1992-03-18
(~,
~EEJlSBURY ZOrtING BOARD OF APPEALS ŒETING
FIRST REGULA.R MEETING
~ AãIlAYf.RI 18TH, 1992
INDEX
-
\
Request for Clarification on
Request for Interpretation No. 1-92
Francis and Carolyn Martindale
1.
Area Variance No. 18-1992
Harrisena Community Church, Inc.
5.
Area Variance No. 19-1992
David Kenny
8.
Use Variance No. 20-1992
Robert and Carolyn Rudolph
12.
Use Variance No. 22-1992
Richard Rogge
33.
Area Variance No. 23-1992
Richard Rogge
35.
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.
~EENS8URY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST RE&ULAR MEETING
MARCH 18TH, 1992
7:38 P....
ME"BERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY
CHARLES SICARD
MARIE PALING
FRED CARVIN
BRUCE CARR
MEfHRS ABSENT
MI KE SHEA
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TURNER-The first order of business, which is not listed on the agenda, is a request from the Planning
Board for a clarification of a resolution on the Appeal No. 1-92, Francis and Carolyn Martindale, and
Jim Martin is in the audience. Jim, would you explain the basis for your appeal?
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-Jim Martin, Queensbury Planning Board. The application for a site plan review, regarding
the Martindale application was before us last night and, in the context of that review of that
application, we came across the issue of this augmentation of fruits and vegetable sales, and it was
quickly the feeling of the Board that there was a large gray area there, as to what qualifies as
augmentation of fruits and vegetable sales. A statement was made that if one Christmas Tree is planted,
for example, or 25 ears of corn are planted, that then the applicant can bring in 50,000 ears of corn
or 10,000 Christmas Trees from off site and sell them and that would be augmentation. So, there's
a large gray area there, and we need clarification as to what augmentation would be, and I also think
that it raises a larger issue of, and it came up in the meeting as we", as how do you enforce that,
and how do you make sure that whatever form of augmentation is in fact complied with, and I think it's
worthy of re-visiting the whole augmentation issue, by your Board, for further interpretation,
clarification or review, and so we know where, specifically, to go with this, and that's pretty much
it, and we have several members of our Board here. If there's any further questions, we'" be happy
to answer them for you as you proceed with this, and I know you have two new members tonight. So,
if you'd like opportunity to have them review that further and get some background information on it
from your minutes and our minutes, that may be appropriate, too. So, however you feel best to deal
with it, in that time frame, in that situation. We wouldn't have any problem with a tabling or action
tonight, either way.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. How does the Board want to proceed with this? Do you just want to discuss
it amongst the Board members? Do you want to take public input?
MRS. EGGLESTON-We", we haven't got Mike here, either. We're short Mike who was in on it the last
time.
MR. CARR-Mike was in on the discussion. So, I don't think we can vote on it tonight.
MR. TURNER-A" right. We", why don't we take the information and we'" table it and deal with it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And then our new members can have a chance to look it over.
MR. TURNER-Yes, because there's two new members and they're totally unaware of what's going on.
MR. SICARD-You couldn't get it on the next agenda, could you, the end of the next week's?
MR. TURNER-No. There's no meeting next week, not until next month.
MR. SICARD-He probably wants to get started with this stuff. There's only one spring a year, you know.
MR. TURNER-We", I think the fairness of it is to table it and give the two new members a chance to
review what's in front of us, since they haven't even heard any of it.
MR. SICARD-I can understand that, Teddy, but I also can understand that probably this thing has been
hanging a" winter, and they want to get started on it. I don't know why we couldn't do it. We have
a quorum, other than the new members, don't we?
PETER CARTIER
1
---""
MR. CARTIER-Maybe I could address some of your concerns, Mr. Sicard. One of the things we did get
accomplished last night is that they can go ahead with this maple syrup production. So, the whole
thing is not on hold. It's this other area that's in question, and we're going to try to get it resolved
prior to the beginning of the growing season. Maybe that answers your concern.
ED BARTHOLOMEW
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Mr. Turner, I'm here on behalf of the Martindales this evening. On January 28th, the
Martindales submitted the site plan application to the Queensbury Planning Board. They reviewed it.
They referred this to the Zoning Board of Appeals for your review. We appeared last evening, and,
again, the Planning Board did cooperate by approving a portion of our request, and that is of the maple
syrup. We now are here, tonight, and you've indicated that you're looking to table this. Number One,
there's a statutory issue that the applicant, at this time, is not going to consent to an adjournment
or postponement for a decision that should be forthcoming on this issue. We're talking about,
essentially, vegetables. We're not talking about Christmas Trees and all these other issues. We're
talking about, the Martindales have two parcels which are both within the agricultural district. They're
looking to sell those products at a location in the Town of Queensbury. They're looking to augment
or supplement those products with other products that are in demand by the consumers in our area,
principally Upstate New York and Vermont products. There was a concern, apparently, expressed by the
Planning Board, that dealt, that the Martindales would be involved with bringing in truck loads of
various vegetables or peanuts from Georgia or these type of things. Simply put, the Martindales are
looking to augment or supplement the vegetables that they're growing there with additional vegetables
in the area. This is not going to be a Martindale Super Shop N' Save or a Super Price Chopper out
on that particular location. It's simply a vegetable stand with maple syrup in that particular area.
This is not a Sutton or a retail cOll1l1ercial establishment. The Martindale's, conceivably, at this
point, because they have withdrawn their request for arts and crafts as well as the petting area.
So, essentially, we're very close back to similarity of a hawking and peddler's license for those
products on that particular site, there, and I would ask that we do permit some time, and if it would
be at the end of this meeting, because I know you've got a long agenda, here. My clients are certainly
available to discuss with you. We have the Planning Board members that have taken up another one of
their free evenings to discuss this issue, and I know you don't have a full Board, but I think that
the Martindale's, on this issue, would like to respond or even answer some of the questions or concerns
that you have. I just feel that having to go back again, to another ZBA meeting, means that we've
got to go back to another Planning Board meeting again, for what I would consider a very simple
application at this particular point.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Questions?
MR. CARR-Ed, what do you mean by, I think the whole thing is this augmentation. Obviously, you're
using it in a very limited sense, and the fear is it's in a more expansive sense.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Bruce, we were not the agency that put the word augmentation or supplement. It was
from the ZBA. We would be willing to work on redefining those particular items there. I think you've
got the issue of, lets not get into what products, off site, the Martindales can bring on. I think
that that would be the first time in Queensbury that you've undertaken that, in terms of a site plan
review along with this request. If you're asking that we're going to be bringing in a tractor trailer
full of watermelons, a tractor trailer full of peanuts or oranges, so that you have five or six trailers
out in the yard, that's not what the Martindales are looking at. It's not a large enough area. We're
looking to supplement with those particular products such as apples that are grown in the area, some
potatoes that are grown in that area. If you want to look at some type of restrictions, in terms of
weights or something, we would be willing to look at that, Bruce, but, as an example, they don't grow
potatoes there, but, certainly, as a convenience for those in the area to promote New York State
products, they'd like to be able to sell some potatoes there. Walt Perry from the Town of Hampton
has a great amount of potatoes that he sells in the area. I don't see anything wrong in selling some
potatoes there, again, bringing in two tractor trailers, of course. It's not going to be a warehouse
type of operation, which would not fit this definition of site plan review or what you're looking for.
You, basically, are going to be limited to the size of the area, of what they can store there. I think
we got into the discussion of the concern of the Christmas Tree. The Martindales are not going to
be growing one Christmas Tree and then selling a thousand Christmas Trees out there the following year.
That was a concern. I understand that. So, if we could limit, you know, we have no objection to some
type of reasonable limitation on that, but I would, again, express a concern that this would be the
first time that a municipality is attempting to limit the types of merchandising and where they're
from. So, I think that we're limited by the size, limited by the access in that particular area, here,
that, basically, it's a vegetable/fruit stand area that we're looking upon, we're not, at this juncture.
