1991-10-16
.----
.-
.....-
l)
/
~ENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16TH, 1991
INDEX
Area Variance No. 63-1991
Robert & Elizabeth Dalaba
1.
Sign Variance No. 69-1991
Adicommco, Inc.
11.
Area Variance No. 55-1991
Myron S. Rapaport
17.
Area Variance No. 77-1991
Dona 1 d L. Murphy
Frances E. Murphy
20.
Area Variance No. 78-1991
Sandra Eggleston
Owner: Carrisa DeMars
23.
Area Variance No. 79-1991
The Howard Group
Howard Carr
32.
Area Variance No. 80-1991
Frank J. and Jessie C. Lockhart
33.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL
APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16TH. 1991
7:30 P.M.
JEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
BRUCE CARR
MICHAEL SHEA
CHARLES SICARD
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLO BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA OIltER: SAtE AS ABOVE CORNER
OF AVIATION ROAD AND CROWNWOO LANE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 24 FT. ROUND, 4 FT. DEEP ABOVE GROUND
SWIMMING POOL IN tliAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A FRONT YARD. THIS IS NOT PERMImO IN AN SFR ZONE. TAX
MAP NO. 82-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 179-67 B
ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 63-1991, Robert & Elizabeth Dalaba, 10-8-91,
Meeting Date: October 16, 1991 "The application was tabled on September 18 for further information
as to the location of the pool. The applicant indicated that the information would be made available
to the Board by the meeting."
MR. TURNER-I left the public hearing open on that. So, we'll get right to it. Mr. Dalaba, would you
like to respond to your estimate.
MR. DALABA-We had quite a job trying to get all this together. We just finished it, just recently.
These are the only estimates for 1991. What the estimates are going to be in 1992 I have no idea.
The pool service that installed the pool will come back, for $1500, and move it. I have some trees,
and an old foundation from the house will have to be moved, should be moved before the pool can be
moved to the new location. You've got to re-wire the pool again in a new location. That's $175.
It has to be re-inspected again. That's $35. I couldn't substantiate the pumping in the pool and
refilling it, because that.
MR. TURNER-The cost that you have, here, is that what you paid?
MR. DALABA-Well, it's only an estimate.
MR. TURNER-What did you pay?
MR. DALABA-We paid $225, this time, to have it done.
MR. TURNER-All right.
MR. DALABA-But then we've got to pump it. This time we've got to pump it if we move it.
MR. TURNER-Yes, right.
MR. DALABA-Also, as you notice, the cost will be over $2500.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. DALABA-If I take the low side. If I take the high side, it will be more than that. It would be
a hardship on my family, really, to have to move this pool. I went around to all the neighbors. As
a matter of fact, we have one with us tonight, and I think Mr. Chairman has got a copy of one of the
letters from a neighbor stating that they had no objections to where the pool is now. I also looked,
if you move the pool another six feet back on the property, it's going to be away from the row of trees
on the Crownwood side.
MR. TURNER-Right.
1
MR. DALABA-It's going to be more than the opening, which I think it's going to be more of an eyesore
than it is right now, because you can hardly see it because of the row of trees that's in there. I
went across the street to Mr. Juliano and he had no objections. I talked to the people across the
street on the Aviation Road side, Nick and Joanne, anyway. They had no objection either, but they
couldn't be here tonight. They're out of town tonight, and Mrs. King is with us tonight, and I talked
to my neighbor behind us, Mr. Shearer, and he said he had no problem with it either. This $2500 that
I estimated here would pay my taxes for two years. So, it would really be a hardship to have to move
it.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if we have any questions. Any questions from the Board?
MR. CARR-Well, to move the pool back to the line, you would have to remove that foundation?
MR. DALABA-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. DALABA-And I have no idea what's in that foundation because that was a big, big farmhouse at one
time, and it burned down, and there might be dead bodies back in there. I have no idea. I mean, we've
had the house since 1959, and I have no idea even when it burned. In the early 1900's it burned, I
believe.
MR. CARR-And how many trees would have to be removed? I think we said two?
MR. DALABA-There's a clump of four big white birch which has to be removed, and there's two, like,
locust trees that you see on your map.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. DALABA-But the foundation is really what bothers me, that's the one, because I don't know what
we're going to find when we start moving that.
MRS. EGGLESTON- I've just got to as k you, why do you feel you have to move it? When we were there,
you couldn't even feel it. You said your pool sits right on top of the ground. It's not in the ground.
MR. DALABA-No. It's in the ground a ways. It has to be.
MR. EGGLESTON-We asked that the last time and you said no.
MR. DALABA-Well, it has to be in the ground because you've got to take everything out of it and they
put a special sand down so that stones and the roots and anything else won't come through it.
MR. TURNER-It's down about four inches. What they do, Joyce, they draw a circle out, then they dig
it out, and the center slopes in. In the outside it's about four inches. It slopes into the center
all the way around, and they put fine sand in there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I knew you did that, Ted, but we specifically asked last time, and they said no, it
sat on top of the ground.
MR. DALABA-Well, they say it sits on the ground, but they dig it down and then they put a special sand
in there so it will sit down, and also, if we were to move this and we had a problem with the liner,
if the liner should crack or something, that's an extra $500 to have it changed.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions?
MR. SHEA-Refresh my memory as to how far we thought that it should be moved so as to comply.
MR. DALABA-Six feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Six feet.
MR. TURNER-It has to be six feet from Crownwood.
MR. SHEA-We're talking about moving it six feet?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. DALABA-Yes. The information that I had before I installed it I got from a board member, that all
property lines had to be 20 feet, and I am more than 20 feet from all property lines except the street
side, and I did not, I was not given that information.
MR. TURNER-Who told you?
2
'-
--'
MR. DALABA-I will not say.
MRS. GOETZ-A Zoning Board member?
MR. DALABA- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, you weren't here. I think it was established at our last meeting, they were told
not to put it in, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. SHEA-Really?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. Is that right, Ted?
MR. TURNER-The history of it is that they put it up, and Mrs. Dalaba stated, correct me if I'm wrong,
that she wasn't going to wait all summer for the variance. So, they went ahead and put it up, and
when they put it up, of course, they put it in the wrong location. They took the measurement from
the edge of the road instead of the property line, and that's where they got in trouble. They have
two fronts. Crownwood's a front and Aviation Road's a front. They don't have a side yard. Did you
look at it?
MR. SHEA-Yes. I saw it when it was before us the last time.
MR. TURNER-Yes, okay. Any further questions?
MR. SHEA-No. The only thing I would say for the record is that, certainly, the gentleman has done
his homework in figuring out what it's going to cost him to move it.
MR. TURNER-Yes, he has.
MR. DALABA-And these are only estimates for 1991. We don't know what they're going to be in 1992,
because they won't move it until the spring.
MR. TURNER-Yes. If you look at the letter, the suggestion is not to move it, yes.
MR. DALABA-There's a cover letter from the pool company. They will not move it until the spring time,
and it's my responsibility to dump it.
MR. SHEA-It's just unfortunate that people aren't as conscientious in the initial stages as in the
later stages.
MR. DALABA-I think we tal ked about that the last time it was here. Most of the pool people that put
in pools have no idea what the regulations are. I talked to a person right down here at Bob Bakers.
He doesn't even know. He puts them in all the time.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but they know there's a Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. It's their
responsibility to find out and ask questions. It just takes a telephone call from their office to
here.
MR. DALABA-I was told it was the homeowners. So, I'm at wrong, because we didn't do it before.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. CARR-I thought you had talked to the Town before putting it up?
MR. DALABA-We came and got, and they said they wouldn't give us a permit because we had to have an
area variance, and we couldn't get on the docket until September, October, whatever.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that was it.
MR. DALABA-And that was at the end of June.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Okay. All right, Mr. Dalaba, let me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DIANA KING
MRS. KING-Diana King, 220 Aviation Road. I live directly across from the property and I have to say
that I understand where you're looking at thi s, in the sense that she went ahead and put the pool in,
3
-'
despite the fact that the rules told her otherwise, to wait until she was given the variance, but as
I see, she did spend the money to buy it. She signed a contract to buy it, and it's a shame she would
have had to wait all summer. As you know, September was very cold. In fact, it seemed as if the summer
just came and went, and we did have a hot summer when it was here. I see the expenses that she would
have to incur in order to move it and I have to feel for her. This is very expensive. I don't see
anything wrong with the pool being where it is. Where you asked to put it, if you stood on the balcony,
or the porch, or, I don't know, what do you call it?
MR. TURNER-The deck of the pool?
MRS. KING-The deck, you would literally be looking into other people's yards, if it was moved.
MR. TURNER-Six feet?
MRS. KING-Yes. You woul d have an advantage of looking into peopl e' s yards and homes, and although
the neighbors don't realize that this could happen, because they haven't seen the pool there, it's
a very real situation, because where it sits now, I've been at the pool. I've had the luxury of using
it when we had the hot weather, and when I stood up, I didn't feel as if I was violating my neighbors,
or her neighbor, by using the pool, if you can understand what I'm saying, but if that pool is moved
a little bit where you want it to be, certainly, you can look right down into both of her neighbors.
She has two neighbors in her back yard, and they could look at you and you could look at them, and
the privacy, there just wouldn't be privacy, and taking the trees would be an added, I mean, it would
open up the light into that area even more so, and I think the trees, where they are, provide a little
bit of privacy from the neighbors seeing into you, when you're standing on the pool, and when you're
standing on the pool looking into them, if you can understand what I'm saying.
MR. TURNER-Let me ask you, since you've used the pool, when you stand on the deck, you can't see over
the fence in the back? Are you telling me that?
MRS. KING-I can see a little bit, but definitely, if I moved a little closer, I'm going to see more.
Right now, I can see the house, but I cannot see down into the ground, because there is a fence there.
MR. TURNER-Doesn't he have a pool, the neighbor in the back have a pool?
MRS. KING-No.
MR. TURNER-No?
MRS. KING-No.
MRS. DALABA-He has a deck built on the back.
MR. TURNER-Can you see that deck?
MRS. KING-No. I wasn't looking to see a deck, but certainly if you took those trees out and you moved
the pool in, you will be seeing everything, any activity going into both of those yards. You can see
it because you're standing that much higher. The fence that they put up for their privacy will no
longer be effective, but that's a point that I'm bringing up. It has no bearing, but I see that, you
know, where the pool sits as it is, is a fine situation. You have the trees from the side of Crownwood
is a natural barrier, but if you move it forward, certainly, that pool will be easily seen from the
street and from the back yard neighbors. So, that's another thing, but I don't see anything wrong
with where the pool is.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I just wanted to mention two things. She could have had the pool at the time she wanted
it if she had chose to put it where the Town said you could put it. First off, I'd like you to
understand that. It wasn't, wait all summer. They could have had it if they wanted to put it within
the guidelines, which they chose not to do. Secondly, we've been all summer with people who did wait.
People who did wait, who just didn't go ahead and do the project, and it makes it extremely difficult
to just pass over and say, well, okay, you've done it, it's there, because then we're going to have
that throughout the Town. The next thing you have might, next door to you, you might not like the
next thing that's put next door to you without asking first, and getting the proper procedures. I
mean, you're talking about being fair, and it's hard, you know, if you sit up here and then you see
these people, you have to understand, you meet people out and they're going to say, well, now, why
did she get hers and I had to wait all summer, and then what do you say to these people? I mean, just
because you want is not the answer. Sometimes you have to be patient. We all want things, but you
have to be patient sometimes, and as far as the cost, they're self-imposed. They didn't have to do
it to begin with, and then turn around and move it. I just wanted to share that with you since you
weren't here last time and think that we're.
MRS. KING-No. I wasn't. It was a very hot sunmer night that night. I think it was, like, 91 degrees
that night, and I wasn't in the mood to be sitting over here in front of you, when I could have been
could have been having an ice cream cone down the road.
4
-..-/
MR. SHEA-Or being in the pool.
