
Mr. Cornwell said that if Mr. Desantis had made his presentation,
he would like to hear from the public. Anyone on the "for" side?
There was no one for the applicant.
Mr. Cornwell reminded the public that they are considering the
shoreline, not whether or not there shall be a development at all.
He asked if there was anyone against the application that wished
to be heard.
Dr. James Blake of Plum Bay wished to be heard. He said it was his
understanding that there are dock regulations that do restrict the
number of boats that any of them could have. The Park Commission
regulates the number of docks. There is a restriction on the
number of boats.
Dr. Blake asked that if three private residences are substituted
by multiple housing units, that would allow for thirteen families
and you would have to have a variance to allow for the thirteen
that was spoken about earlier.
Mr. Cornwell said that thirteen are already allowed by the new
zoning ordinance.
Dr. Blake asked if that was for three residences.
Mr. Cornwell stated they could go right out there and have thirteen
tomo,rrow.
Mr. Blake said he was not clear on that.
Mr. Cornwell said it is one for each 25 feet of shoreline. The
access is based on 25 feet of shoreline for each unit of motel/hotel
multiple dwelling.
Dr. Blake said it was a precedent of an access of a funnel system
of multiple houses behind that can have its own 1akefront.
Mr. Cornwell stated that under Section 5, the following minimum
shoreline frontages shall be required for deeded or contractual
access to all such lakes, ponds, rivers or streams for two or
more lots, parcels or sites, or multiple-family dwelling units not
'- having separate and distinct ownership of shore frontage. Where
two to four lots, parcels or sites, multiple family dwellings are
involved, a total of not less than 100 linear feet, 25 feet
Page 17
February 16, 1983
c2 0/
additional feet for each lot, parcel, site or multiple family
dwelling unit thereafter.
Dr. Blake said he believed what Mr. Cornwell was saying was
you could have 100 feet plus 25 additional feet for people
living elsewhere than along the 1akeshore.
Mr. Cornwell said that was correct.
Dr. Blake said he was there as a resident of the Plum Bay area
to object to this variance. Plum Bay is a very small bay.
The area in front of the Top 0' The World is fairly heavy
traffic area. This small Bay will probably be filled with
canoes and small boats. Normal traffic in the Bay is fairly
heavy with their own residents and now some of the sight-seeing
boats come in. The applicant plans to have the sight-seeing
boats stop at their docks to discharge and pick up passengers.
This will create a traffic problem. That amount of traffic in
the Bay could very well disturb the ecology of the Bay.
Dr. Blake stated that at the time he purchased his home in
Blum Bay in 1955, he was advised that it was a residential
area, that it was not commercial and it would not be commercial.
Mr. Cornwell asked if his objection was mainly to water
traffic.
Dr. Blake said they moved there as a private residence area
with no commercial activity on it and wanted it to remain that
way.
Next to be heard was Malcolm Mitchell of Assembly Point.
Mr. Mitchell said he did not have 1akefront property in Plum
Bay, but he is a near neighbor. He felt it would be impossible
to keep the character of the lake the way it is. What is proposed
will change character of the lake. Mr. Mitchell feels that the
development will change the whole character of this side of the
lake.
Mr. Cornwell stated that Mr. Mitce11 was opposed on the basis
of over-populating the shore of the Lake.
Mr. Mitchell added "and changing the whole aspect of the lake".
Mr. Thomas West, representing the Lake George Association, was
heard next.
Mr. West said he feels the important issue relates to understanding
the existing character of the neighborhood and measuring that
character against the proposal. He said not only is an area
variance required, but there is a use variance required and neither
standard for an area variance or a use variance had been either
addressed or met tonight by the applicant.
--
Mr. West stated that what was proposed on the top of the hill was
Page 18
February 16, 1983
;20)
actually 170 condominium units. In addition, the project sponsor
proposed a number of facilities to accomodate the owners of
the units such as gold courses, swimming pools, racquetball, etc.,
which fall within the definition of common facilities in the
ordinance. He referred to number 27 on page 5 of the Zoning
ordinance defining common facilities as complimentary structures
and/or improvements located on a common open space appropriate
for the benefit and enjoyment of the space by the public or
members of the controlling association of condominiums.
Mr. West said that there was a zoning ordinance in the area that
pre-dated the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and that property has
been zoned as residential for a number of years under this zoning
ordinance, the zoning ordinance that is only one year old. He
said there are three residences there and they have been used
as single-family residences over time and that this question of
prior non-conforming uses, he hoped, would be addressed by some
of the residents. The use has been very sparse at best.