Anything else that the Martindales have on the drawing boards certainly have to come under a great
amount of scrutiny by the Town Board and the Planning Board, and if necessary, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and I think, again, that's where the Martindales had submitted to the Planning Board some
additional plans for a gift house and a pancake house and those type of plans, which got mixed in with
these areas. The Martindales, at this particular point, are looking for approval for selling of
vegetables and fruits that are raised on site, that are supplemented or augmented off of site. The
Planning Board was gracious in providing us approval with the maple syrup and with sap that can be
produced off site to be brought on site. So, we're looking to define the issue back to the Planning
Board, as to the
2
c'
\
--../
extremes that the Martindales would be permitted to go before there would be an enforcement issue from
the Town of Queensbury, and we certainly want to comply with those.
MR. CARR-Now, did you say the Planning Board has given approval for you to augment the sap that's grown
on, or taken from the property?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-That is correct?
MR. CARR-With outside? Are you looking, now, to augment what you grow on the property with outside
fruits and vegetables?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Yes.
MR. CARR-I mean, you had mentioned potatoes. You don't grow potatoes there.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-No. Yes. We would look upon that. I think that, if, again, the Martindales are in
a consumer business, I see nothing objectionable, in terms of providing some potatoes or other items
that are natural and grown within our region in the area. Again, we're not looking to bring in a ton
of potatoes for a quick fire sale out there. So, I think that's what we're trying to do is meet the
concern that was expressed by the Planning Board in some definitive measurement.
MR. TURNER-Basically, what you're asking us for is to change the whole motion, as it relates to the
question of Number One, which was on the agenda.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Well, we would be willing to get a start, if we can get. Well, Mr. Chairman, if we,
then, could go back to the original issue, before we, I don't want to complicate this thing any more
than what it appears to be now, is to respond to the Planning Board's inquiry, as to what you meant
by augmentation and supplement, in terms of a, are you looking at a numerical percentage or supplement,
because the Planning Board was prepared to, and I'm not going to speak on behalf of the Planning Board,
but they were prepared to move along on this issue, up or down, but needed that clarification from
the ZBA before they could take their final approval.
MR. TURNER-But the motion states that it has to be grown on site. The augmentation of the fruits and
vegetables is coupled with the agriculture products grown on site, the vegetables or agriculture
products.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Lets go back, what do you mean by augmentation?
MR. TURNER-Ask Mr. Carr. He made the motion.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-All right.
MR. CARR-And it was a bad one, too. It sounded good at the time. I'm not really sure, because at
the time, my initial intent was that they would be able to bring off site fruits and vegetables, such
as potatoes, that aren't grown on the property, sell them at this truck stand, bring them in from
wherever they can get them locally, but then, thinking about it further, that could cause a real problem,
because you could have too large of an operation than was originally planned there. I'm trying to
think of an easily monitored method by which you could kind of control the growth there, to keep it
to its original intent. It's not an easy task, and I can't really think of anything.
MR. TURNER-No, but their expression of how they were going to produce the product on site was they
were going to produce them in containers because they have no tillable land, okay. So, that means,
for instance, if they grow four hills of corn, then they could bring in 5,000 ears of corn to sell
over the table.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Well, again, I think your example, Mr. Chairman, not to disagree, again.
MR. TURNER-No, but that's what it says.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Well, but the intent is, again, I don't think that the Martindales, I don't know why
there's such a concern to impose restrictions on free enterprise of agricultural products in this area.
There's a market and demand and, certainly, the Martindales are not in a financial position to go out
and spend a lot of money to buy products that are about ready to go sour for a truck sale out there.
If we're going to start looking at that, we ought to start looking closely at Route 9/149, when we're
showered with various hawkers and peddlers selling all kinds of junk out there. Here the Martindales
are asking for your permission to supplement or augment some of these products and vegetables with
those from elsewhere or, alternatively, Mr. Chairman, provide us a definition with what you mean by
augmentation or supplementation. I'm not directing that to you personally, but to the Board.
MR. TURNER-No, but if you're a farmer, and you're a truck farmer, you generally grow your product
on-site, and he's claiming that is a farm, and then he's going to grow the product there.
3
c
c
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Under Agriculture Markets Law, the Martindales have parcels in the Town of Queensbury
and in the Town of Fort Ann, and under Agriculture Markets, and under General Municipal Law, they are
entitled to group those products together. Right now, in the Town of Queensbury, the Martindales could
hawk and peddle any of those products that they have grown themselves, whether they are in Queensbury,
Hampton, or Lake Luzerne, and there is no authority, by the Town of Queensbury, that we are exempt
from any Hawking and Peddlers license, under General Municipal Law 81, to sell products that we produce
ourselves, regardless of what location they are located in. It doesn't have to be the Town of
Queensbury. It can be in Hampton. It can be anywhere, similar to the Veterans. The Veterans are
exempt, under General Municipal Law 81, from any Hawking and Peddling license, and this was built in
by the State legislatures dealing with this particular issue, and they specifically provide it that
way in cities and villages, they can provide regulation of hawking and peddling. So, the Martindales
would prefer not to go through the community hawking and peddling, which raises all sorts of other
additional issues, here.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing I'd like to add further, and this is a concern that we always have, as a
Planning Board, is that we try not, in dealing with an issue like this, to ever think of the site
specific situation, and I'm sure all the things that Mr. Bartholomew is saying are true, as to how
this particular applicant is going to limit his augmentation, but I just want to respectfully remind
you that this is a precedent setting matter, here, and once the precedent is set, it can be applied
in a number of different applicants throughout the Town, and not just to this specific one. So, how
this is dealt with in this case is going to set the precedent for future applications to come, and
I just want to make sure that that's borne in mind, and not just get in a tunnel vision, here, with
this specific application. Thank you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I just say, Ted, I really have a problem with coming in here to the meeting and
we don't even know this is going to be on tonight. I didn't have chance to review any things that
we had gone over. I have a problem with Mr. Bartholomew saying we really shouldn't table it. I don't
mind listening, but I don't think we should vote tonight. I think we should have a chance to go over
the papers again refresh our memory. I mean, I thought it was all over and done with, and you come
in here and you're hit right in the face with it again, and we really haven't had a chance to look
anything over, and you make a snap decision, it's like Jim says, and you're effecting things in the
future, and really it deserves time, and I can't see, if these people can go ahead with the sap, that
its going to hurt to table this section of it. I mean, I don't mind listening, but I don't think we
should vote on it tonight until we've had a chance to digest the whole thing.
MR. TURNER-I don't think so either.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And Mike should be here. We were short anyway that night. I mean, we were down to
a five man Board, and really I think we should.
MR. CARR-I mean, what kind of a time frame are you looking at? I mean, you don't want to go another
month, but is there something we could do to give us a little time to think about it, and yet still?
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-I understand that. The issue is that, tonight, we're going to have to go back to,
we're going to have to come back to your next scheduled meeting, before the Planning Board can receive
your input, which I'm not sure what the scheduling of the Planning Board is for the rest of this month
or April, but the Planning Board, obviously, meets the night before your meeting. So, we're missing,
again, a scheduled meeting.
MR. CARR-Well, Jim, when's your next meeting?
MR. MARTIN-As a matter of fact, we have several coming up. We have five within the next month, actually.
We have four in April and we have one tomorrow night, which is regarding a workshop session on another
aspect with this application, or not this application, but something that this applicant wants to do.
We are more than happy to meet with you in a joint session of one of those. We have one tomorrow night,
one on April 1st, our two regular meetings in April, and we also have a special meeting in April on
the 29th, I believe. So, there's five sessions, essentially, within the next month.
MR. CARR-You're meeting April 1st? I mean, Ted, would it be possible for us to meet on March 30th,
or 29th or something?
MR. MARTIN-Or, yes, if you want to position yourselves ahead of one of those meetings.
MR. CARR-It would give us about a week to sort through this.
MR. MARTIN-I think the most important thing, in terms of the applicant and his time frame, is to do
it before one of our regular meetings in April, because that's probably when he would be scheduled,
if you were to come to a clarification.
MR. TURNER-Can everybody make it, what is it, the 30th, Jim? What's your last meeting in March?
MR. MARTIN-Our last meeting in March is next Tuesday night, and then we have one on April 1st.
4
MR. CARR-I could probably do it on the 30th.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-You have all our meeting minutes, right, to review?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-That's a Town Board meeting night. So, you'd have to have, they usually have their workshop
session, don't they?
MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Bartholomew? None? Okay.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-I think, Mr. Chairman, besides the clarification on augmentation or supplement, there
seems to be, by the Planning Board and others that are reading that resolution, a question as to your
intent of products not grown on site.
MR. TURNER-Well, that's what I'm saying. The way I interpret the motion, and the way it reads, is
that you can't bring anything in there unless you grow it on site, is what it says.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-And I'm reading the minutes before that resolution, and I'm not sure if that was the,
I would just ask for a reiteration, if that's what the intent is of that, Mr. Turner.
MR. TURNER-That's the motion. That's what it says. That's the way I interpret it.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-But I heard Mr. Carr say earlier that.
MR. CARR-Well, yes, but that wasn't, I mean, the intent when I said it may not, was what Ed is saying,
okay, but I'm not sure everyone who voted on it, we all understood what I said the same way. So, I
think it does have to be looked at and clarified.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW-Good. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-All right. Thank you.
MR. SICARD-Are we going to have a motion on that?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. We'll have a motion to meet the 30th, and vote on it.
'lJTION TO MEET ON RE~EST FOR IIŒRPRETATUII NO. 1-92 FRAtlCIS AND CAROLY" M\RTI..DALE ON M\RCH 30TH
1992 AT 7 P...., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:03 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1992 TYPE II RR-5A HARRISEM COtItINITY CHURCH, IfIC. ClߌR: SAlE AS ABOVE
EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, NORTH OF RCIJTE 149 PROPOSE TO EXPAND THE CHURCH FELUIISHIP BUILDING ArtD PARKING.
(WARRE" coum PLA....ING) TAX MAP NO. 27-2-12, 13 LOT SIZE: 7 + ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-66
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:03 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 18-1992, Harrisena Community Church, Inc.,
March 17, 1992, Meeting Date: March 18, 1992 "The church wants to expand and cannot meet the side
yard setbacks. The proposed structure will be 9 feet from the property. 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 original structure which will be added on to exists at 9 feet from the property line. This is
also the type of facility which is not in continual use or causes a neighborhood problem by being closer
than the code allows. 2. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The Board should discuss what is "reasonable
use" for a church. The addition of space to provide services to their parishioners could probably
5
be considered reasonable. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result
in a specified practical difficulty? It might be possible to add on to the educational building toward
the parking area so as not to require a variance. The Board may want to investigate alternatives.
4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property
in the district? The expansion will require expanded parking along the Wilcox property line. This
may be a concern for the neighbor. The variance will not be detrimental to the purposes of the
Ordinance. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical
difficulty? This is a discussion for the Board. The staff is unable to ascertain exactly what the
minimum parking area variance is referring to."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Muller.
MR. MULLER-Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, my name, for the record, is Michael Muller. 1'm the
President of the Harrisena Community Church. This evening, in the audience, there are some
representatives of the Harrisena Community Church. Our Minister Lamont Robinson is here, and. Monty,
would you bring up the model, at this time. I tried to make the application complete, so that I didn't
have an awful lot to say. Basically, we need a nine foot setback from our northerly line to add onto
the existing building. Right now, it's presently used as an education facility and as a meeting hall.
We intend to continue that use as an education facility and a meeting hall. The building that we propose
to build, a model has been done. Basically, the very narrow portion of the building, which you probably
cannot all see very well, certainly Bruce Carr can't see it at all, is the existing portion of the
building. What is the larger portion of the building is what is proposed to be added on. I think
that that is an accurate depiction of the slope of the land. The neighbor that would be just to our
north is Mr. Wilcox, and that area that would be just to the north of this building happens to be his
back yard or a garden area. As the application indicates, the church tried to minimize the practical
difficulty by buying additional property to add to the existing property, so that this facility could
be built, and we did so, perhaps within the last year and a half. We added just under two acres, that
was purchased from Mrs. Brandt. That would allow us the opportunity to add where we wish to add, and
it makes perfect sense to add in this fashion. I noticed that the Staff minutes had indicated that
while perhaps the addition, you might consider putting it some other way so as not to need even the
setback, that is add it to the south. Mr. Norton, Art Norton. is right here to my left. He worked
on the project for the church. He served on that committee. Peter Aust is to Art's left. We have
been working on this plan for this building. I think we're well into our second year. If there was
ever a building that twisted and turned and went 360 degrees, I want to assure you that this would
be the equivalent of trying to build a kitchen with 50 women having input as to exactly where they
want to put their countertops and what color the linoleum's going to be. This is really the very best
plan, and yet we are still faced with the one practical difficulty. nine feet from the northerly line.
The application says that we need some relief, not only from the side setback, but from the, we have
to address the parking. I'd like you to consider taking that aspect and placing it in the hands of
the Planning Board for site plan review, because this whole project has to go for site plan review,
and the reason that I suggest that is because I talked to Pat Crayford about it. It's a building that
has multiple uses, and that we attract vehicles there when the church is in session, and the same vehicle
that transports the parents to the church is the same vehicle that transports the children to the church
school, and so we're not doubling up on car traffic there. Then again, when we have a function that's
in that building, and nothing going on in the church, we attract all sorts of cars, and all sorts of
people, including additional cars from people who may not be associated with the church as a member.
For instance, there are AA meetings there. There are Boy Scout meetings there. From time to time
there have been community functions there. It's a community church. I thought it best to try to leave
it to the planners, and I had promised Mrs. Crayford and I can promise you people that I'll do an actual
census of the cars that we park there Sundays, and Pat had said to me, well, will you do that around
Easter. I said, sure. We average between 75 and 90 cars on a Sunday morning, and that imposes
complications for us on parking, that is that we like to have parking for 100 percent of the cars that
come to that site. We do not wish to propose that there be any parking between the church sanctuary,
that's a building that we're not adding to, and Mr. Wilcox's residence. and I had spoken to Mr. Wilcox
about it. He's here in the audience this evening. I gave that assurance to Mr. Wilcox. I gave that
assurance to the County Planners as well. The reason that you see spaces on there, though, is because
the requirement of our Code is to draw the maximum amount of spaces that you can fit on your parcel.
That is what we consider to be an undesirable option, but they're drawn there. Our plan would be to
put parking to the east, and to do that, we have to add a considerable amount of fill. As it was
described to me. perhaps more dirt than you would expect to find even in a good presidential campaign.
So, we're taking dirt from whoever wants to drop it off there. It's our long range plan. I don't
specifically want you to give us any relief on the parking situation. I want you to impose upon us
to satisfy the planners. I think that's going to really be the best way to address it. We probably
added, in the last five or six months, maybe eight or ten spaces, and we also added a second service,
an early service. Now, the theory would be that if you add a second service, some people will come
to that and that will lessen the parking problem. If you add some spaces, eight or ten spaces, that
will lessen the parking problem, and still, to this day, we have people, that when they come to church
on Sunday, they'll parking on Ridge Road. We do the best we can to get them into the parking lot,
and when I went, this past Sunday. there were vacant spaces in the new area, and nine cars parked out
on Ridge Road. So, we're working on educating our members to park off the road. and I just think that
it's such a complex issue,
6
;,.'1'
that we stand a chance of really getting it wrong, here, tonight, if you want to tackle the parking
situation. I think we'll be better prepared to do it with actual numbers when we go to a site plan,
which should be May, June, something like that. Can I answer any questions for you?
MR. TURNER-No. I think you answered the one question I had, and that was as to the location of the
building.
MR. MULLER-Well, if you need to know any questions about what's inside of the building, there are
additional pages behind what we have pinned up, and Art is here to describe to you, basically, he had
done the rough drawings, and then we had them professionally done by a draftsman so that they would
meet the Code, in terms of sizes and space relationships and what have you, but it basically functions
as classrooms and a meeting hall with a kitchen, handicapped bathrooms, elevator, everything you could
possibly want, and then some.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Muller, anyone? None? Okay. Thank you, Mike.
MR. MULLER-Thank you.
MR. TURNER-I'll now open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COJIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any discussion?
MR. CARR-I just have one question. Is the parking a variance?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's part of the variance.