MRS. KING-It was hard to enjoy the pool once we knew the circumstances. It was a very sad, it was
sort of a melancholy sort of feeling when you did use it because you knew, we felt for Mrs. Dalaba,
and I respect what you're saying, I do, and I think you have a very good point, but the pool is there,
and it is going to be awfully expensive, and where it sits right now, it's not that much of a problem
where it is, but certainly where their pool will be moved, it will create different circumstances that
I don't think anyone thought of until you stood up on the pool and you were able to see the nice birds
eye view of both neighbors. I'm sure if they were sunning out there or whatever, I don't think they
would appreciate having people standing up, looking their way, and I know those trees do create some
sort of a barrier, sound barrier. It's a natural barrier. Once you remove the clump of trees and
the other trees, there's nothing to keep that sound from going in that direction, but those are things
that I thought I should point out to you, because I noticed it.
MRS. GOETZ-Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
MRS. KING-Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-We have a letter from Josephine Kane at 193 Aviation Road, "I have no objection to Robert
& Elizabeth Dalaba installing the swimming pool in their front yard." Jo-Ann Goldsmith, 222 Aviation
Road, "I am unable to attend the public hearing. In no way do I object to the location of the Dalaba's
pool. It is not an eyesore in the community. For that matter, it can hardly be seen. If you ride
around this area, you will see some true eyesores. I can be contacted at 761-0926 if you need to reach
me for verification or any further information." Richard Chasin, 2 Pinewood Avenue, "I am writing
this letter in reference to the public hearing to consider the application for a variance for Robert
& Elizabeth Dalaba for the installation of a 24 ft. round 4 ft. deep above ground swimming pool in
what is to be considered a front yard. I would attend this meeting, but must be out of Town. I am
curious about the wording on the notice of public hearing, "in what is considered to be a front yard".
I don't consider the side of their house to be a front yard. For that matter, it's really quite close
to the back of their house or yard, the pool that is. I don't find any fault with their pool, it's
location, or installation. The Dalaba's should be granted the variance. The side of their house should
not be considered a front yard. Their address is not Crownwood Lane. I wanted to express my feelings
on the subject. I own the property directly adjacent to the Dalabas."
MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Shea, did you want to question Mr. Dalaba?
MR. SHEA-Yes, I did have a question. We talked about the necessity of moving the pool six feet in
order to comply. Is that correct?
MR. DALABA- Yes.
MR. SHEA-Is there any way that the pool, any location, and I was there, but I didn't go out and actually
measure where the foundation was in relation to the pool in its present location. Is there any location
that would comply with our necessity of moving it six feet, so that it would, obviously, be close to,
but not necessitate moving the foundation? Is there no way of doing that? Is there no location that
would afford us compliance within six feet without necessitating removal of the foundation, because
that's one of the major expenses in the relocation of the pool, which I'm sure we're at least somewhat
sensitive to.
MR. DALABA-Well, the foundation, really, is underneath the white birches which have to be moved.
MR. TURNER-The foundation runs along the front, right up to them?
MR. DALABA-Right up to the white birches.
MR. SHEA-Can you outline the foundation for me?
MR. DALABA-The foundation's right there.
MR. SHEA-Yes, but can you.
MR. DALABA-Right, that line.
MR. SHEA-Is that it?
5
'--
--'
MR. DALABA-That's that line right there, and there's a clump of four white birches right there, which
almost comes right up to the foundation.
MR. SHEA-But what I'm saying is, there's 14 feet between here and the corner of the house.
MR. DALABA-Yes, that's the house.
MR. SHEA-Right, there's 14 feet there.
MR. DALABA-Right.
MR. SHEA-Can't the pool be moved six feet in this direction, without necessitating moving the foundation?
MR. DALABA-I don't think so, no. I don't think it can be done, because you've got to be 10 feet from
any building, I was told, and there's only 14 feet there, so, if you move it six feet, that leaves
me only eight.
MR. SHEA-Well, what I'm saying is, I, personally, would be more inclined to give the variance from
an offset from the house so as to get it off the street. Hopefully, and with the fact that we might
not be able, might not have to remove the foundation, go to that added expense. So, that's the essence
of my question. Isn't there a space, between here and here, where the pool can be moved six feet from
it's present location so as to comply, forget about, for a moment, the necessary variance that would
be required from the offset from the house, that would not necessitate removal of the old foundation?
MR. DALABA-I don't think so. No, sir, because this part here goes all the way around the back of the
pool.
MR. SHEA-If you say the foundation is here.
MR. DALABA-Is right there, and goes right up to there.
MR. SHEA-If you were to move this pool six feet, okay, which is six feet in this direction, all right.
MR. DALABA-Right, but this part here is going to be moving, too.
MR. SHEA-Yes.
MR. DALABA-So, your trees are going to be in the way.
MR. SHEA-Well, your trees are over here.
MR. DALABA-No. The clump of trees are right there.
MR. SHEA-The foundation is closer to the pool, presently, than the tree is?
MR. DALABA-No. The foundation comes right up to the trees, and then the trees, and then the pool.
MR. TURNER-What if you turned the entranceway to the pool, then you could get closer to the foundation,
if you had to move it.
MR. SHEA- Yes, if you're goi ng to move the poo 1, it's easy enough to move the, you're tal ki ng about
this right here, the deck part.
MR. DALABA-Moving that part. You'd have to turn the whole pool.
MR. SHEA-Well, you're going to move the pool anyway.
MR. TURNER-Well, it doesn't make any difference. It's panelized anyway. So, they're going to have
to ta ke it down.
MR. DALABA-And then when we move this, the opening for Crownwood Lane is going to be, it's going to
be more out in the open, really, because, right now, see, there's a whole hedgerow of trees, right
here.
MR. SHEA-It goes all the way down to about, here, correct?
MR. DALABA-Right, and when we move it up here, you're going to be able to see the pool.
MR. SHEA-I'm not saying move it there. I'm saying move it directly eastward six feet and take in your
deck area and simply turning that to the southeast. Do you see what I'm saying, Ted?
6
--../
MR. TURNER-Yes. Question, as long as you're asking, you just mentioned the row of trees. Is that
on your property, those row of trees, or are they on Town property?
MR. DALABA-That is a hedgerow of the Town's.
MR. TURNER-That belongs to the Town?
MR. DALABA- Yes.
MR. TURNER-So, your property line's inside of that?
MR. DALABA- Yes. Well, when we moved there there was no road there. When they made a road there, we
stipulated that there had to be a row of trees. They couldn't cut them all off. So, when the
contractor did it.
MR. TURNER-That was Finch Pruyn Developers.
MR. DALABA-Yes. He left a row of trees there for like a blind, really.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. SHEA-In a pool like this, do you drain the water in the winter?
MR. DALABA-No. Well, you drain it down past the inlet.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. DALABA-Which has already been done, yes.
MR. SHEA-Well, I would say that we far too often have had controversy and confusion with respect to
pool locations when they're on a corner lot, because we do, then, have two front yards.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. SHEA-That, in and of itself for the applicant, is a hardship because it hasn't been defined well
enough in the application process for permits, to alert them to the sensitivity and the dangers of
that, but, by the same token, I certainly appreciate what Mrs. Eggleston has had to say this evening
with respect to, other people have waited and you guys simply forged ahead.
MR. DALABA-I wouldn't say we forged ahead.
MRS. GOETZ-What would you say?
MR. DALABA-I would say we went to the Town Board and were denied a permit.
MR. TURNER-The Planning Department.
MR. DALABA-The Planning Department, excuse me, and were denied a permit. We had a to have a variance.
People came out and looked and said, you've got to have an area variance because you're on a corner,
and like he said, I didn't know there was any difference between a corner and a regular lot.
MR. SHEA-Well, you were notified, then, there is a difference.
MR. DALABA-No.
MR. SHEA-You just said they told you you were on a corner lot.
MR. DALABA-I was told that all lines had to be 20 feet. My property lines, the pool had to be 20 feet,
at least 20 feet from all property lines, and I'm more than 20 feet from all property lines.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not the case.
MR. DALABA-Well, somebody's got to get all the information together, if somebody asks.
MR. GOETZ-But I believe you went to the Zoning Administrator's office. Is that correct?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, I came out to his site and met with his wife and I don't recall telling them 20
feet, but I wouldn't sit here and say that I didn't either. I know very well it's 30 feet.
MR. DALABA-I was told it was 20 feet from all lines.
MRS. GOETZ-Are you talking about somebody other than Mrs. Crayford?
7
"-
MR. DALABA-No. Well, lots of people have been out there and talked to, different things. I can't
remember what everybody said.
MRS. GOETZ-I do think that he was adequately advised that it was two front yards, because you took
issue with the fact that it was, so you knew it.
MR. TURNER-The big problem we've got is the fact that you went ahead, like Mr. Shea said. You went
ahead and put it in. You knew you shouldn't have put it in. If you'd have come with the evidence,
forthwith, and we had looked at it, you might have got the relief that you're seeking, you know, there
might have been some circumstances that might have changed the minds of the Board, then, at that time,
but you went ahead and did it, irregardless.
MR. CARR-Well, I wouldn't classify that he might have gotten the relief, because if he was entitled
to the relief at that time, he's entitled to the relief now.
MR. TURNER-No, but I'm saying, but if we'd have had all the information.
MR. CARR-I mean, really, if you look at it that way.
MR. DALABA-If I had all the right information, I would have done it right.
MR. CARR-But I would not classify it that way for the record. I just think that if he came before,
there may have been what Mr. Shea is trying to work out, and that's save the only cost that is a cost
to be considered here, and that's the removal of the trees and the foundation, and if we can alleviate
that cost, then I would say that would probably be what would have been worked out at the prior meeting.
My only concern is, what do we say to Mrs. Sardaro? I mean, we made her move a fence, I mean, a fence
that's in. I mean, we cost her hundreds of dollars, and she had to move it back.
MRS. GOETZ-What about the applicant that is moving their pool, that came in last month.
MR. CARR-That's right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CARR-I mean, I don't know what to say to these people who appeared before us and were denied the
relief they wanted, and her fence was installed and she didn't know about it. No one ever told her
not to do, in effect, her builder put in the fence in the wrong spot, but we're, you know, her
application to catch it up was denied and she has to move her whole fence.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the one we had.
MR. SHEA-How did she happen to come into compliance, in requesting a variance?
MR. CARR-Because she wanted to put a pool in that would have also violated that setback and that's
how we caught the whole thing and now we made her not put the pool where she wanted. She had to move
it further into her yard, and she had to move the fence that was already installed by somebody else.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And we had one, what, a month ago over off Sherman Avenue where he had put the pool
up and he's got to move it.
MR. CARR-That's right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It was right on the line.
MR. CARR-Yes, the Duncans were the other one, the other people. They didn't put it in, but they have
to move their pool with a new design.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-I just wanted to mention one thing that was said when we went out and did the second
inspection, that you said you wanted to keep that opening free so that you could drive your vehicles
back and forth, here. So, that seems to be.
MR. DALABA-You can't really block it off anyway. It's really a right-of-way.
MRS. GOETZ-So, I just wanted to mention that that was said.
8
--
---
MR. TURNER-If you turn this way, Mr. Shea suggested, that means you won't have to remove those trees,
if you go east. So, that takes $800 off it.
MR. DALABA-Well, it's still $1500 to have the pool moved.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. SICARD-Did you get any other estimates on moving the pool, possibly, from somebody locally?
MR. DALABA-I can't do that because I've got a 20 year warranty and it has to be moved by the manufacturer
that installed it.
MR. SICARD-Could you, perhaps, get a warranty from the new movers?
MR. DALABA-No, the manufacturer gives the warranty. It's a 20 year warranty.
MR. SICARD-I understand that. What do they warranty, just the liner?
MR. DALABA-No, the whole thing.
MR. SICARD-Nothing very seriously happens to the rest of the pool, it's mostly the liner, especially
moving it. I understand pools a little bit. This time of the year, as they say, is not a good time,
but they've got to come, wherever MartyDale is, they've got to come up here.
MR. DALABA-Long Island.
MR. SICARD-Where is it?
MR. DALABA-Long Island.
MR. SICARD-This is going to incur quite an expense, going back and forth.
MR. SHEA-These are the people that installed it, from Long Island?
MR. DALABA- Yes.