Mr. West said that the ordinance tells us in various sections
what use shoreline property can be put to and it tells us in
other sections what type of set backs, area requirements we
have and within that area is the contractual access section.
It is the areas of the ordinance that tell us what uses are
allowable within the lake shore residential area that have to be
addressed and lead to the conclusion that a use variance is
required here. He said that what is being proposed is a common
facility for the 170 condominiums, and under Article 4 of the
Zoning Ordinance, in 1akeshore residential area, that condominium
common facilities are not either a permitted nor an accessory use.
Therefore, that type of usage in the 1akeshore residential area
requir.es a use variance. Also under Article 15, Section 15.20,
planned unit developments are not allowed in the 1akeshore res-
idential area. They feel that not only is this property a
common facility for the planned unit development on the top of
the hill, but it is as much a part of the planned unit development
as the golf course, riding stables, etc., and as such it will be
an illegal use.
Mr. West said that Article 7 of the new Zoning Ordinance
deals with the number of front footage on the lake that is
required particular deeded or contractual access. Where the
170 units are going to have deeded or contractual access, you
have to have 25 feet of lake frontage for each unit, for a
total in this instance of 4,250 feet. The project sponsor is
short of that goal with 330'. The project sponsor has not made
any showing of practical difficulty and no showing of any type
of hardship which would justify granting a 3,920 foot variance.
Mr. Cornwell said that if we take this premise that a use variance
is necessary and the use would be to put a common facility on a
single family residential zone, then the common facility would
be the sole occupant of the property. This is supposing that
there was a use variance, then it would get the use of the shore
- just as any other owner.
Mr. West stated that the common facility requirement and the
c2 03
Page 19
February 16, 1983
-
requirement for use variance to place a common facility in the
1akeshore residential area goes with the question of what use the
property can be put to. The number of units that can have
contractual or deeded access to that common facility, is governed
by Section 7.011 of the Zoning Ordinance which brings into account
the area standards. The question of putting a common facility in
there only goes to use variance. The number of people that can
have access to that common facility is the area variance require-
ment that is before the Board.
Mr. Cornwell asked if it was his assertion then that all the
buildings on the site here would represent common facilities.
Mr. West stated that was correct.
Mr. Cornwell asked if he maintained that under the Ordinance,
thirteen families could not use the site.
Mr. West said that there is a question that the ordinance says
that thirteen individual units, whether they be units within
a multiple family dwelling unit; whether they be units within a
condominium unit, or thirteen individual homes, would have the
right under the ordinance.
Mr. West stated that it has been represented at prior meetings
that although there would not be a snack bar there preparing
foot, there would be foot brought down from the mountain and
served to people down there. Feels it is approaching a
commercial use.
Mr. West suggested what is being proposed here is the funnel
concept. It is the concept of taking a small piece or 1akeshore
property and giving access to that property to a great number
located someplace else. The Lake George Association feels that
this is an extremely dangerous precedent. He recommended and
urged the Board to deny the variance on the grounds that there
has been no showing of hardship or practical difficulty, and
that they believe this would be a dangerous and damaging precedent
in Lake George Basin.
Mr. Desantis then again spoke. He stated that the applicant
has never proposed condominiums. It is a homeowners association.
They have not said food would be served. He said the ordinance
states that contractual access is allowed in the Town of Queens-
bury. It doesn't limit it to any particular lake or body of water.
What the Lake George Association would seek to do is to deny con-
tractual access to Lake Goerge. I don't believe that was the
intent of the Town Board when they passed this ordinance.
Mr. Cornwell asked if Mr. Desantis was disputing the common
facilities definition.
Mr. Desantis said no, he thought the common facilities definition
is clear on its face.
Page 20
February 16, 1983
Jot(-
Mr. Cornwell said the common facilities would require a use
variance in the S.F.R. Zone.
--
Mr. DeSantis said he did not agree.
Mr. West stated that if you were to take a contractual access
proposal for another body of water, you would look at the shore-
line provisions to determine the number of units that could have
access for the given footage and you would look at the zoning
applicable in tha- area for what type of use the property would
be put to and if that area allowed uses which were common facilities,
then that would be a permissab1e use in that area. In the
shoreline area, there are only certain permitted uses or permitted
accessory uses, none of which are common facilities. In Article
15, PUD's in wl1o1e or in part shall not land in a 1akeshore
residential area. We believe for those two reasons, this is an
illegal proposal and requires a use variance.