MR. CARR-No. I mean, if they have less parking than is required under the Code, would you need a
va ri ance?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MULLER-That's an excellent textbook question. I don't think that the Town is prepared to tell
us exactly how many parking spaces they're going to require of us, because of the multiple complex
uses. I think, I don't have the parking schedule in front of me, but maybe Joyce does. When I asked
the question of how many cars for church, it seemed to be.
MR. TURNER-One space for each five seating places.
MR. MULLER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-What did she go with the other building? The both of them?
MR. MULLER-No. I just want to explain that one. Yes. You've got to add them altogether, and as I
said to Pat Crayford, this is no joke, and I want you to know this, okay, on a Sunday, we have different
sized people. What is on one Sunday four people, next Sunday six spaces, and she said, yes, you're
right.
MR. CARR-I guess, Mike, you're just aware that Planning Board can't approve your plans unless you've
got all your variances in place. So, if you're telling us you don't really want us to deal with the
parking and hope that you don't need a variance, that's fine with me.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MU LLER- Yes. I think that's fine.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order.
KJTlON TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1992 HARRISEJIA CotIIJNITY CIIJRCH, INC., Introduced by Charles
Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
And to, in my estimation, build this building away from the existing building. A freestanding building
would cause a lot of problems. There would have to be ramps connecting them, extra doors, and it would
be a greater expense. While the original building is nine feet from the property line, it appears
to me that it is that type of facility that is not in continual use or causes any neighborhood problems
by being closer than what the Code allows. Also, this request, I bel ieve this request is the minimum
relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty.
7
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:22 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE "0. 19-1992 TYPE II WR-lA DAVID KE....Y (lߣR: SAlE AS ABOVE OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD
TO REtlJVE THE ONE, 1WO BEDROOM HOOSE, ONE CARPORT, THREE SHEDS, ArtD 0fIE THREE BEDROOM HOUSE AND REPlACE
WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT ŒET THE SHORELINE SETBACK OF 75 FEET. THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE WILL BE ±50 FEET FROM LAKE GEORGE. (WARREN coom PLANNI"G) TAX MP NO. 5-1-29 LOT SIZE:
0.61 ACRES SECTION 179-60
MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:22 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 19-1992, David Kenny, 3-3-92, Meeting Date:
March 18, 1992 "The applicant is requesting a shoreline setback variance. The intention is to construct
a new house on a lot which currently has two residences and a few outbuildings. The existing buildings
are currently nonconforming because the side yard and rear yard setbacks are not being met, although
they are 75 feet back from Lake George. The issues relating to this variance spill over to planning
concerns. The applicant intends to abandon two nonconforming septic systems and construct a modern
system. The desire is to demolish the existing structures, some of which block the neighbors view
and others of which are off the property line. Eave drains will also be incorporated into the new
plan so storm water concerns will be dealt with. The land use issues are an aside from the variance
criteria. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which
meets the zoning requirements. A septic system must be 100 feet from the lake. The house has to be
20 feet from the septic system. The appl icant can build a conforming structure 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 land use issues come into play with regard
to this question. The applicant can maintain the structures on the property and expand upward. There
is no need to improve the septic or storm drainage. This scenario would reduce the impacts on the
property. However, it is possible to meet the setbacks. 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? The application will improve the situation environmentally and aesthetically.
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? The application comes
down to an issue of minimum relief. The applicant intends to build a structure which will be about
the same size as a combination of all the structures currently on the lot. A smaller structure would
not require any variance. The Board will have to consider all the development factors."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved.
MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. For your records, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, here
representing David and Cheryl Kenny, who are the owners of the property in question. I think the
application pretty much speaks for itself in most respects. I apologize that what's on the board is
fairly small, but it's exactly what you have in front of you, as well, so you should be able to look
on with what's in front of you with what was submitted. Basically, as indicated, I was wondering,
did the Board members have a chance to view the property?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Great. That's what I figured. Then you saw that there are a number of structures existing
on the property, and they're depicted in the application site plan in the light blue color, and, as
you know, the applicant is proposing to remove all of those existing structures, and in this case,
all of the existing structures is really a significant number, and they're significantly spread
throughout the property. In terms of square footage, we're talking about removing the larger existing
house, which is a three bedroom house and consists of about 1600 square feet. We're talking about
removing the smaller, but second house, which is a two bedroom house consisting of 1200 square feet.
You also saw, when you were there, the carport, which we'll be removing, and that would be 700 square
feet. That alone brings you to 3500 square feet, which is already larger than the footprint of the
proposed new home. That does not include the three sheds that you see along the eastern property
boundary, which will also be removed. Obviously, all of these structures are extremely nonconforming.
If you saw the three sheds, and you look at the site plan, you'll see that, going from north to south
in fact, they appear to encroach beyond the applicant's property line. I think the northernmost has
only a sliver that's off the property, as I recall. I think the central one is mostly off, and I think
we're decreasing in size the smallest and southern most one is considerably encroaching, if you will,
or off the property. Obviously, the applicant is proposing to remove all three of those sheds as well.
So, that's over and above the 3500 square feet that we're proposing to remove. We're proposing to
replace that with one centrally located single family residence with a garage an attached garage, all
8
(
\....J!
~
\.-.
part of the same premises, the footprint of which will only be approximately 2700 square feet. We're
proposing only four bedrooms, which would be one bedroom less, actually, then the two existing homes.
So, in terms of the use of the site, it's our contention that there's a very significant consolidation
and reducti on in just the amount of the site that's bei ng used. One of the ways I tend to think of
these things, and you may have seen planners do this in the past, if you were to draw a line, what
I call an envelope, a line around all the areas in light blue, connecting around all the existing area
that has some development on it. Obviously, that would also include, within the box you drew, some
areas that are not developed, but if you were to do that, and then obviously do that with what we are
proposing, you would see a dramatic and huge difference in the total envelope that would be cluttered
by some buildings or not cluttered by buildings under our proposal. One sort of minor point that I
wanted to mention, Mrs. York, in the Staff Comments, indicates that the existing buildings are
nonconforming, but that they are 75 feet back from Lake George, and I was out there today and I I ve
reviewed the plan, and in actuality, one very small corner of one of the existing buildings appears
to not even meet the setback from the Lake. I think this is a pretty minor point, but it's the southwest
corner on the lakeside of the larger home, actually does not appear to meet that setback. So, it's
already nonconforming, grossly nonconforming in terms of side yard setbacks, and just for what it's
worth, it's also nonconforming even in terms of the lakeside setback. As the application indicates,
and as Mrs. York mentions in the Staff Comments, we're talking about removal of two antiquated septic
systems, neither of which complies with current standards, neither of which meets the current setback,
and we're proposing a new modern septic system which does, and I think that's very significant, and
very much an improvement on the property. Also, regarding stormwater management or runoff, the new
home that we're proposing would have eave drains, and as Mrs. York mentions, I believe would improve
drainage on the property. The permeability on the property, as a whole, would be increased. There
would be more permeable area than there is now. One thing that's not really mentioned specifically
in the application, although it's sort of referred to in passing, but you may have noticed in your
site inspection that I found very compelling in .!!!l. site inspection is the aspect of views from the
Old Assembly Point Road toward the lake. If you look at the site plan in terms of the existing
structures, between the five existing structures, actually six, three sheds, carport and two homes,
you really have the entire lateral portion of the lot taken up, visually obstructed, by something,
whether it's the southern most home, the northern most home, the carport. The sheds, of course, are
much smaller, but really, if you look at the lot and the site plan, from side to side, from one side
line to the other side line, something is happening across that lot, and if you look, on your site
plan, at what we propose, obviously, there's a very significant reduction in the view shed impairment,
if you will, or what's blocking the view, and in fact the immediately across the street neighbor, we've
contacted him by telephone, is ecstatic about the proposal, frankly because it will dramatically improve
his view across the road, across this property toward the lake. I think I mentioned that, in terms
of bedrooms, currently, the two homes together are five. What we're proposing would be four. Your
site plan appl ication materials have right on them the information, both in terms of the location and
the design parameters for the new septic system. The Town Building Department staff were present during
the test pits, by the way. Mrs. York says that, in her comments, that the proposal would improve,
and I would submit dramatically improve, the property both environmentally and aesthetically. I think
I've already covered that. We do have a couple of letters from a couple of neighbors who wholeheartedly
endorse and support this, and I mentioned that Mr. Folsom, who is the property owner immediately across
the street, has not submitted anything in writing, but has informed us that he's very much in support
of this, and you know that the County Planning Board has approved this already, finding it, also I
think, no impact or an improvement, and that's our position. I'd be happy to answer any questions
you might have.