MR. SICARD-I think that, perhaps, I had discussed this with two or three different pool people,
especially in the area, and that could cut down tremendously on their transporting up here their
equipment and so forth, because there's a couple of good ones in Glens Falls. Possibly, they might,
themselves, warranty it. They're putting it in, they might warranty it, even if it isn't new, they
might cover the warranty. I think probably it's worth a try, because local people from Long Island
up here, it's going to cost a lot of money going back and forth, and I'm sure that's figured into the
estimate of moving.
MR. DALABA-Well, originally it was $1275 to have it installed, and they did three in Glens Falls that
day.
MR. SICARD-The insurance company will warranty a liner. Whether they'll warranty a liner that's been
removed and put back in again, I don't know, but a good pool installer could do that in the spring
when the weather is warm. I don't think it would effect the liner right now. I would think that it
would be considerably cheaper, though, bringing it up from New York, and they're going to have to have
all kinds of trucks and equipment and possibly some heavy equipment to move some of the dirt around.
MRS. EGGLESTON-If I'm not mistaken, Charlie, I think Mrs. Dalaba said they bought it from someone on
Long Island.
MR. DALABA-The salesman was in the Warren County area, we bought it from.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. DALABA-They came out of Syracuse.
MR. SICARD-Are you familiar with the pool installers locally, here.
MR. DALABA-No. I talked to one of the people down at Bob Baker.
MR. SICARD-There's another one on the same street down there, Cypress Pools. They're putting in pools
right now, this time of the year. So, I'm not trying to push their business, but I certainly would
like to see you get another estimate and see if it can be done a little cheaper. I'm sure that
transporting equipment up here from Long Island is pretty costly, 200 and some odd miles, include
transportation up and back.
9
--- .-
MR. DALABA-Well, they wouldn't just come up and do just mine anyway. They'd do, probably, several
in the area.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, are you saying the way you would move it, you wouldn't have to take the trees
down. Isn't that right, Ted?
MR. SHEA-Right.
MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying, yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, that would save.
MR. DALABA-We'd have to turn it the other way.
MR. TURNER-You'd have to turn it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SICARD-But if you didn't take the trees down, then you wouldn't have to take the foundation out.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. DALABA-But we're going to be awfully close to buildings anyway.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Dalaba?
MR. SHEA-I would just say that, in my mind, the problem is not granting the six foot variance so as
to comply where it presently is. I mean, we have done those things in the past. The problem that
I have is with the consistency of the ruling.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, in fairness.
MR. CARR-Wait a minute. Clarify. We've granted variances in front yards?
MR. SHEA-We've granted them before the fact, not after the fact.
MR. CARR-Because I don't recall giving many variances in the front yard, absent extraordinary
circumstances.
MR. SHEA-Maybe not specifically with front yards, but I'm just saying.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Or maybe not pools, maybe you're not referring to, but other items we may have given.
MR. SHEA-In general. It's a lot easier to do it before the fact than after the fact.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-All right. Any further questions of Mr. Dalaba? Any further discussion? No further
discussion? Okay. A motion's in order.
MR. SHEA-Would we want to ask Mr. Dalaba, I mean, I don't think we asked him a direct question as to
his response to the suggestion of moving it to a location where we wouldn't have to vote on a variance,
either approval or denial, I mean, if you were able to comply. Is that something that he's ruling
out of hand, at this point?
MR. DALABA-Well, you're still going to have to have a variance for a building if we get it close.
MR. SHEA-Yes, but we pretty much assumed that that's probably an easier one for us to do, gi ven the
set of circumstances, at least in my mind.
MR. TURNER-I think you've got to address the application.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MR. TURNER-I think you've got to address the application that was submitted.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MR. TURNER-We're not sure, at this point, whether he would accept that or not.
MR. SHEA-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
10
--.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
In light of recent determinations by this Board, the granting of this Area Variance would be materially
detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and be inconsistent with prior action of this Board.
In order to be fair to all applicants, the granting of this variance, although alleviating a self-imposed
financial difficulty of Mr. and Mrs. Dalaba, would not be consistent with the Ordinance. If this
variance would have been granted, it would not have effected public facilities or services.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA ADICOIKO, INC. OiliER: MARTIN A. SEELEY 235 QUAKER
ROAD FOR RECONSTllJCTION OF EXISTING SIGN, RETAINING THE SAJΠSIZE AND HEIGHT AS THE CURRENTLY EXISTING
SIGN. THE SIGN WILL BE 40 FT. IN LENGTH, 8 FT. IN WIDTH AND 10 FT. IN HEIGHT. (IMRREN COONTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 110-5-2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE
PHILIP CORTESE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 69-1991, 9-17-91, Meeting Date: September
18, 1991 "The request is to reconstruct an existing sign which is 40 feet by 10 feet. The Zoning
Administrator's referral form sites Section 5.100-17 of the Sign Ordinance which does not permit
construction of new advertising panels. The current size of advertising panels is 25 ft. by 12 ft.
This application was reviewed with regard to the conditions listed on the Sign Variance application:
1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply
generally to the neighborhood? The lot is triangular and has visibility from a number of roadways.
This would be the case if a conforming sign was built. The nonconforming structure has been at this
location for a number of years and re-construction of it would not appear to create an impact on the
neighborhood? 2. Is reasonable use of the land or sign and possible if the Ordinance is complied
with? Reasonable use of the land is possible. The sign owner would lose some visibility if the size
of the sign was reduced. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public
facilities? No.4. Are there any feasible alternatives? Yes. Construction of a conforming sign
is possible. 5. Is the degree of change substantial relative to the Ordinance? The existing sign
is 15 feet taller in height which can be an advantage for an advertising panel. The current structure
is in existence at this time, however."
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Cortese?
MR. CORTESE-My name is Philip Cortese and I represent Adicommco with regard to this application for
a sign variance. This matter has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals before, with regard to the
application for a sign permit. That process went from a denial from the Zoning Administrator to an
appeal to you by Adicommco. You denied the Sign Permit. We then filed an Article 78 proceeding in
the Supreme Court and that denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals was upheld by the Supreme Court and
Adicommco filed an appeal, a notice of appeal, to the appellate division of the State Supreme Court.
In the ensuing time, I, as attorney for Adicommco, and the Town Attorney have had a number of discussions
with a view toward reaching some reasonable compromise between Adicommco and the Town of Queensbury
that would be acceptable both to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to Adicommco. It was suggested that
a possible compromise would be to simply reconstruct the signs that are currently on the location.
We filed that as our application in the Sign Variance, indicating the dimensions on the signs that
are currently existing. What we would propose would be to put up one sign that would conform to the
Town's Sign Ordinance, and that would be one standard outdoor advertising panel which would have two
faces, one on this side and one on this side. Currently, there are four faces in existence and Adicommco
had started to build four faces and a Stop Work Order was issued and Adicommco complied with the Stop
Work Order. What Adicommco would propose would be to take down part of the construction, two sign
faces, and leave one standard outdoor advertising sign which complies, actually goes beyond compliance
with the Sign Ordinance. It would not only comply with the dimensions required in the Town's Sign
Ordinance, but the strengths that are engineered into this sign would be superior to the strengths
required by the Town's Ordinance. What we would propose, by way of the compromise, would be that there
would be one sign with two faces, so you could see the sign either coming or going, so to speak, and
Adicommco would then dismantle the other sign that had started to be built and would dismantle the
existing signs, clean up the property. That's the proposal with regard to a compromise to avoid any
further litigation with regard to the matter, because, among other things, Adicommco does not want
to continue to be fighting with the Town of Queensbury and we believe the Town doesn't want to continue
to be fighting with Adicommco, and what we would like to do is reach a reasonable compromise that both
sides would be able to live with.
11
'--'
MRS. GOETZ-Why are we tal king about compromise? See, I don't think we should even be in the situation
to even talk about the word "compromi se" . As far as I can see, the Si gn Ordi nance says no new
advertising panels shall be constructed, and I think we need to look at why the Sign Ordinance was
written. It was a way to get rid of billboards and not have any new ones, and once the old ones became
decrepit, if they weren't reconstructed properly at the same dimensions, then they had to go.
MR. CORTESE-I understand your argument Mrs. Goetz, and that was the argument that you had used at the
last hearing, except that at the last hearing you indicated that the Sign Ordinance, as written, does
not really preclude all advertising signs.
MRS. GOETZ-I said that?
MR. CORTESE-Yes, you did.
MRS. GOETZ-That's interesting. Could I see it, or could you read it?
MR. CORTESE-Certainly. You said, "Michael, even more reason to get the new Sign Ordinance adopted.
The thinking was that they didn't want to have any billboards in the Town of Queensbury, although that
may not be what's in the writing of the present Ordinance, but, honestly, because I was involved with
it, we wanted to get rid of all billboards, standardized SOAPs, we called them, but we knew that you
couldn't right away, and hopefully by attrition, when they fell down and so forth, get them out of
here. It was a chance to get them out."
MRS. GOETZ-Which is exactly what I just said this time. What is the difference.
MR. CORTESE-Well, the difference is that that's not what your Sign Ordinance says, and you had indicated,
last time, that the Town was working on a revised Sign Ordinance which would be, first of all, more
clear with regard to this point and, secondly, presumably, would allow for amortization for signs that
are currently up, so that there woul dn I t be a taki ng of property wi thout due process, in vi 0 lati on
of the constitution. However, the new Sign Ordinance had not been passed yet.
MRS. GOETZ-I don't remember amortization coming into the changes, the proposed changes in the Sign
Ordinance. The proposed changes are more or less, it's not to change the whole philosophy of the Sign
Ordinance. It's just to make things clearer for businesses, so they know what to expect, but I'm reading
right from the present Sign Ordinance, and no new advertising panels shall be constructed, and as you
describe the proposed application, I believe it is a new sign panel that's being proposed.
MR. CORTESE-I see, however, the Sign Ordinance has two separate and distinct definitions, one definition
applying to advertising panels and one definition, which is a different definition, applying to Standard
Outdoor Advertising Panels, which gives rise to the presumption that the Town was interested in ridding
itself of gerri rigged, handmade advertising signs, in favor of a standard type of outdoor advertising
medium, and that is, in fact, what I believe the Ordinance is dealing with, and the Section that you're
referring to, I believe it's 517, goes on to talk about Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels which may
be continued and maintained, but they may not be double decked or over 25 feet in height.
MRS. GOETZ-Right.
MR. CORTESE-So, I think that the advertising panels, and I believe the last time we showed you pictures
of some of the panels that had been constructed in the Town. Those panels of varying sizes and varying
shapes and varying construction were to be eliminated in favor of Standard Outdoor Advertising Panels
which would meet certain engineering requirements and Adicommco is proposing to put up a Standard Outdoor
Advertising Panel that complies fully with the Town Sign Ordinance.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Then why are we here?
MRS. GOETZ-Then why are we here?
MR. CORTESE-Because we need a variance.
MRS. GOETZ-You're twisting words.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CORTESE-Because this was suggested as a possible compromise to the litigation that's going on.
MR. SHEA-Well, we're here because Adicommco, although they were replacing one as a Standard Outdoor
Advertising Panel, the one that preexisted, it was dilapidated and needed refurbishing, they are
replacing that one. It's not a new one. We went through this argument before. The one that they
are literally replacing and improving upon, with respect to construction standards, in my view, is
within the Ordinance and will, as Mr. Cortese says, go beyond compliance, and that's a unique phrase,
but, I mean, you either comply or you don't, I don't think there's such a thing as going beyond
compliance. It might be better constructed, but it is complying, period, but in any case, we're here
12
'---
because they were expanding the size. They didn't double deck them. They split them and put two up,
whereas, there was one in the past, and the compromise, now, as I understand it, is that they're going
to forego one of them, keep the one within compliance, the one that preexisted, but it is now
refurbished. So, in my view, that is within compliance, and if that's all that we're viewing and we're
doing it by way of a compromise rather than a whole new variance of just one panel, because the issue
at hand is that they went and tried to build two panels, two double sided panels, whereas, really,
they were only entitled to the replacement or refurbishing of one.
MR. CARR-Are they entitled to that, to one panel?
MR. SHEA-To a refurbishing of the preexisting one.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Then why is it here?
MR. SHEA-They're here because when they were stopped, there was injunction because, I believe, that
they were building two.
MR. CORTESE-That is correct.