Mr. Desantis said that nowhere within Article 4 are common
facilities a permitted principal or accessory use in the Town of
Queensbury.
Next to be heard was Charles Adamson. Mr. Adamson said he was
there as an individual property owner who is a neighbor and
not as a member of the Lake George Association. His main concern
is that of precedent setting. He felt we are dealing with an
area variance and would agree that an area vari~nce is totally
inadequate for what is being proposed here. He feels a use
variance would have to be involved. Regarding the three residences,
if you change them now to bathhouses, etc., you will change the
nature of the property. Mr. Adamson said what disturbs him is
if the Board is going to allow tour boats. If there is a commercial
tour boat landing at this dock to pick up people at the Top 0' the
World, the people are going to have to pay money and this would be
a commercial use of the property. If this precedent is allowed
here, will we have tour boats stopping all around the lake?
Mr. James DeNoyer of Lockhart Loop spoke next. He stated he owned
a piece or property on Lockhart Loop and also a piece of property
on the road going to the Top 0' the World. He stated he was
totally against the lake variance. He asked if this was happening
to you, if they were going to put this next to you on property
you invested a lot of money on, what would you do?
Jean Barto 1 i wa s next. She s ta ted she 1 i ves next to rlJ:r. DeNoyer.
She was there representing herself, Mildred Stone, the Duggans
and Mr. and Mrs. John Boomer. They all oppose this request.
She stated that she and her husband bought the property on the
lake in 1976, because it was residential. They object to changing
the character of the residential area that has been established.
-'
Andrew Burnett of Plum Bay spoke. He stated he did not want the
character changed and that he wanted to leave it residential. He
respectfully requested that this variance not be granted.
Ed Freihofer of Plum Bay stated he would like the character of
the property to be kept residential.
Page 21
February 16, 1983
J05-
-
Steven Birdsall of, Plum Potnt area, ~ta.ted !lt~ p;t:'operty !lad been
in the family for over fifty year~. He objected to the po~sib1e
change in the c!laracter of the east side of Lake George.
Mark HOlcomb appeared as an tndividual and on behalf of his
parents and brother. He read a letter from !lis parents
stating- their disapproval based on the adverse effect it would
have on the water quality &visual aspects and based on the noise
pollution.
Mr. Holcomb was personally concerned with the quality of life of
the lake as well as the water eco10g-ica11y.
Mrs. Bonnie Lapham of Dunhams Bay spoke. She read two letters
from people who could not be there. One objected to the commercial
venture and objected to granting the variance. This was from
Blanch Elrod 0,£ Dunhams Bay. The second letter 11rs. Lapham read
stated that no justifiable reason exists for the variance and
no advantage to Lake George would be served. ~his letter was
signed by Steven Lapham, Helen Moore, Thor Lundgren and
Dr. Donald Pace, Jr. Mrs. Lapham expressed concern over what it
would do to the property values of the property of neighbors.
At this point Dr. Blake gave the Board a letter from Mr.
VanLadd.
Mr. west asked if all the letters would be part of the record.
Mr. Cornwell said yes. All letters were against granting of the
variance.
Pete Brown asked to go on the record as being opposed to the
granting of the variance.
Mr. Cornwell then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Turner read the opinion of the Town Planning Board.
Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the Board who
wished to see the minutes of the Planning Board on that?
There was none.
Mr. Cornwell stated that in view of the fact that the project
had been disapproved by both Planning Boards, that a vote of a
majority plus one would be required to grant the variance. He
asked Mr. Desantis if he wanted to put the matter off until there
would be seven voting members present.
Mr. DeSantis said he did not.
Mrs. Richardson made a motion to deny Variance 809 on the
basis that she felt it would substantially change the character
_ of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sicard.
A vote on the matter resulted in five yes votes and one abstention
(Mrs. Goetz}.
)..0&
Page 22
February 16, 1983
"-
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals deny
Variance No. 809 for an area variance with regard to the
minimum shoreline frontage conditions set forth in Section
7.011A5 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance on the basis that
it would substantially change the character of the neighborhood.
Approved.
Motion by Mrs. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Sicard that the meeting
adjourn, all voting affirmatively.
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board meeting for Feburary
16, 1983 be adjourned.
Approved.
~\.~l
~..M""·C'~·
.) 'LI''')
--