MR. CARR-Why can't you move it back?
MR. SCHACHNER-By back, I assume you mean away from the lake, obviously, since that's the setback we're
talking about, and what you do is you run up against, and you'll see this line on your drawing, you're
going to run up against the setback from the septic system. You want to put your septic system 100
feet back from the lake, so you want to put that, basically, on what I call the road side of the building
area, and then you also want to have a separation between the septic system and the house. I believe
it's 20 feet, and I believe that's on your site plan, and what you're left with is a fairly, a somewhat
small building envelope, and as the application indicates, and we have to be candid about this, you
could put a structure in that building envelope. It would be a lot smaller and a lot less aesthetically
attractive and I think a lot less in keeping with the nature of the property and the nature of its
location.
MR. CARR-The lines, it looks like the leaching lines, here, are, do they have to be 10 feet from the
property line, going east?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm pretty sure that's on your plan.
MR. TURNER-Yes, they have to be 10 feet. Yes.
MR. SICARD-Mark, where was the septic system?
9
--,
'---
MR. SCHACHNER-We have it, we have the approximate locations. I've drawn them in X's, which I've circled
on that plan. I don't know if you can see it up there. We've got two, currently. Okay. We've got
near the carport. As best as we can tell, kind of between the two houses, servicing the smaller house,
probably in here somewhere, and we've got one that is on the lake side. They're each, by the way,
on the lake side of the houses they serve. So that, I think you're going north this way, Mr. Sicard.
The northern home is served by a septic system on the lake, which in this case is western side,
approximately here. The southern home is served by a septic system off of this corner, which is clearly
less than, not only less than 100 feet, but in fact less than 75 feet setback from Lake George.
MR. SICARD-How come they haven't got the dimensions on here? I haven't been able to find them, or
the septic tank in connection with the leachfields. I see the leachfields coming off the eaves. I
don't know about that, but I don't know if the septic tank is connected to that leachfield or what.
I can't seem to locate it here.
MR. SCHACHNER-You're right, Mr. Sicard, that the existing septic tanks are not located on the site
plan, simply because Mr. McCormack was unable to pinpoint precisely where they are. I was out there
today looking at that issue, and I came up with, you know, we came up with approximate locations, but
that's the best we can do.
MR. SICARD-Are you going to use the existing septic systems?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. They will no longer be used. It's all the new system, on the road side.
MR. SICARD-But you don't know where they are.
MR. TURNER-Charlie, right there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mark, how do you address the Staff's remarks about, there is no need to improve the
septic or storm drainage?
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess, as I understand it, or I'm assuming that what Mrs. York is indicating here is
that, in fact, as far as we know, the septic system is working, and that, as far as we know, there's
not a specific severe drainage problem on the site. By the same token, we're talking about Assembly
Point on Lake George, and we submit for your consideration that an applicant that voluntarily wishes
to upgrade by failing to use or discontinuing use of antiquated septic systems, even if they have not
failed, which is what Mrs. York is saying, I believe, is entitled to some benefit for that goal. I
think there's a sort of Town wide push for upgrading septic systems whenever possible, and in this
case we're talking about two septic systems that don't meet setback, and being replaced by one modern
current one that would meet setback and would be a modern system.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it's kind of a trade off, because you're going to improve the septic system, but
encroach more on the lake. So, I think you have to look at which is.
MR. SCHACHNER-Encroach more on the lake with the house, you mean, as opposed to the septic.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but if you want to throw the other factors in, you'll also be substantially reducing
the encroachment on the side yards, right?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And improving drainage, and, again, I guess I have the same response. Mrs. York points
out that they could, lawfully, increase the size of the existing structure without improving septic,
without improving drainage, but the applicant's desire is to not only consolidate the buildings, but
to improve in both respects, just for the benefit of the environment at that location and the Lake
George environment in general.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, it's pretty cluttered the way it is.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I thought so, too.
MR. CARR-I was just thinking that, although it's preferable to move it away from the lake, I think
the two concerns you have with anything close to the lake is, one, runoff, and, two, aesthetics, and
as to the second, this does appear to be more aesthetically pleasing. As to the first, I think the
eave drains will handle the runoff problem by removing the runoff water from the roofs and actually
putting it in a place where it can properly drain and not effect the lake. So, it seems, although
it would be a little closer to the lake, they are taking an environmental look at the project to make
sure it won't impact the lake, and in fact hopefully improve the situation.
MR. TURNER-If you went up there and looked at it, there's just tunnel vision right between those two
houses and that's all there is.
10
MRS. EGGLESTON-I know. That long shed across the back really breaks the whole.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I think this will improve the lot tremendously, even though it violates the shoreline
setback.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-It is a trade off. It really is a trade off.
MR. SICARD-How far off the foot print of the existing house are you off?
MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure we've got that actual calculation. We could scale it off.
MR. CARR-It looks about 25 feet closer.
MR. TURNER-Twenty five feet.
MR. SICARD-Twenty five feet?
MR. TURNER-Yes, from that one corner.
MR. SCHACHNER-I was going to guess 20, but we're in the ball park.
MR. TURNER-I was checking it when you were talking. It's about 25 feet from that 75 foot line that
you show there.
MR. CARVIN-I have just one question, when I was out there looking at the property and trying to visualize
where the house was going to be placed, I noticed that there are a number of trees. Do you have any
rough idea of how many of those trees you're going to have to eliminate and if that's going to be a
problem with some of the runoff?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don't think, I mean, Mrs. York's looked at the plan. Obviously, she's more
qualified than I to comment on that, but my understanding in terms of her comments is that, with the
new proposed construction and removal of whatever has to be removed, that there would actually be an
improvement in runoff, especially because we do have a stormwater management aspect of this, which
is the eave drains. The number, as I recall, or as best I could estimate, looks to be about a dozen.
None of them are huge, you know, four foot, three foot type diameter breast high trees. Some of them
are fairly close, actually, quite close, as I looked at it today, to the existing home, and arguably
might be removed anyway, but if you were, obviously, you were on the property, and as you saw, there's
substantial woods on the property, and most of that would remain.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, it's just basically a minimal amount of tree removal at this point?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COtlENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Robert H. Randalls, MD, Robert and Jean Randalls "We the undersigned have
no objection to the application for a variance as submitted by David Kenny. We would support favorable
action on said application", and one from John 1. Brothers "Regarding the application of David Kenny
to construct a single family residence as described in your notice of 3/11/92, we have no objection
to this construction, as long as proper sewage disposal, septic tank, leachfield standards are met,
in order to protect the lake, with the leachfield positioned 100 foot minimum from the lake, and the
standard depth of five foot absorption soil in place for this system. We hope that tree cutting can
be kept to a minimum. John J. Brothers and Knoll C. Brothers", and this one, again, Knoll Brothers,
Debbie Mason, and James Mason "We are the neighbors to the Kennys who recently purchased the Werton
property on Old Assembly Point Road. We have seen their plans for the property and feel that this
is an improvement to the property and have no objection with their plans and are in favor of their
plan." And this one is from Joyce Folsom "To Whom It May Concern: I'm writing on behalf of David
Kenny and family. I would not have any problem with a two story house being built on the Werton
property. I believe it would improve the property." And that's it.
11
--
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion?
MR. CARR-I'd just make a comment. Mark, would you just get an agent appl ication. Do you have it with
you? It's not in our application, right?
MR. TURNER-No. It's not.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. None? Okay. Motion's in order.
ÞlJTIOI TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1992 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
And grant the applicant a relief from the shoreline setback of 23 feet on the south and 18 feet on
the north. The proposed construction and demolition by the applicant would greatly enhance the
aesthetics of this property and open up site lines to the lake in the neighborhood. The applicant
has gone to great measures to mitigate any environmental impact this construction would have on the
property, and by doing so, the proposed location of the house is the most logical spot in which to
build. That is the practical difficulty required for this area variance.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:49 p.m.)