MR. CARR-Okay, but now they're going to take down one.
MR. SHEA-And, therefore, one was a completely new one, which is in violation of the Sign Ordinance.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. SHEA-Because we're not allowing any new ones, totally new ones.
MR. CARR-Ri ght.
MR. SHEA-But we still do allow the refurbishing of preexisting ones, and they were doing both. They
were trying to put a new one in, and at the time, and that's one issue.
MR. CARR-And refurbish the old one.
MR. SHEA-And refurbish a preexisting one.
MR. CARR-Okay, I guess my question is, you've agreed to take down the new one, as I understand it.
So, all we're left is the refurbishing of the old. So, what kind of variance are we giving?
MR. TURNER-No. They're going to take down the old one. They're going to take down half of the new
one and leave half of it up.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it's a new sign.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. CORTESE-They're replacing an existing sign, a sign that preexisted the Ordinance. We're replacing
a sign that didn't conform with a sign that does conform.
MRS. CRAYFORD-It's my understanding that the old billboard is coming down entirely?
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. CORTESE-That's correct.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you're not refurbishing.
MRS. CRAYFORD-No. We're not refurbishing. We're reconstructing.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You're getting rid of the old one, completely, which is what they were allowed to do.
They could refurbish the old one, but they're not doing that. It's gone. So, this is a brand new
sign.
MR. CARR-Can I ask a question. Okay. The old one had four sides. Is that correct?
MR. CORTESE-Correct.
MR. SHEA-Did the old one have four sides?
MR. CORTESE-Yes, I believe so.
13
.~
---"
MR. CARR-Okay. So, the compromise is they're getting rid of a four sided old sign that they have a
right to refurbish.
MR. SHEA-Or leave there.
MR. CARR-Or leave there, right, leave there in a state of disrepair.
MRS. GOETZ-Or not have any.
MR. CARR-Well, no, they can have that there. You can't say they cannot have it. They can have it
there and they can refurbish a four sided sign there.
MRS. GOETZ-Right. I understand that.
MR. CARR-Okay, and then, but they say they will forego that four sided sign, if we allow them to have
a new two sided sign which would not have been allowed under the Ordinance, and that's why they need
the variance. Is that stated correctly?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MR. CARR-So, they do need a variance for the sign they're proposing.
MR. CORTESE-That's correct.
MR. CARR-And the compromise is, that they're going to get rid of the sign that they have an absolute
right to.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct.
MR. CORTESE-The ugly, dilapidated sign.
MR. CARR-The ugly, dilapidated, four sided one, if we give them a brand new super structure, more than
you can comply with, two sided.
MR. CORTESE-Correct.
MR. CARR-Okay. Now I've got it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we do this while it's still in the courts?
MRS. GOETZ-We won.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I know we did, but he's appealing to the Court of Appeals.
MR. TURNER-You've filed your appeal?
MR. CORTESE-We did appeal. Now, if the Town Zoning Board of Appeals reaches this compromise with us,
then we would withdraw the appeal, and that is part of what I had discussed with the Town Attorney.
We are prepared to withdraw the appeal tomorrow morning.
MR. SHEA-Was thi s a compromi se that was reached on equals ides, or was thi s a compromi se that was
suggested by one side or the other, initially.
MR. CORTESE-I approached the Town Attorney with regard to this. So, that I initiated the conversation.
The Town Attorney was nice enough to discuss this with me at some length, and never failed to make
it clear to me, although I understand this, because I am the City Attorney in Amsterdam, never failed
to make it clear that any such proposal would be subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
So, we fully understand that.
MR. CARR-And, in fact, I mean, didn't Paul talk to us, I think it was Executive Session at the time,
about whether or not we wanted to rehear this, and I think at the time we voted, didn't we, Paul, to
bring this back?
MR. DUSEK- I don I t know if there was a formal vote, but the matter was di scussed as a matter in
litigation.
MR. CARR-Yes. I think it was also thought as maybe a cost saving measure to settle this, and save
the Town some money.
MRS. GOETZ-Was it 400 feet before?
MR. TURNER-It was 300 before. It's 300 now. It's 300 double faced.
14
..-
MRS. GOETZ-This says 40 by 10, though.
MR. TURNER-That's not correct. He's proposing to put a 300 square foot sign, double faced.
MRS. GOETZ-Right, 600 square feet.
MR. TURNER-And according to this, the old one was 300. The old advertising panel was 25 feet by 12
feet. That's 300 square feet. The new one will be the same size, double spaced.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Is that a mistake there?
MR. TURNER-That's a mistake. All right. Any further questions of Mr. Cortese? None? Okay. Let
me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COtlENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. GOETZ-Did this go to the County, Pat, Warren County?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't know. Lee, did this go to Warren County?
MR. TURNER-Yes, it did.
MRS. YORK-Yes, it did. Yes, it went to the County last month. Mr. Cortese was unable to be at this
meeting and asked that his application be held over a month. So, it went to Warren County last month
and they voted "No County Impact". It should be in the file, Mrs. Goetz.
MRS. GOETZ-Per the Staff, Warren County returned saying, "No County Impact" on this application.
MR. TURNER-Is there any further discussion?
MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got just one. Was not the old foundation of the sign removed, if I'm remembering
correctly. So, will they be allowed to put the new, and that still will be called refurbishing the
old sign, but it's just the billboard itself.
MR. TURNER-The old one?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-That's coming down.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But what it stood on.
MR. TURNER-Those were probably wooden.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But they're gone?
MR. TURNER-They're ~ to be gone. They're there yet.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Nothing's gone where the old structure is.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I'm trying to ask. Is that still there, so you could say they're
refurbishing?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. Everything is still there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. TURNER-The compromise is to take that right down.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand.
MR. SHEA-There's a bit of technicality within the semantics, there, in that you allow refurbishing,
but, if that's what you're going to allow, it's probably in the best interest to get rid of old
dilapidated foundations and build completely anew, but that, in and of itself. narrowly defined, is
the new sign, not an old sign refurbished, so, if you move it a few feet and choose to put new footings
and foundations and new super structure, you have to consider refurbishing of the old, in my estimation.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Right.
15
'--- -'
MR. TURNER-The old sign just about sits on the ground. It's 12 feet high. This sign's going to be
21 feet high, all right, and it has to meet the wino standards, according.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It'll meet all the of the zoning requirements?
MR. TURNER-All the codes, right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. TURNER-It will be a new sign.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Half of the structure that's existing there now that has no billboard, has no panels on
it, is going to be gone.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That'll be taken down.
MR. TURNER-The only one left will the one with the two panels on it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-And it'll be 10 feet higher than the existing one?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Ten feet higher than the existing?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Any further discussion? None? Okay. Motion's in order. Question, Mr. Cortese,
if this goes, when would you start on the existing sign that you have there now? Two weeks?
MR. CORTESE-Within two weeks.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
MRS. CRAYFORD-And if it goes, could you notify me when you're going to do it?
MR. CORTESE-I will let you know in advance by letter.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
tÐTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-1991 ADICOJII:O, INC., Introduced by Michael Shea who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Due to the fact that the applicant is entitled to a sign on the property and to keep the existing sign.
The applicant has agreed to construct a new sign with new foundation, footings, and structure within
full compliance of all Town sign size ordinances and has agreed to remove the preexisting deteriorated
sign as it pertains to advertising panel. I believe the approval of this variance would not be
detrimental to the Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Goetz
MRS. CRAYFORD-I just have one question. The size is any size within the limitations?
MR. SHEA-Yes, and as I understand, the limitations for a standard outdoor advertising panel is 40 by
1O?
MR. TURNER-No. It's 12 by 25, 300 square feet, double faced.
MR. CORTESE-That's correct. That's what the Ordinance says.
MR. TURNER-That's what the Ordinance says.
MR. SHEA-Okay, well, that's what they're entitled to, in any event.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
16
~
~.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1991 TYPE I SEQRA REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 15, 1991 PLANNING BOARD WR-lA
MYRON S. RAPAPORT OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO OLD ASSEllJLY POINT ROAD LEn ON IIIRNT RIDGE,
ENTRANCE TO HOUSE IS AT THIRD -MY CAMP- SIGN. TO CONSTIIJCT A 10 FT. BY 24 n. BEDROOM. OLD BEDROOM
IS BEING USED FOR ADDITIONAL CLOSET SPACE, A DRESSING AREA AND A SMALL DESK. VARIANCE NEEDED TO PERMIT
A 55 n. SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE RE~IREO 75 n. SETBACK. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 5-1-18
LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION 179-60 [3]
HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ-This application was sent to the Queensbury Planning Board so that they could act upon the
SEQRA application, as we designated them the lead agency, and we have had a response from them saying
that there was no negative declaration. There was a negative declaration. Sorry.
MRS. GOETZ-I have Staff Input dated October 15th.
MR. TURNER-Lets deal with this first, and then.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. TURNER-We received the application from the Planning Board as lead agency on the SEQRA Review.
I'll introduce a motion to accept the negative declaration from the Planning Board.
tÐTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1991 MYRON
S. RAPAPORT, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. TURNER-All right. Now we'll read the Staff Input.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 55-1991, Myron S. Rapaport, October 15, 1991,
Meeting Date: October 16, 1991 "The request is to add on to a nonconforming structure which does
not meet the 75 foot shoreline setback and is an enlargement of over 50 percent of the original
structure. On June 20, 1984 the Rapaports were granted an Area Variance for an expansion to their
camp. The camp was ±30 ft. by 28 ft. They received a variance to add 2 bedrooms totalling 590 sq.
ft. (AV915). On December 18, 1985 the Rapaports received a variance for a 169 sq. ft. library addition.
The applicant is now requesting to add an additional 10 ft. by 24 ft. bedroom. Since the Board has
determined that the applicant needs a variance for a 50 percent expansion and the project is located
in a Critical Environmental Area, this is a Type I Action under SEQRA. The Planning Board is reviewing
the SEQRA Long Form on October 15. The application was reviewed with regard to the Area Variance
criteria. 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying
generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The property is very steep and adjacent
to a protected body of water. Under today's regulations development of this site would be tenuous.
The only direction which would allow expansion is to the south. 2. Would strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings?
No. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. 3. Would the strict application
of the dimensional requirements result in a specïfied practical difficulty? The Board is aware of
the concerns generated by continued expansions of nonconforming uses, especially adjacent to Critical
Environmental Areas. The applicant has received two variances previously. The practical difficulty
appears to be that "the children are growing and need more room". 4. Would this variance be materially
detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance? The Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Ordinance
discourage development on steep slopes and within 75 feet of shorelines. 5. Is this request the minimum
relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The application indicates that this
is a cottage. If the needs of the applicant have exceeded the facility an option is to relocate.
Past variance requests indicate that two bedrooms were added and then a library. This does not include
bedrooms which were part of the original structure. Perhaps readjusting the interior space could
accomplish three separate bedrooms."
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Krantz?
MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, representing the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport. May I say, at the outset,
that in one sense I'm glad that Mr. Rapaport isn't here this evening, because he wouldn't respond to
the Staff Note that perhaps he should relocate, with the same moderation that I am. If you would look
at the map attached to the Area Variance application you'll get the best picture of what we're talking
about, and that is this map here, attached to the application. What Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport propose
is to add a room to their present house. This room is going to be used as a master bedroom for Mr.
and Mrs. Rapaport and is in substitution of an existing, but smaller, bedroom for the Rapaports.
17
~
So, they're still ending up with three bedrooms. They have three now, and they'll still end up with
three. One of the bedrooms that they presently have is being used for needed closet space, wardrobe
area and a small desk. I think there's a typo in the description. It says deck. There's no deck
inside the house. It's a desk. If you look at that map, presently, the porch area is set back about
40 feet from the lake. This was preexisting. The remainder of the house to the south is set back
45 feet and the room that they propose to add is 55 feet back, or 10 feet further back than the rest
of the house. This is the only location they could add on to the new room. To the east it is steep.
To the south is where they're adding. To the north, of course, is the existing structure, and to the
west is towards the lake, which we don't want to go further towards the lake. So, what is required,
here, is a 20 foot variance from the setback from the lake. The issue came up, last evening, about
slope, and that was answered satisfactorily to the Planning Board. While the overall lot, if you look
at it, is steep, which is true, where the house is now and where the room is going, it is not steep.