USE VARIANCE NO. 20-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROBERT AND CAROLYN RUDOLPH (lߣR: SAŒ AS ABOVE
WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD flEAR CHESTfIIT RIDGE ROAD FOR A BED ArtD BREAKFAST FACILITY WITHIN A RESIDENCE;
(liNERS TO MINIAIN RESIDENCE WITHIrt THE SAŒ FACILITY. BED ArtD BREAKFAST FACILITIES ARE NOT ALUIÆD
IN THIS ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 54-5-11.2 LOT SIZE: 1.7± ACRES SECTION 179-20
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:49 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 20-1992, Robert and Carolyn Rudolph, March
17, 1992, Meeting Date: March 18, 1992 "The applicant wants to convert a large historical home to
aBed and Breakfast facility. The zoning is SR-IA and Bed and Breakfasts are not allowed. This
application was reviewed with regards to the criteria for a Use Variance: 1. Is a reasonable return
possible if the land is used as zoned? The applicant purchased the property in 1989. In 1988 the
zoning changed from SR-30 to SR-IA. Neither of which allow or allowed Bed and Breakfasts. The
applicants purchased the house as a residence. The attachment states that they purchased it from Mrs.
Cornett who owned the property for 2 years. Any grandfathering of use ends after 18 months. The staff
has no record of any variances for this property under the name of Cornett. Mrs. Cornett purchased
the property from Mrs. Weaver. The staff has no records of a variance under the name of Weaver. If
Mrs. Weaver rented rooms, there are no records available on that and any grandfathering lapsed. The
applicant states that improvements and expansions to the property have been made. This is not a hardship
placed on the applicant by the Ordinance. The applicant is using the house as zoned. Failure to realize
the highest return on property is not a hardship. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and
not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? This is a historical area of Queensbury. Many of
the structures are close to the road. The appl icant modified the structure to accommodate a use not
allowed by code. This does not make the structure unique. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the
neighborhood character? The location of the structure could cause a problem if the amount of traffic
were generated from the site."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact".
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Muller.
MR. MULLER-For the record, I'm Michael Muller. To my left are Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph, sitting in the
first row. They, too, will participate in the presentation. I'd like to draw your attention to the
photographs up on the Board. The upper left hand picture is a picture of the Rudolph residence, and
I'm sure you're all familiar with it, and, basically, I took that picture. As indicated in the
application, this house is very close to Ridge Road, probably within five or six feet of the
right-of-way, and certainly it's been there for a very long time. It's supposedly the oldest house
in Warren County. It was built just after 1790. The pictures, here, I think, are very useful in a
sense that, I'm going to read to you an affidavit that I obtained, and I will also submit it, from
Marion Marcy. Mrs. Marcy is in a unique position, and I realize that it's incumbent upon the applicant
to demonstrate the hardship,
12
c\
'\
v
from a financial standpoint. Mrs. Marcy pointed out to me that here unique situation was that when
Mrs. Weaver lived in the house, Mrs. Marcy listed it. Under ideal circumstances, if this, as I indicated
in the appl ication, were properly set back from the road, really in the zone as the zone is described,
being qui te suburban areas, then this house woul d have had an excellent price. It di dn' t get a good
price, and I'll gi ve you those actual figures in a moment, and it's really because of the fact that
it's so close to the road. Most of the prospective purchasers thought that this was a pretty ghastly
affair, but it's there, okay. That's the power company, the telephone company, the cable company,
you name it. I took a picture of the roadway, and I wanted to show, from the side, exactly still how
the building sits out far and apart close to the road, well ahead of all of the other buildings. Here
I took a picture. This is at the intersection of Chestnut and Ridge. The cars come right out, and
you can well imagine in the evening, they're going to shine right on the house. That would annoy the
hell out of people who supposedly live in a quiet suburban residential area. This is the brand new
garage that was placed up here, and you can still see, visually, it's impacted upon by Route 9 signs,
the telephone pole and what have you. Just to the north is Mr. Main's barn, and historically that
was all part of the same piece of property. The barn and the house went together with the large tract
of land. It's probably possible that Butternut Hill was all in the same unit.
MR. TURNER-That was all one piece, yes.
MR. MULLER-Okay. This is the facility that houses the storage of boats. The rest of the pictures
are what I thought were very instructive to show basically what the non residential impacts are at
this site and at this location and in that zone, and we have no complaint with any of these, okay.
That is that, I mean, they're there. The Rudolphs well understood it when they purchased it, but I
think your consideration ought to be, are we impacting upon the neighborhood negatively, are we imposing
ourselves upon the residences, and I did comment in the application about how there are substantial
distances between this house and what is a very nice exclusive residential area in Butternut Hill.
Out on the road, where we are and where the impacts would be, Smith Equipment, both it's front shop
and the warehouse and repair unit in the back, that was obtained by a variance, tractor trailer traffic
right there at that location. I happened to be lucky to be there when the truck was there. I tried,
in earnest, to stay there for awhile to wait for a Finch Pruyn truck to come by, but I want you to
know that Finch Pruyn trucks do come by. They have a landfill up the road. When I got there, I'm
happy to report this evening that this is a lot cleaner than what I took the picture, but I don't know
what happened here. It looks like somebody just dumped a huge pile of crates and what have you all
over there. It was a nasty looking thing, but it's a 1 ittle neater now. My whole point about this
was that, if you consider what is proposed, the Bed and Breakfast, it's so light in intensity that
it couldn't possibly impose itself upon what we see out here on Ridge Road, and how do I know that?
How do I know that's possible? Well, I took a picture of what Mr. and Mrs. Crislip have as a Bed and
Breakfast facility. It's very tastefully done, very similar in style to the construction of this home,
very close to the road. I can't remember whether or not that was approved by variance, but it was
approve, okay.
MR. TURNER-1984.
MR. MULLER-1984?
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. MULLER-Okay. All of the same considerations apply here as well, in this evening's application.
They have one sign that happens to be on their mailbox. The affidavit that I would like to read into
the record, and then I'll hand it in, from Mrs. Marcy, is as follows: She indicates that she is over
the age of 18 and is a licensed real estate broker in the State of New York, and she's sold both
residential and commercial real estate in the localities of Warren, Washington, Saratoga County since
at least 1978, and she is presently an owner and broker of REMAX Peak Performers at 300 Bay Road in
Queensbury. She makes this statement upon personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon
the information and belief, and as to those, she believes them to be true. She says, I am personally
and professionally familiar with the premises currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Rudolph at Ridge
Road in Queensbury, the subject of an application for a variance to allow the premises to be utilized
in part as a residence and in part for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast home. During his lifetime,
I knew Buck Weaver, the former owner of the residence. I worked with Buck Weaver at Clemens Real Estate
in the late 1970's, up to the time of his death in the early 1980's. Both Mr. Weaver and myself were
real estate salespeople at Clemens Real Estate. During the ownership and occupancy by Buck Weaver,
and after his death, the sole ownership by his wife Irene Weaver, the premises were utilized not only
as the Weaver residence, but as a dwelling for borders, including students, local school staff and
school personnel on a paying basis. In fact, after Buck Weaver's death, I know that Mrs. Weaver rented
bordering rooms to people, and at one time, a new administrator or Principal for the Lake George School
System lived at that location until he could relocate his family, and the Principal or administrator
of the Glens Falls Middle School did, likewise. At the time that Irene Weaver became interested in
selling her home, I was one of the listing brokers. The premises were listed with the thought in mind
that it would be ideal as a residence, coupled with the Bed and Breakfast operation, especially in
light of the fact that the home has limitations, being so close to the road while opportunities abound,
due to the fact that it has multiple bedrooms that are private enough to be occupied by short term
residential occupants. Most of the prospective purchasers that expressed any interest in these premises
remain interested only in light of the fact
13
,~
'--
c
that it might be utilized as a residence and for guests or perhaps as an antique shop. There came
a time, in 1984, that the premises were sold to Janice Cornett who, at the time of her purchase, intended
to continue the uses of the facility, as both a private residence, and with some renovations as a Bed
and Breakfast. To my knowledge, Mrs. Cornett did not proceed in that regard, and on or about 1989,
again offered the premises for sale. I again 1 isted the premises for Mrs. Cornett, and at that time,
again found most of the interested purchasers to be interested so long as the premises could be used
as a private residence, and perhaps as a guest facility or antique shop. In 1989, while selling the
premises, I found all interested purchasers expressed an interest in the use of the facility not only
as a residence, but as a Bed and Breakfast location. In particular, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Rudolph, the
current owners of the property, expressed that interest and found that, with some renovating, the home
could be utilized as a dwelling as well as a Bed and Breakfast location. I am of the opinion that
this home, although situated within a Single Family Residential zone, is not, indeed, located in an
area that can fairly be construed as exclusive residential. Most often times purchasers are interested
in such a setting, seek a quite residential street, a well treed lot, substantial setback from the
roadway. This home enjoys little in the way of those amenities. It is heavily impacted upon by the
fact that it is within a few feet from the public right-of-way along State Highway Route 9. I am of
the opinion that, due to this fact, the premises loses a tremendous portion of its market potential
as a Single Family residence and at least in the amount of $80,000. I'm of the opinion, based on my
experience and market knowledgeability of the area, and especially with respect to this particular
home, which I have shown and sold on two prior occasions, that if the home were setback within a
reasonable distance from the highway and associated with other Single Family residences, that it would
be reasonable to expect the limitation of a Single Family residence to apply. Under the present
circumstances, however, the most reasonable use of the property, taking into account its limitations,
the impact of the traffic, the Bed and Breakfast facility, coupled with the current owner's residence
would, at a minimum, be a reasonable use and a reasonable expectation of return from the premises.