We submitted, last evening, photographs to the Planning Board, which shows where the, this is looking
north, and where the new room is going to go is, in fact, a moderate slope area. They addressed all
the environmental concerns and issued a negative declaration. Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport do not want to
relocate. They love the home. They love the area. They're asking to add a room on to their house.
There are no objections from any of the neighbors. Any of you who have looked at it from the lakeside,
it is very well shrouded in tall pine trees. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rapaport designed that new room
to jog even further away from the lake to save two existing pine trees to block the view. They like
their privacy. It is steep to the east. I've been there several times. If anybody's been there,
it steep as you approach here.
MR. TURNER-All right, but this juts back right here, all right. So, is this cutting into the bedroom?
MR. KRANTZ-I know Mr. Rapaport, who is a designer, looked at that, and he couldn't do it, and I know
it's very steep over here.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I know it is, but I'm saying, what's that dimension right there. Do you know what
that is?
MR. KRANTZ-Well, I can only guess that it looks like about.
MRS. GOETZ-Isn't there a deck there? Does the deck go? It's a walkway.
MR. KRANTZ-It's a walkway from the parking area. That's correct. That's the main entrance to the
house.
MRS. GOETZ-Right. Does the walkway go across there? I've forgotten. It's been so long ago.
MR. KRANTZ-It does. Here's the parking area, and there's a walk area that's substantial, and that
is the main entrance, and that is, they're going to use this for a bedroom. That would, in effect,
make the bedroom as the main entrance to the house.
MR. TURNER-Okay. That's 20 feet. That juts back there 20 feet. They're taking one bedroom out and
they're moving it.
MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. One existing bedroom is being parceled out for other uses.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-So, there's no new demand on the septic system.
MR. TURNER-Is there a feasible further demand on the property, later on down the road?
MR. KRANTZ-Not to my knowledge. Since he bought the house, about 1980 or '81, he has since married.
His new wife has two children, and this will leave them with a master bedroom for themselves and one
bedroom for each of their children of opposite sexes.
MRS. GOETZ-The thing that bothers me is these are personal problems. We have to consider that it's
in the Critical Environmental Area, everything that you know already, and he's had a history of asking
for variances so often. It makes me wonder, how many more is he going to come in with.
MR. KRANTZ-Well, I can't speak for that. I can only address this one on the merits of the setback
that he's going to be left with on the south, you know, far exceeds the Ordinance. There's no other
place he can put the room. He looked at every other alternative. There's no other place he can put
the room. He has a large lot, 1.4 acres. It's a very small portion of the whole lot. He loves the
area. He doesn't want to move.
MRS. GOETZ-It's one story, right?
MR. KRANTZ-That is correct.
18
.-
'--'
MRS. GOETZ-Is there any way of doing anything underneath, you know how some homes on the lake, on a
hillside have rooms on the bottom.
MR. KRANTZ-Yes, Mrs. Goetz, I know what you're saying. This strip of land, paralleling the house
existing, that is the area of the moderate slope. Down to that point, it is steep, if you've been
there, and from there down, again, it is steep. I think, if you spent enough money, a huge amount
of money, perhaps you could do it, but you'd have to blast out from under the existing house.
MRS. GOETZ-It's all rock, isn't it?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SHEA-To do what you're suggesting, they would either have to dig out or build more house out, so
that they can get something to build underneath.
MRS. GOETZ-It's rocky, as I remember.
MR. KRANTZ-There is ledge, some areas more than others, but I believe towards this area, there's more
ledge that you're referring to. That's correct.
MRS. GOETZ-What about a second story, going up on what he has?
MR. KRANTZ-I honestly don't know if Mr. Rapaport considered that. Aesthetically, those of you who
have been there, I think this would be far more pleasing than putting a second story on the house that
would be more visible from the lake. They'd like to keep it on one level.
MRS. YORK-I just recall, last night, that you said the structure was not visible from the lake.
MR. CARR-Right, and he's saying that if you put on a second story, it would be more visible.
MR. KRANTZ-A second story would be more visible.
MRS. YORK-I see, it would be visible.
MR. KRANTZ-From my experience of looking at homes on the lake, those that are taller appear to be much
more visible, but I don't think, to be honest, that was his main concern. I think you're talking about
tripling or quadrupling the expense to, yes, put a second story on.
MR. CARR-I guess my thoughts would just be that, I mean, being down there, he doesn't really have any
close neighbors. He's got a large lot with very little building space, and he's consistent with the
other variances we've given in that area, in that he's not going any closer to the lake, which I think
we're all very aware of, and he's not violating, really, any side yard setback on his neighbors. So,
he's not encroaching on his neighbors any more, and I do like the idea of keeping it single story and
almost invisible from the lake.
MR. KRANTZ-Right, and he also has built, if my recollection is correct, I believe the exterior's, like,
in earth tone's, they used to call it. I think it blends in very nicely.
MR. CARR-I guess I would just caution the applicant that I think, at this point, because it also has
now gone over that 50 percent expansion of what was originally there, that there may be more difficulty
in the future if, again, he decides to come back for another variance, seeing that this would be the
third variance on this parcel already, and that the house has been greatly expanded.
MR. KRANTZ-I appreciate that, and, again, this room is not a 50 percent expansion. This, in addition
to the others, has been the expansion.
MR. CARR-Right, and that's the way written, as the aggregate.
MR. KRANTZ-And the other variances were the same as these, in that the existing cottage was close to
the lake that was built, I'm sure, way before the Zoning Ordinance. So, as they have added on to a
home that's still going to be under 2,000 square feet, yes, each one has successfully needed a setback
from the lake variance, right, but the alternative, to make it a reasonable size house for a family,
would have been just extraordinary blasting of ledge out of the eastern part of the house. That's
the only way, really, they could have avoided the request for these setback variances.
MR. TURNER-That, and the other alternative would be to go up, to some degree.
MR. KRANTZ-I agree that if money is literally not an object, yes, you could probably do that. If you
want to spend enough money, you could do that.
MR. CARR-But then aesthetics comes into it.
MR. TURNER- Yes.
19
--,'
MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None?
MR. KRANTZ-Thank you.
MR. TURNER-I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COtlŒNT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1991 MYRON S. RAPAPORT, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
This variance will grant a 20 foot relief from the shoreline setback and a relief from Town Section
involving 50 percent expansion of a residence. The property is a large lot, but with little building
space, combined with steep slopes and grades. Therefore, I believe it to be a reasonable request.
I don't believe the variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance or to
other properties in the district and there would be no adverse effect on public facilities and services.
Also, there is no neighborhood opposition, and it appears to be minimum relief.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1991 TYPE II SFR-I0 DONALD L. tlJRPHY FRANCES E. tlJRPHY OIItER: SAME AS ABOVE
15 HARRIS STREET FOR EXPANSION OF THE PORCH ZZ FT. IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION. EXPANSION OF THE RESIDENCE
TO BE 20 FT. IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION. TAX MAP NO. 117-Z-Z5 LOT SIZE: ZOO FT. BY 185 FT. SECTION
179-20, 179-79 A(Z)
ELAN CHERNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 77-1991, Donald & Frances Murphy, 10-15-91,
October 16, 1991 "The request is to extend a nonconforming building into the front yard setback.
The requirement is 30 feet and the request is to reduce the setback to 7 feet on the eastern side.
The applicant wants to add on adjacent to the existing structure. This application was reviewed with
regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property
or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The
position of the existing structure on the lot is such that an addition can only be logically added
to the east. The structure is currently nonconforming and is within 8 feet of the property line.
2. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of the land or buildings? The applicant currently uses the structure as a residence and has
residential use of the property. The structure is very small and is situated close to the road which
is a disadvantage in adding on. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result
in a specified practical difficulty? The practical difficulty is in the current location of the
structure on the lot. Logical expansion can only occur to the east and encroach on the setbacks.
4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property
in the district? No. The other residences are at about the same distance from the road. 5. Is this
request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant
could reduce the expansion by the size of the proposed porch, but this would only reduce the request
by 6 feet 6 inches. The variance request which has been made does not seem unreasonable given the
site conditions and the neighborhood."
MR. TURNER-Mr. Cherney.
MR. CHERNEY-Good evening, Mr. Turner, other members of the Board. My name is Elan Cherney. I'm here
with Mr. Murphy, in support of this application. In addition, I have also brought with me a petition
which my client had prepared and we've made copies for each Board member, just indicating, by the various
people in the neighborhood, that they have no objection to this expansion as well, and I'd like to
hand that out.
MR. TURNER-All right. Fine. Question, the addition, is that going to be one story, or what?
20
--
--
DONALD MURPHY
MR. MURPHY-One story. Donald Murphy.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Murphy, the proposed porch, it's going to be 6 foot 6 inches wide, 22 feet long, and
encompasses the proposed addition?
MR. MURPHY-Yes. On the front, it extends from the existing porch out.
MR. TURNER-Okay. That's kind of small. All the houses there are right up against the road, every
one of them.
MR. CHERNEY-Right. All he's doing, here, really, with the porch, is just extending the porch so that
it's uniform with front of the house as it is now, and would be added on to the proposed addition,
as you can see. The only difference, there, in effect, is it's one foot closer, but I think it would
add uniformity, so it would look much better by extending the porch rather than just putting an addition
on and having that, the L-Shape there.
MR. CARR-Is the proposed porch strictly for aesthetic purposes?
MR. CHERNEY-Well, there are a number of purposes for it. One, of course, is aesthetic, so that you
would have a uniform face to the building. The other thing is for heating purposes, of course. The
porch, being enclosed, would also reduce the amount of heat and be a buffer to the outside as well.
So, it has more than one purpose, and, of course, it does add more porch area.
MR. CARR-What are the rooms to be included in the proposed addition?
MR. MURPHY-It would be two bedrooms.
MR. CARR-Two bedrooms?
MR. MURPHY-Yes.
MR. CARR-So, there wouldn't be an entrance off that porch.
MR. MURPHY-On the?
MR. CARR-Onto the proposed, the proposed porch would not be a new entrance to the house?
MR. MURPHY-Yes, it would be. It's closer to the old porch, though.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. MURPHY-It's on that end.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Would it be on the front facing the road, or, the entrance would be towards the front?
MR. MURPHY-Yes. It would be approximately in the middle of the building and, the proposed addition
and the existing building.
MR. TURNER-Are you just going to tie into the existing porch, or are you going to take the existing
porch off and go all new across the front?
MR. MURPHY-Well, the old porch is in tough shape, so I would like to tear it right off and put a uniform
one in.
MR. TURNER-Okay. How far is your driveway away from the proposed addition?
MR. MURPHY-It's on that side.
MR. SICARD-Sixteen feet.
MR. MURPHY-It's right next to the house.
MR. SHEA-Seventeen feet.
MR. SICARD-Seventeen feet.
MR. TURNER-Where is it?
MR. CHERNEY-I believe it's 16 feet from the proposed porch, and it abuts the side of the house, there.
21
'--,
MR. TURNER-Okay. I see it now, but isn't there another drive into that lot on the other side?
MR. MURPHY-Yes, on the new lot, yes.
MR. TURNER-That's the one I'm talking about.
MRS. GOETZ-That seems really wide. You had a lot of room there. You had a lot of vehicles parked.
MR. MURPHY-For parking, yes.
MRS. GOETZ-So, it didn't seem to be a problem, of not having enough parking on that side, on the east
side.
MR. MURPHY-No, not on other side, not on the new side.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm wondering, you're going to need steps for the entrance off the front. Is that your
plan?
MR. MURPHY-Well, if I had the porch, I would put them on the end of the new porch.
MR. TURNER-On the east end?
MR. MURPHY-On the east end.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Instead of?
MR. MURPHY-Instead of having them on the front, because it's.
MR. TURNER-You wouldn't have much room.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But I asked you if it was going to be facing the road, the entrance to porch, and you
said, yes, towards the middle.
MR. MURPHY- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-There will be an entrance?
MR. MURPHY- Yes.
MR. CARR-Not to the porch, to the house.
MR. MURPHY-No, to the house.
MR. CARR-Yes. The entrance to the house is through here.
MR. MURPHY-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, but to get onto the porch will come off where your driveway was, on the side where
your driveway was?
MR. MURPHY- Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got you.
MR. MURPHY-On the easterly side, on the right hand side.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay.
MR. TURNER-Okay, and further questions? None? Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEVIN IRELAND
MR. IRELAND-Yes, my name is Kevin Ireland. I am Don Murphy's immediate neighbor to the west. I
certainly agree that, I think he's deserving of this addition to his home, particularly if you were
to see his present structure. It's very, very tiny for a family of four, and I believe he deserves
it.
MR. TURNER-Than k you.
22
'--
--
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? None? All right. Motion's in order.
tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1991 DONALD L. tlJRPHY FRANCES E. tlJRPHY, Introduced by Joyce
Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
This variance will allow the applicant to place an addition to an existing structure will be seven
feet from the front lot line for a relief of 23 feet. The existing structure is already eight feet
from the front lot line. Because of the position of the existing structure on the lot, there is no
other feasible place to put the addition. The current structure is very small, so the need for an
addition is a reasonable request. This variance would not be detrimental to the Ordinance or have
an adverse effect on neighborhood properties or public facilities, and there is no neighborhood
opposition.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 TYPE II LC-lOA SANDRA EGGLESTON O"ER: CARRISA DEMRS FULLER ROAD,
VACANT LOT AFTER LAST HOUSE ON LEFT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DlELLING IIUCH CANNOT JEET
SETBACKS. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-15.22 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 179-13
SANDRA EGGLESTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance 78-1991, Sandra Eggleston, October 15, 1991,
October 16, 1991 "The request is to construct a residence on a preexisting nonconforming lot of record
which cannot meet the minimum setbacks in the zone. The zoning is LC-10A. The lot is 0.38 acres and
is at the end of Fuller Road. The property is in the APA. The Staff has received a letter which sites
another project in the area. Staff researched this and found that the application was Area Variance
No. 1451 which was tabled and ultimately withdrawn on January 12, 1989. The variance was to subdivide
4.69 acres into two parcels in a LC-10A zone. Staff has attached the minutes of that meeting. The
property under review at this time was recently purchased at a tax sale by the owner and is pending
Zoning Board approval for sale to the applicant. This application was reviewed with regard to the
criteria for an Area Variance. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement
of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot is preexisting and nonconforming. The
size is 100 ft. by 178 ft. which basically precluded placement of a structure which would not infringe
on the 100 ft. setbacks. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical
difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The applicant has
attempted to locate the house so that major clearing and tree removal is not necessary. An alternative
would be to position the house sideways, however, there is no location on the lot which would not require
variances. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or
neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No. Most of the other
residences appear to be about the same distance from the road. 4. What are the effects of the variance
on public facilities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate
the specified practical difficulty? It would appear to be minimum relief. If the residence were moved
the septic field would potentially be closer to a neighbor or more trees would have to be removed."
MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions?
MR. CARR-Mrs. Eggleston, when did you purchase the property?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Mr. DeMars is the owner right now. I am purchasing it.
MR. CARR-Okay. It's under contract?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CARR-Mr. DeMars, maybe I can ask you. When did you purchase the property?
MR. DEMARS
MR. DEMARS-My name is Mr. DeMars and I live in the Town of Queensbury. My daughter actually purchased
it at the recent sale they had. Warren County had a sale.
MR. CARR-A tax sale?
MR. DEMARS- Yes.
23
--
MR. CARR-Okay. Perhaps no one knows this, but, maybe the Staff knows this. I mean, this lot was a
lot of record as of October 1st, 1988?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. CARR-Okay. Had it been subdivided or anything like that?
MRS. YORK-No, it's been in existence for quite some time.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Since 1971.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Turner, did you bring your Tax Map book?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MRS. YORK-At any rate, I think it's Page 124.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-123.
MRS. YORK-Thank you. This is the Tax Maps as they existed. These books were made just after October
1 of 1988, and they show what has been existing since that date, and prior to that date.
MR. CARR-And that lot was there?
MRS. YORK- Yes.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-I looked in the Assessor's records, and Lester Bert owned the property. From 1971
it was there.
MR. CARR-At that site?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CARR-So, it's been a building lot since '71, at least, of .38 acres?
MRS. YORK-Right.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CARR-Mrs. Eggleston, I see that this is a two car garage size. Is it necessary to have a two car
garage?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-No. In fact, it's been brought back down to 20.
MR. CARR-Okay, so it's a 20 by 20 garage?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes. I spoke with my builder.
MR. CARR-Okay. So, now we've got 22 feet on the whatever side, east side, I guess.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes. I did change it on mine.
MR. TURNER-Yes, it's here.
MRS. GOETZ-Mr. DeMars, when your daughter purchased it, did she look into the zoning of the property?
MR. DEMARS-Yes. I think we did research on it and we were thinking in terms of single dwelling,
preexisting lot, dating back to, I think the research went back to 1971.
MRS. GOETZ-But you realize the 10 acre zoning was now in effect?
MR. DEMARS-I realize that the 10 acre zoning came in, yes, afterwards.
MRS. GOETZ-Well, it was in effect when your daughter purchased the property.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-But it's preexisting.
MR. DEMARS-Preexisting. Yes, I do.
MRS. GOETZ-I understand that, but I want to make the point that she bought it knowing how it was zoned.
MR. DEMARS- Yes.
24
--
---
MR. TURNER-But she could buy it and request a variance to build on it herself. Okay.
MR. SHEA-Now that the dimensions of the garage are being changed.
MR. CARR-Well, they aren't. I think I misread this. The garage as is.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Well, actually, I went over with my builder and he said that the largest he would
build for the price that I have would only be 20 feet, not 24, which would bring it in more. So, there'd
be 22 foot setback on the east side.
MR. CARR-Okay. I've got it listed as a 20 foot width, on mine.
MR. SHEA-On one side, but an 18 on the other.
MR. TURNER-On the garage side it's 18 feet.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Yes, on the garage side, where the garage is. I have the garage as being 24 feet.
The garage is only going to be 20, now.
MRS. CRAYFORD-20 by 20.
MR. TURNER-20 by 20.
MR. CARR-Twenty four feet deep, and 20 foot width. Could you come here? Do you want to look at the
map?
MR. SHEA-The setbacks, now, are going to be 22 and 20, 22 on one side and 20 on the other.
MRS. $. EGGLESTON-Right. It's 24 deep, okay. That's right. I was looking at this wrong.
MR. CARR-And it's listed as 20 in width. So, that's what it is.
MRS. $. EGGLESTON-That's correct.
MR. CARR-So, it is an 18 foot setback.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's 18 foot, yes, sorry.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-I have another question for Mr. DeMars. What was the date this was purchased, actually.
It said, recent, in the Staff Input.
MR. DEMARS-The last tax sale, I don't have the exact date, but I.
MRS. GOETZ-The month.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It was June 27th, or July 27th?
MR. DEMARS-June or July, I think.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay, '91?
MR. DEMARS-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay, and so you've just started to, did you advertise it for sale, or how does that work?
I mean, now someone else is wanting to buy it.
MR. DEMARS-No. We were going to do something, ourselves, with it, and I guess my daughter has changed
her mind and this opportunity has come up for this young lady to do something with it, if she's allowed
to do it, and we know her. So, I thought it was a great opportunity for her to do something with it,
also.
MRS. GOETZ-I was just wondering if some of the neighbors were interested in purchasing it.
MR. DEMARS-Well, yes. You brought up a good point there. I really feel that, if any neighbor wants
to purchase adjoining property or venture property, I think that they should seek it out and try to
attend these things that exist and have preexisted for years with Warren County.
MRS. GOETZ-"Attend these things" meaning the tax sales?
25
',,--
---
MR. DEMARS-The tax sales. It's open to the public. It's open to everyone.
MRS. GOETZ-Because, my thought being that, if, say, a neighbor did want to purchase some of it, it
would keep the open space as it's zoned.
MR. DEMARS-If neighbors wanted to purchase it?
MRS. GOETZ-So that it wasn't built on.
MR. DEMARS-Well, this is what I'm trying to say, that if neighbors were worried about adjoining
properties and they see this sale coming up, I think they should address it at that time.
MRS. GOETZ-So, you would be unwilling to sell it, at this time, to any of the adjoining neighbors?
MR. DEMARS-Yes, right.
MR. SHEA-And it's not his responsibility to offer it to other neighbors.
MRS. GOETZ-I know it isn't, but I still want to ask the question, because I think it impacts on keeping
the open space.
MR. CARR-And at this time, it's under contract. I don't think he has a right to sell it to somebody
else, at this time.
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. GOETZ-But he has a right to come in and ask if somebody can buy it. So I think my question is
legitimate, because bearing on the fact of keeping the open space.
MR. TURNER-I can understand what you're saying, but, again, just like he says, they had the same
opportunity he had. If they wanted it, they should have been there.
MR. CARR-It's an auction.
MR. TURNER-It's an auction. They've got to be there when it happens.
MR. CARR-I guess the question would be, Mr. DeMars, I mean, was it advertised, somehow, that you were
selling it?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It was advertised in the Post Star.
MR. CARR-That 1Q!!. were selling it, not the tax sale, that your daughter was selling it? How was it
advertised?
MR. DEMARS-It wasn't. We had talked with somebody about it, once I found out that my daughter didn't
want to do what I was hoping she would do.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. DEMARS-It wasn't something that was posted in the paper, or ran through a realty or anything.
MR. CARR-All right, and there was no contact made, at that time, with any neighbors, about the
possibility, you know, I'm sure Mrs. S. Eggleston's paying a certain amount for this parcel of property.
I mean, there was no contact made with other neighbors who might be interested, on the east or west?
MR. DEMARS-None whatsoever.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. DEMARS-They haven't come by to me and said something about it. The time was there. The time was
in July when the sale really was, and as far as the bidding process on it, I think we had no other
bidders. So, it was like something that nobody really cared about.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. DEMARS-So, if I was worried about a piece of property that adjoined my property, worried that
somebody was going to put a nice house on it, which wouldn't have a negative impact to the neighborhood,
I would really be at one of these sales to really sort of say, well, I want to buy this property and
I'm going to try to bid it up to where I.
MR. CARR-So, at the tax sales, there was no competitive bidding. You were the only bidder. Is that
right?
26
-
.---
MR. DEMARS-Right. Well, when I say that, there was one other, but nobody really pursued it.
MR. CARR-Okay. Do you know who that bidder was, by any chance?
MR. DEMARS-I'm sure that it wasn't anyone from the neighborhood or adjoining property.
MR. CARR-Okay. It was not one of your adjoining neighbors, to the best of your knowledge?
MR. DEMARS-No.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS ST. ANDREWS
MR. ST. ANDREWS-My name is Chris St. Andrews. My wife Jane and I are here. We're both opposed to
it. At the time that the tax issue came up, we were on vacation in Maine. I don't really follow those
thi ngs. I've learned a lesson by thi s, that maybe you ought to, but we di dn' t, and when I came back,
I found out about it. It was already purchased. It was done, and I went down to Warren County and
they had 60 days within which to pay, which I contacted the people there to find out about it and that
was the way that set. The next thing I knew, was that they were trying to build a house on it and
we got this notice to show up. As far as our opposition, why we're opposed, it's our mistake that
we, obviously, didn't get a bid in for the tax sale. I would have been very interested in it. I would
still be interested in buying it from Mr. DeMars for a fair market price. We just missed that. I
can't say anything else about that. Why we don't want it, we went through this a year and a half ago,
as you know, in '89, on the other side of the house, and that had to be zoned 10 acres for those people
to build. Those people owned both sides of the street, back before any of us were around for the road,
and that was denied.
MR. CARR-Now, was that just a building, or was that a subdivision? That was a subdivision, wasn't
it?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-That was a subdivision.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but that was a subdivision.
MR. CARR-They wanted to make two substandard lots.