I'd like to hand that in. I'd like to indicate, in reviewing the application, the permitted uses that
are allowed there by site plan review. It's a fairly interesting little zone, in the sense that, if
we were here tonight proposing to you that Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph would 1 ike to make it a funeral home,
as long as the people are dead, they can stay there, okay, but if they're alive, Bed and Breakfast,
can't do it. You've got to have a variance. That doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. You can
have day care centers there. You can have an office, professional use that's associated with the
residence. I think that those are more intensive than what is proposed here, and we would like to
ask for fair consideration, not only based upon our proof, but basically what has been very well done
here by the Crislips and very close to the facility, and we're mindful of what the folks in Butternut
Hill don't want to see. There was some concern that was expressed to me by Mrs. Rudolph, that she
had had some feedback from some of the folks, indicating, well, what would happen next, that is, could
we expect a motel at this location, and I think that you know, as zoners, that that is highly unlikely,
but you have a guarantee built right into the Zoning Ordinance. A Bed and Breakfast facility is defined
differently than a motel. That's not contemplated here. We propose no structural changes what so
ever. There would be three bedrooms. I think that it would be highly unlikely that all three bedrooms
would be filled on every day or on every weekend. It would be most likely to believe that holidays,
the nice weather, special occasions, certainly the Balloon Festival, maybe Christmas, maybe when spring,
wedding time comes along, things like that, that's when you would see it, but it would certainly no
more impact on that area of Ridge Road or on Butternut Hill, as does the other facility. At this time,
I would like to ask Carolyn to provide us with her input.
CAROLYN RUDOLPH
MRS. RUDOLPH-My name is Carolyn Rudolph, and I don't know what to say, other than it's always been
our dream to have a Bed and Breakfast, a small facility, and we found a house that is historically
important to the area, we think. It was built by David Sanford in the late 1700s, and I've done a
lot of research on it, which I'm still not all the way through, and I hope to eventually write a booklet
or something pertaining to this, and I think it's good for the Town of Queensbury, as well, to have
a historically important house for people to be able to visit and know something about the Town, and
that's what I intend to do. I hope that people do learn something about Queensbury just from this
house, because it's been here so long, and it's been 1 i ved in by the Sanfords and the Ha vil ands and
McDonalds, all the important people that started the Town.
MR. SICARD-Has the house been put up for sale within the last, say, a year or so?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No.
MR. SICARD-It hasn't?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No. We've had it since 1989.
MR. TURNER-You bought the house, principally, as a residence, the first time around?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No. Basically, when I called the Planning, I don't know who it was I talked to. I thought
I called the Planning Board, before we bought the house, and I wanted to know about the zoning and
whoever the gal was that I talked to said it was zoned Light Commercial, and I said, well, that's good,
and then we found out, upon doing this variance, that it was zoned Suburban Residential, which was
14
not originally what it was zoned when I inquired. So, this was a surprise to me, because we had
originally bought the house to do a Bed and Breakfast, because we looked, for years and years, to find
a historical house, and an old house, something that had a lot of charm to it, just so we could do
this, because our children are grown and we want something, we have no family, really, in New York,
and we wanted something to rent a family, rent to families.
MR. CARR-How many children do you have?
MRS. RUDOLPH-We have four.
MR. CARR-Married?
MRS. RUDOLPH-One is married.
MR. CARR-So, at anyone weekend, you could have four children there, each with their own car?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No, not likely. One lives in Florida. One lives in St. Louis. One goes to college and
one lives in Glens Falls. She lives in her own apartment.
MR. CARR-If you could have your four children, I'm just trying to, you know, if you could have three
guests.
MRS. RUDOLPH-I suppose. Well, with a Bed and Breakfast, you're basically supposed to rent to people.
MR. CARR-And children aren't people?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Well, you know, you I re supposed to make allowances for them to stay some place else or
another place in the house, say a fold out sofa or something like that, and I'm sure we will be visited
by relatives, but I wouldn't hope to have them all there at the same time because then we wouldn't
be able to rent rooms if we had a Bed and Breakfast.
MR. MULLER-But, Bruce, was your question that the impact, in terms of personal use of automobiles,
would probably be comparable to the use as a Bed and Breakfast? Is that your question?
MR. CARR-That's what I was just wondering. Is their family the same size as how many people would
be at the?
MR. MULLER-I think the answer is yes. Obviously, that's the answer we'll go with. Sure. There's
a three car garage there, too. So you would anticipate three cars.
MR. SICARD-How much parking space do you have, other than your own vehicles?
MRS. RUDOLPH-We have quite a large driveway. There's plenty of space to park cars. My husband measured
the driveway tonight. I don't know what he came up with, but we have a lot of parking. It's a large
circular driveway next to the house.
MR. TURNER-When you built the garage, did you inquire as to what it was zoned then? You, obviously,
knew, then, it was zoned SR.
MRS. RUDOLPH-No. We had a contractor build it and we let him take care of.
MR. TURNER-The addition was put on by whom, in the back, by you people? Did you contract it out?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. It was contracted out.
MR. TURNER-Yes. So on the permit, the zone classification should be right on it.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Well, it should have been, probably, but I guess I went with II\Y original thought as to
when I had inquired about it, and I didn't know it had changed, in the interim.
MR. TURNER-It never changed, only the density.
MR. CARR-The three car garage, I mean, are any of those stalls available to the guests?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No. I don't think so. Those would be ours.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MRS. RUDOLPH-We put the garage up to look like a colonial garage, because we wanted to keep the
quaintness of the house, and not take away from the look of the house, which is what, we don't want
to have anything that looks like a motel. We just want a nice little Bed and Breakfast that people
can come to the area and find what people look for when they go to Bed and Breakfasts, rather than
motels or hotels.
15
---"
'--'"
-'
MR. CARVIN-On a sellout basis, or condition, how many folks would you be able to accommodate?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Well, there's only one bed in each room. So, that would be six people.
MR. CARVIN-Six people?
MRS. RUDOLPH-There's three bedrooms, unless somebody had a child. I suppose we could have a roll away
or something, maybe it would make it seven or something, but mostly what we've found, talking to people
that have Bed and Breakfasts, it's usually couples.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know your Counsel, there, indicated that holidays and things like that, but do
you have a feel for what kind of occupancy level you might?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Okay. We talked to Ned Crislip, down the road that has a Bed and Breakfast, and he says
it's mostly in the summer, around the holidays, probably the Balloon Festival, and then probably leaf
peeper season, as they call it. It's kind of a seasonal thing, and it's not an all the time situation.
I'm sure in the winter time there would be nobody there a lot of the time.