MR. TURNER-They wanted to make two substandard lots. That's why it was denied.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. Okay. Well, so, we have, on our property, a very similar situation, in that
we have our house on a lot that's about an acre and a half, and then we have another piece of property,
which is 100 by 150, which is deeded to us too, which I have no intention of building on, but which
was made at the same time, whatever your records show, '71. You might be able to see that in the tax
thing. A gentleman by the name of Mr. Winslow bought our house, another lot that we have, 100 by 150,
and then the lot that went into the tax, just a little history on it, I think the name was their BuPones.
Is that right?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Were the ones that owned it first?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-No. Lester Bert. I know the family, and it's not showing that you own any of the
properties, except for that one, 1.81 acres.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. That's what it is. It's two pieces, though.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's only showing one piece on the map.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'd have to look at it to be sure. It's just what I recall when we bought it.
MR. CARR-They're contiguous pieces that you came to under two deeds.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-It could be.
MR. CARR-They merge on the taxes and under the code.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay.
MR. CARR-So, that's how that came about.
27
-
--
MR. ST. ANDREWS-All right. Regardless, it still seems to me that those people that had that property
back in '71 or '72 should be the rightful people that could build on that, and the only people that
could build on that. Anybody that bought that lot after that point in time, knows that the rules are
LC-10, I would think.
MR. TURNER-No. That's a preexisting, nonconforming lot of record. That doesn't change. That's a
building lot.
MR. CARR-Even though we changed the zoning, we cannot deny it as a building lot.
MR. TURNER-Right. They are allowed to have reasonable use of the property. Even though it's a.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-So, I really have no recourse. Is that what you're saying? This is a building lot,
period, that can be built on?
MR. TURNER-It's a preexisting, nonconforming lot of record.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And by missing the tax sale, that was really my only shot at getting it?
MR. TURNER- Yes.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And so if Mr. DeMars wants to sell it to her, that's it?
MR. TURNER-If his daughter wanted to build on it, she'd have to go through the same sequence.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, well, I happen to know Carrisa quite well. I mean, she works for me at the store.
I had no idea that she was the one that bought this piece of property, but, nor did she ever speak
to me about owning this piece of property, or anything about. I don't know what argument I really
have, other than I really am opposed to it being there. I know that the neighborhood is opposed to
it being there, to building on the land, as you have some letters, I'm sure which you will read.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. St. Andrews?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-I'd just like to add something to that. The reason for this is not because of the
10 acre zoning. It's because I cannot meet the 100 foot setbacks on all sides. I know Mr. St. Andrews
put on a 1224 square foot addition in March of '88. Well, he couldn't meet his setbacks. His are
on the east side. His setbacks are 33 feet.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. He came here.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Same thing. We're going through the same thing.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, it's a little different. Our house was already there. We didn't go any, all
we did was go the same side border, which just went wider with the house. We weren't any closer.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Bigger than house I'm going to build. I mean, it is 33 feet, which it is 100 foot
setbacks.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I understand. What is it, now? She's going to be 15 feet, 18 feet from my line, and
it's supposed to be 100 feet from my line?
MR. TURNER-One hundred, one hundred, and one hundred. Yes, that's the zone.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And it's up to you people to say whether that's permissible or not?
MR. TURNER-Yes. She couldn't build on it, or no one could build on it without a variance, under the
zoning now.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-And I've checked into most of the people that 1 i ve on that street own an acre or
less. I know, there's a few of them that own .92 acres, or 1.03, 1.09 acres, and I've looked at some
of the setbacks. Mr. Schumaker that sent a letter, has a 15 foot setback on the west side of his
property.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Those people are all below the LC-lO line, that you're speaking of. Everybody above
the LC-10, I don't know if that's exactly true. I mean, Mr. Schumaker is below the LC-10 line. He's
down at the other end of Fuller Road where the houses are closer together. They're SR-1.
MR. TURNER-That's SR-1 Acre.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-It does change when you get up to Sylvia Morgan's house, as you get up.
28
-
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-But I think a lot of the neighbors were upset because it was 10 acre zone, but it's
preexisting, and it has nothing to do with that. It's my setbacks.
MR. TURNER-All right. Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to the application?
WENDY STEWART
MRS. STEWART-I'm Wendy Stewart. I live on Fuller Road. I'm also opposed. I live below the Adirondack
Park, but we have an acre. We have been trying very hard to keep our street as a rural, quiet street.
It cannot really be added and extended. It just goes up over the hill. We all have nice quiet pieces
of property. There are several houses that are two acres and more, of property. So, I don't believe
this less than an acre holds out as the majority of the houses. I'm just very much against having
another house that is sandwiched in, and looking very small, from what it must be to fit on that piece
of property, and I would just like to find out if there isn't anything we can do to prevent this from
happening again, other than going to tax sales. I'm certainly going to find out who owns the rest
of that property on the road. Also, I'd like to know, does the Adirondack Park have to approve this?
MR. TURNER-It has to go to the APA.
MRS. STEWART-So, there'll be a public hearing with the Adirondack Park?
MR. TURNER-If they decide to review it, right.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-But are you saying that they generally, it's an existing lot. Will they take it the
same way?
MR. TURNER-They'll look at it. Yes, they might not have any comment, you know, they might not have
any input. They'll look at it.
MRS. STEWART-How do we get involved in that? Do we, then, contact them, or is there going to be a
notice sent to the neighborhood on this?
MR. TURNER-There should be a notice. You'll probably get a notice, somebody, within.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Well, if it's within 500 feet, you're not within 500 feet, she not within 500 feet
of my property.
MR. TURNER-No. You won't get noticed.
MRS. STEWART-No, but interestingly enough, when the last subdivision arrangement was going up, we did
get a notice, and that's further up the road from us than 500 feet. So, I can't understand why we
weren't informed about this meeting. Is there a different ruling for a subdivision?
MR. CARR-Well, it was an oversight, probably, on the last one, because, really, what they do is just
take a ruler and go 500 feet around the tax map, and every tax map lot they hit they send a letter
to.
MR. TURNER-Right. They just send a letter to.
MR. CARR-If you aren't within 500 feet, you aren't entitled to mailed notice. There's just the paper
notice.
MRS. STEWART-Yes. I guess we go the Adirondack Park, but I would urge you to really consider this,
in terms of what's happening in Queensbury. There are an awful lot of lots available for building.
It's not the only lot in Town.
MR. TURNER-Maybe, but let me just say this. The original person that owned that, before he bought
it, could have done the same thing that she's doing, all right.
MRS. STEWART-Yes.
MR. TURNER-You can't deny them reasonable use of the land. He owns the lot. He has the right to build
on that lot, even though it's not Land Conservation 10 Acres. It's a preexisting, nonconforming lot.
MRS. STEWART-Right.
MR. TURNER-His practical difficulty is he can't meet the 100 foot setbacks, and that's the only practical
difficulty he has.
MRS. STEWART-Yes. That's the only thing you can consider.
MR. TURNER-Right.
29
--
--'
MRS. STEWART-Yes. I understand that.
MR. TURNER-You can't deny him the use of the land just because he can't meet the 100 foot setback,
because the lot preexisted.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-There aren't any of the houses, as you go up the LC-10 area, that are close to each
other in any way. It is true that we put an addition on to our existing house, which existed to be,
whatever it was, 20 something feet, from Sylvia's border, Sylvia Morgan's border, but that is an open
field to her house. There's a great distance between there.
MR. TURNER-I know.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And on all the houses around there, on both sides, after the LC-10.
MR. TURNER-How far is your house from this property line?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I don't really know how many feet.
MR. TURNER-An educated guess?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-From the property line, 60 feet. I don't really know.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's more than that. I know for a fact.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I honestly don't know. Maybe it's 75, 80 feet. I don't know.
MR. TURNER-Yes. If my memory serves me right, your house is towards Mrs. Morgan's, more than it is
towards.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-We're here. We have our yard there. It would have to be more than 100 feet, I'm sorry,
because that lot that I was speaking about earlier, that is 100 feet, which you say now is all in one,
was a distance between.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Because your road frontage is 263.90 feet of road frontage. So, it's definitely
more than that, and as far as my setbacks, where the house is going to be from the road, that's about,
it's 50 feet, and I noticed that St. Andrews, I checked that out, and that was, it's about 65 feet,
unless they built a porch that, on the plans, they said they were going to build, then that would be
57 and the Stewarts were 59 feet for setbacks. So, I did try to place the house back.
MR. TURNER-Any further comments, Mrs. Stewart?
MRS. STEWART-No.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. DeMars?
MR. DEMARS-Yes, I would just like to say a few words in support of Sandy Eggleston's effort, here.
I really feel that it's not going to have a negative, if anything, impact on the neighborhood. If
anything, it will improve the piece of property. She will become a taxpayer, just as the other ones
on that particular area, on that road are, and if anything, it creates better tax base. I live in
a subdivision where we had no neighbors for quite some time within 100 feet from my house, but I really
didn't want to stop the people from building there because I knew they had good intentions, the people
that bought the lot. I'm sure that Sandy has good intentions on this. She's put a lot of work into
it. She's done a lot of research on it. As a matter of fact, she did more than what I did, to be
truthful. I really think that she's worked really hard at this, and that I'm very much in support
of what she's done.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-Letter from Wendy and Ronald Stewart, "This is to strongly protest any consideration of
a variance for the lot on Fuller Road covered by the notice of variance. This is an LC-10A zone.
Other residences on the street had to purchase 10 acres to construct a home in the area. The very
small piece of land covered by this variance should be offered to the adjoining owners at the same
low cost that has brought it to the point in the hearing. We are not eligible to purchase the property
under their criteria. We live in one of the few remaining rural areas in Queensbury, and we believe
that the variance should not be allowed. Wendy Stewart Ronald Stewart"
This is from Donna Rogers and Philip Grubbs, Two Braeside Circle, first left off of Fuller Road, "This
is to register our objection to the above referenced variance. When we moved into the area 15 months
30
---
ago, we had a large selection of towns and areas to choose from. We chose Queensbury, and more
particularly, just off Fuller Road, because of the rural quality and beauty this area offers. We chose
a spot where our home could be nestled in and remain in harmony with the rustic, natural setting of
Adirondack Park. Variances such as the one referenced above will significantly change what we sought
so hard to find. II
This is C. Bailey, " Please place on record that I am against the approval of a building variance for
the lot of DeMars/Eggleston. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: One, allowing a building
on that size lot does not conform with the area, nor does it follow the reasons why people have acquired
property in that area, which is for space and privacy. The request made several years ago by relatives
of Mrs. Morgan to build on her vacant lot was denied, and that, in my opinion, was a much more suitable
building site than the one in question. It appears that this property is in the LC-10 area and certainly
the parcel size does not come close to conforming with those dimensions. Fuller Road is a beautiful,
peaceful area of Queensbury and those of us that have property there are most fortunate. We would
1 i ke to preserve it's quiet characteri stic and natural woodland settings."
John Schumaker, "Because other conmitments prevent my presence at public hearing, I am writing in
opposition to the variance application submitted by Sandra Eggleston for the construction of a single
family dwelling which cannot meet setbacks on Fuller Road. The reason this property cannot meet setback
requirements for zone LC-10A is a result of the fact that the lot is approximately 9 and three quarters
acre shy of meeting the minimum 10 acre lot size for the location in question. Approximately two years
ago the Planning Board, using the same regulations which direct the decisions of the current Board,
rejected a similar application, although it was much more plausibly based on a hardship, by the Fuller
family for a parcel of land which lies within 500 feet of the parcel under consideration now. In that
case, despite the fact that the land has been continuously owned by the Fullers prior to adoption of
the current Zoning Regulations, a hardship variance was not accepted. Since the proposed variance
is for a property which has been purchased well after the current regulations were in effect, it would
appear, at the least, to be an extreme lack of consistency on the Board's part if this variance is
granted. Further, it would open a door to anyone who wishes to circumvent the provisions of the Town
Zoning Ordinance. Expecting that our Town government be both fair and consistent, I respectfully request
that a variance is denied in this case."
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-I'd just like to state, on most of those letters, again, it's talking about the 10
acre zoning, which like I said before, doesn't have anything to do with this. It's the setbacks, and
as far as Mr. Valley goes, I mean, he does own a lot of land there, but he does own a house on a, it's
1.03 acres of land, which is not a lot of land.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That wasn't Mr. Bailey. That was Cherry Bailey.
MRS. GOETZ-Cherry Bailey?
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's under Raymond Bailey in the Assessor's Office.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'm just telling you the letter was from Cherry Bailey.
MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's from Cherry Bailey. I see. Sorry, but in Mr. Schumaker's, you know, it says
a similar application, it isn't because they wanted to subdivide. Mine's a preexisting lot.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 SANDRA EGGLESTON, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
And grant the applicant relief from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The property requires
100 foot setbacks on all sides of any proposed structure. The relief granted would be 50 feet relief
from the front yard setback, 82 foot relief from the easterly side yard setback, 80 foot relief from
the westerly side yard setback, and 15 feet from the rear yard setback. This lot is a preexisting
nonconforming building lot, although it is substantially substandard from the current zoning regulations.
The applicant has an absolute right to build on this lot and the relief granted would allow the applicant
reasonable use of the property while granting the minimum relief necessary from the setbacks. It is
not detrimental to the entire purposes of the Town's Ordinance and it would not adversely effect public
services.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Goetz
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston
31
'--
--..
AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1991 TYPE II PC-lA THE HOIMRD GROUP HOIMRD CARR OiliER: ~EENSBURY FACTORY
OUTLET CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD (IMRREN COONTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 LOT SIZE: :t15 ACRES SECTION 4.020 J
MR. TURNER-This next order of business has been tabled by the applicant. We'll read the letter
requesting the tabling into the record.
MRS. GOETZ-The letter is from Jonathan Lapper, to Lee York, Senior Town Planner, RE: Queensbury Factory
Outlet Center Variance Application, dated October 15, 1991, "In accordance with our telephone
conversation, on behalf of the' applicant, please table the pending variance application until next
month as we are in the process of revi sing the appl i cation. Thank you for your ass i stance."
tÐTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1991 THE HOI6\RD GROUP HOIMRD CARR, Introduced by Theodore Turner
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
Tabled by the applicant until next month, and that the applicant will pay for re-advertising.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
(END OF FIRST DISK)
32
..-.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1991 TYPE II RR-5A LC-UJA FRANK J. AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART mitER: SAtE AS
ABOVE IÆST SIDE OF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD PROPOSING TO CREATE A 5 ACRE LOT THAT IS IN 111) ZONES,
THE RR-5A AND LC-lOA ZONES. THE PROPOSED LOT WILL BE SITUATED so THAT 1.34 ACRES WILL BE IN THE RR-5A
ZONE AND 1.6 ACRES WILL BE IN THE LC-lOA lONE. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5 ACRES SECTION 4.0ZO-C
ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 80-1991, Frank J. and Jessie C. Lockhart,
October 15, 1991, Meeting Date: October 16, 1991 "The applicant is proposing to create a 5 acre lot.
The lot is in two zones, RR-5A· and LC-10A. The majority of the lot (3.4 acres) is in the RR-5A zone
and the remainder (1.6 acres) is in the LC-10A zone. Since the applicant does not have sufficient
acreage in the appropriate zone to subdivide, they are requesting an Area Variance. 1. Describe the
practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements.
The practical difficulty is the split zoning on the property. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary
to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require
no variance? The only alternative would be to attempt to create the lot with more property along
Lockhart Mountain Road, adjacent to the earthen drive. It appears that there are existing cottages
at this location which might create a problem. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other
properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of
the Town? No.4. What are the effect of the vari ance on publ i c faci 1 iti es and servi ces? None.
5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty?
It would appear to be because of the split zoning."
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. McCormack.
MR. MCCORMACK-For the record, my name is Andrew McCormack, the owner of the surveying firm of Coulter
and McCormack of Glens Falls. The map that you have before you is one prepared by my office. The
configuration of the total five acre parcel being rather irregular, it's intended to follow lines of
present usage between the Brandt parcel on the north, Brenda Brandt being the Brandt's daughter whom
they conveyed to, about 18 years ago, prior to the present zoning. The parcel to the south of the
buildings that are labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the two story residence, which is the Lockhart
residence, the parcel I'm referring to is one conveyed by the Lockhart's to Anderson in 1972, also
prior to the Ordinance. So, what happens, here, having made those sales prior to the Ordinance, and
in order to keep a practical amount of land with the Lockhart residence and the north line, as you
see running through the open mowed grass area, a line they chose to create as a boundary line for the
parcel they propose to convey to their daughter Shelly and her husband. The reason that we're extending
the parcel, the total parcel of five acres, across the zone line is that the area between the southern
line of the proposed five acres across the driveway and onto the Anderson parcel, that area, and even
if you extend it down through that narrow neck along the zone line to the bottom of the Anderson parcel,
is only about three and a half acres. So, you may ask, well, why couldn't we create or make the new
lot five acres, wholly within the five acre zone. There isn't room between the two parcels to make
both lots five acres. The Lockharts do own land further on down to the south, as the map indicates.
We could have created a long. narrow, unusable neck to create the five acre parcel in the five acre
zone. It didn't seem to make much sense doing that.
MR. CARR-Mr. McCormack. I'm getting confused, so, could I ask you a couple of questions?
MR. MCCORMACK-Certainly.
MR. CARR-Okay. The two story residence, here, that's on the southern side of an earthen drive, okay,
who's that house?
MR. MCCORMACK-That is the Lockhart's residence.
MR. CARR-Okay. That's your house?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. CARR-All right, and what's 1, 2, and 3?
FRANK LOCKHART
MR. LOCKHART-Cabins.
MR. CARR-They're cabins?
MR. LOCKHART-Yes.
MR. CARR-All right. Now, on this map, here, okay, they basically, they own all this, right, and down
here, and all of this?
33
--
-
MR. MCCORMACK-That's correct.
MR. CARR-Okay. So they own all of that?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. CARR-Okay, and this is, do you know how much is here, right here? I mean, is that more than 10
acres?
MR. MCCORMACK-I would judge, if we're showing five there. It would be over 10 acres.
MR. CARR-Okay. So, they've got really, well it's land locked, but they've got a lot of record here,
or they could have a building lot, 10 acres, there.
MR. LOCKHART-Well, that goes up there a long way, right in back of that.
MR. CARR-Yes, but in the 10 acre zone, you have more than 10 acres left, right?
MR. LOCKHART-There's a point behind that that goes out a long way.
MR. CARR-Does it? All right. I just want to make sure that we aren't taking a little piece, here,
that's now going to make two nonconforming lots.
MR. MCCORMACK-No. That's not the case. A good deal of this parcel is not developable.
MR. CARR-Right, because of the terrain.
MR. MCCORMACK-That portion in the 10 acre zone, 1.56 acres, we've identified as being an area not to
be developed and as you can see by where we depict the setback lines for the 10 acre zone that little
postage stamp area left wouldn't be buildable anyway. So, that area would remain green, if you will,
or undeveloped. We also had a question, earlier when we started with this, as to whether we weren't
sure that we needed or should go for an area variance or whether it was permissible to take the 1.5
acres out of the 10 acre zone to create a 5 acre parcel in a split zone, and we were uncertain as to
how the Ordinance would read in that respect. So, it was decided to at least start with an area variance
to allow a home to be built for the Brandt's children in the parcel between the present home and the
other daughter's parcel.
MR. CARR-Can I ask you just one question?
did the Anderson lot come to be like that?
and yet it doesn't have road frontage.
It has really nothing to do with this application, but how
Do you have any idea? I mean, it's so close to the road,
MR. MCCORMACK-I really can't explain that.
I think the Lockharts might be able to explain that.
JESSIE LOCKHART
MRS. LOCKHART-The old road used to bend in, before they straightened it out.
MR. CARR-Okay. So, the old road did hit their lot?
MRS. LOCKHART-Jessie Lockhart. The old road came down with a bend and there was a barn on the east
side of the road which burned down in later years. After, they straightened out the road, however,
because it used to sit between the old road and the present road. So, that's why it's got the jag
in there like that. It used to come down, it's a wagon wheel road. That's the answer I have.
MR. TURNER-Any further comment over here? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COIIŒNT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-We have a letter from Wilbur Krueger, to Lee A. York, RE: Variance Application, Frank J.
and Jessie C. Lockhart Area Variance No. 80-1991, dated October 15, 1991 "I am writing to inform the
Board of Appeals that I will be unable to attend the variance meeting on October 16, 1991. However,
I wish to state that I am unequivocably opposed to the creation of a 5-acre parcel of land that in
fact carries two (2) land use designations. One would certainly have to question the motivation behind
this. Although there are numerous reasons to object to this variance, it all reduces to the fact that
this area is conducive to rural-residential and to planned development for such purposes consistent
34
--
---
with a minimum of five (5) acres per single family unit. Any attempt to negate this zoning code in
favor or other size or use conditions is not in the interest of anyone by the proposer. I will be
happy to discuss this further at a mutually satisfactory date."
MR. CARR-Mr. McCormack, can I ask you, was Mr. Krueger shown these plans, other than the notice, do
you know? Do you know if the neighbors, these things were circulated to them by any chance?
MR. MCCORMACK-My office didn't, and I don't know whether Mr. Lockhart did.
MR. CARR-Because I was just wondering if he knew, if he had actually seen it.
MR. TURNER-Right, but there's no change in use. It's just a change in density.
MR. CARR-I mean, it still is a five acre lot.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. SHEA-He's not aware that this might be more acceptable, in all likelihood.
MR. LOCKHART-1'm Frank Lockhart, and there's a little dispute, there, between Mr. Krueger and myself,
so I expected something like this. All my other neighbors got something. I never got anything when
he built.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK-Mr. Chairman, if I may, somewhat in response to Mr. Krueger's letter. His concern for
the residential neighborhood of the area is concerned. If there were, in fact, five acres, set to
be assigned to this parcel, and there could be if we were to go in two different directions, within
the five acre zone, we could create a five acre parcel within the five acre zone. The home, the
development would still take place where we depicted. So, even if we had the five acres, what you
see woul d happen. So, as far as the nature of the nei ghborhood and all that's concerned, it woul dn' t
change it.
MR. TURNER-I think his concern was, the jist of the letter was that there might be a change in use.
The use doesn't change. It's still residential both sides. Land Conservation 10 and RR-5. All right.
A motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 110. 80-1991 FRANK J. AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART, Introduced by Bruce Carr
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
And grant the applicant relief from the area requirements, which would create one lot in two zones.
The relief granted for the portion of this parcel which lies in the LC-10 Acre Zone would be a relief
of 8.44 acres, and the relief granted for the portion of this lot which lies within the Rural Residential
Five Acre Zone would be 1.56 acres. The overall effect of these variances would be to allow the
applicant's to create a five acre parcel of property lying mainly within the five acre zone. The
creation of this parcel is in keeping with the purposes of the Ordinance and the overall character
of the neighborhood. The creation of this lot and the granting of these variances would have no negative
impact on public services. The application as presented before this Board is reasonable in nature.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 28th, 1991: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28TH, 1991, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
August 21st, 1991: Page 7, up at the top, Mr. Turner is speaking, yes, there is a porch ri ght here.
It's the layout of the house that really, sIb increases, not diminishes;
35
-'
MRS. GOETZ-I have a question on Page 3. It was to do with the Sanderspree application, and they were
supposed to provide more information to the Planning Department, even though we went ahead with the
variance, and I just wondered if they ever did.
MR. TURNER-Lee, we have a question for you.
MRS. GOETZ-It's to do with the Priscilla Sanderspree application, a long time ago.
MR. TURNER-The August 21st minutes.
MRS. GOETZ-What are the names of those places, off of Ridge Road, it has to do with hunting.
MR. TURNER-Hunter Lane.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. At one point we went ahead with the extension of the variance, but she was supposed
to provide some information to the Planning Department.
MRS. YORK-What was the information?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Clarification as to the request.
MRS. GOETZ-I think it was financial hardship, that they hadn't gone ahead with building the house,
and she told you over the phone, and said she was going to send a letter.
MRS. YORK-I did receive that.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Any other corrections or additions?
MRS. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. CARR-No.
tÐTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST ZIST, 1991 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. TURNER-All right. We have one other item of business. We have to go into Executive Session.
MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
tÐTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
36