MR. CARVIN-Well, on an annual basis, would you figure 20 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, just kind
of a utilization type of a thing?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Well, it's hard to tell. We've just talked to Ned Crislip, and we've talked to the people
at the Berry Farm, who have a Bed and Breakfast on Bay Road, and it seems, I don't know, it's just
kind of a seasonal thing. It's not an every day, every weekend, and it mostly probably would be
weekends, but it's not an every weekend of the year thing. So, I really don't know.
MR. CARVIN-Would 20 percent of the year be a fair?
ROBERT RUDOLPH
MR. RUDOLPH-I'm Robert Rudolph, for the record. If I could answer that, I would say probably in the
area of 20 to 25 percent, on the average.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How many vehicles do you own, personally?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Three.
MR. RUDOLPH-Four.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You have four. Lets take the worst scenario. You have four, and the four kids come,
that's eight cars, and three guests, 11 cars.
MRS. RUDOLPH-I don't think we could have. We couldn't have guests and kids at the same time, probably.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you did mention a cot, and I think with kids they bring their sleeping bags or
whatever. You can always find room. I'm looking at the worst scenario. I mean, take Balloon Festival
time. Could you accommodate that many cars off the highway, so they don't have to park on Ridge Road?
MRS. RUDOLPH-They would park on the grass, but I don't think we would have the children and guests
there at the same time. It just wouldn't be possible, not with just three bedrooms.
MR. RUDOLPH-And I did say four cars, but one of them is not licensed and it's stored.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Then three and three guests, six cars, seven cars, can you accommodate in your driveway
without a lot of backing out onto Ridge and jockeying of cars and?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No. It's a circular driveway. So, it's.
MR. RUDOLPH-It doesn't need to back it up.
MR. TURNER-You will advertise the Bed and Breakfast facility if it's approved?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. There is a Saratoga/Warren County Bed and Breakfast Association, which we would
join, and I don't think, those are the kinds of things, the little booklets and things that advertise
through those, rather than ads in papers or anything. It's mostly this Band B Association that we
found that they said that's the best for them because it isn't real costly and you have a large coverage
and most of the homes in this Band B Association are historical homes. So, that's part of a Band
B, and that's what we really have hoped for.
MR. CARR-Is there any additional outside renovation scheduled?
16
/
--
MRS. RUDOLPH-No.
MR. CARR-So, what is there now will remain?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. There's no more. I wouldn't have any more renovation. I've had enough. It's a
continual situation, but as far as the hammering and nailing, outside renovations, there is no more
to be done. The garage we put up and we added bathrooms. and that's as far as it would go, as far
as I know. I don't hope to ever do any more renovation
MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you mention in here how many total bedrooms there are in the house?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Four.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Four total.
MR. MULLER-You have an interior drawing.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I've got a lot of papers here, Mike.
MRS. RUDOLPH-We have a petition. We talked to all the neighbors that we could find home. They were
all encouraging to us. In fact, a lot of them said that it would be great when they have relatives
come in in the area and they would have some place for them to stay. We did not find everybody home,
however. Those were the people that we did find home, and Charlie Main who owns the barn next to us
and a lot of the property, said he concurred with our plans, too, but he didn't want to sign the
petition, and I know Bob Eddy, whose book I have here, he's the one who wrote all the history of
Queensbury. He said he gave a letter to the Board encouraging us.
MR. TURNER-Who was this fellow on Chestnut Ridge Road? He writes like a doctor.
MRS. RUDOLPH-I don't know.
MR. TURNER-Box 562, 568, maybe, Chestnut Ridge. It looks like just a bunch of initials. Okay.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Anyway, I have, it's a short historical blurb. if anybody's interested in hearing about
the house.
MR. TURNER-I've read it.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Okay.
MR. CARVIN-I just have another question. While you were circulating the petition, did you find anybody
else who had an interest in saying that was a great idea. and that they would want to start a Bed and
Breakfast?
MRS. RUDOLPH-No.
MR. CARVIN-No.
MRS. RUDOLPH-This is not everybody's cup of tea. Some of the people said, why do you want to do that?
Why do you want to have strangers in your home, but we like people, and like I said, it's a dream.
MR. TURNER-Just for everybody's information, some of these people weren't on the Board when we approved
Crislips. At that time, in 1984, a Bed and Breakfast was not even a listed use in the Town in any
zone. I looked the minutes up. It wasn't very definitive, how we established the hardship, but by
some quirk of the imagination, we came up with something that's not defined in the minutes. So, it
got approved, but let me say this. They're on one and three quarter acres. They're surrounded pretty
much by woods in the back, all the way around, to the north, to the west. and to the south. There's
was for a two bedroom, and, like I said, it just wasn't listed, and evidently they presented a good
argument, and we bought it. but this time around we established a zone for Bed and Breakfast.
MR. CARR-Where's that, Ted?
MR. TURNER-In the RR-3 Acre zone, RR zone, and I think the establishment of those at the time was because
there was some existing in those zones and we felt that that's where they would go. That's why they're
not listed in any other zone.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Turner, I asked Lee York about that and she indicated that I think it's called a Berry
Farm, but I don't know who owns that. Do you?
MR. TURNER-Oudekerk.
MR. MULLER-Oudekerk?
17
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Okay. Lee York said to me, well, they had expressed an interest in having a Bed and Breakfast
place there, so we thought that would be a pretty good zone to allow it.
MR. TURNER-And if you'll remember, there was another one that was going to do the same thing, the old
Grange Hall, up on 9L.
MR. MULLER-Yes, the one that's real close to the road.
MR. TURNER-Yes. They wanted to do that, but they never did, as far as I know.
MR. MULLER-Right. Yes. Well, I think, not only was he real close to the road, I think that he had,
but he had like 42 acres or something, all going straight up.
MR. TURNER-Yes, all straight up.
MR. MULLER-Okay. As a zoner, I understand how you can make a distinction. As a person who travels
the highways of Queensbury, I don't think you can make a distinction, when you look at Bay Road and
Ridge Road. They're kind of both rural highways. I think they're both defined as arterial or corridors.
They're both busy. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd say Ridge is busier, and it just looks
like the right place for a Bed and Breakfast. I feel that it's unfortunate that the zoning doesn't
seem to allow it, but for the fact that a persons, this is not intended as a joke, but if they were
dead, you'd be allowed to, but you would agree with me. If we had three dead people, one in each
bedroom, we'd be all set. A funeral home would be allowed by a site plan review.
MR. CARR-You'd be allowed calling hours. I mean, that's a lot of cars.
MR. MULLER-Okay.
MR. CARR-If you're talking about intensity, that is a lot of intense use.
MR. MULLER-Yes, I guess so, but it's always an absolute struggle, zoning wise, to demonstrate the
hardship when you're using it as zoned, but look at your definition for a Bed and Breakfast and you
will see, you can't have a Bed and Breakfast unless it's in a residence. In other words, you can't
have a freestanding Bed and Breakfast. That would be pretty bizarre. Somebody who lives in the house
next door and comes over and serves you breakfast in the next house.
MR. TURNER-Isn't that a motel or hotel?
MR. MULLER-I think it is. Yes. Some of the things that I think can help you, at least make you feel
a little bit more comfortable about allowing this to be unique. It's so, that Mrs. Weaver was using
it as a boarding house. It is true, and that's why we're here, that Mrs. Cornett didn't keep up that
use, that is that it lapsed, but it sure didn't lapse in the minds hearts and spirits of the Rudolphs,
in the sense that when they came here they thought, well, this is the perfectly ideal place to have
it and to continue what Mrs. Weaver had, but it sure could use some updating and some tender loving
care, and lets do it, and then when they bring it back for consideration, there's always the chance
that, well, gee, you're using it as a residence, what more can you expect. The answer is the
expectation's built within the house. It has the look and feel of what ought to be Bed and Breakfast,
and but for the zone that would allow more intensified uses, and something identical, but for a living
breathing guest, the chance is no, you've got to go through this administrative process. I think it's
worthy of some consideration.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but also, by the same token, somebody might come along and very well buy that for a
residence, irregardless whether it's five or six feet from Ridge Road, and maintain it as a residence
and use the whole house.
MR. MULLER-Well, for the purposes of this discussion, on that point, that would be speculative, if
you believe what Mrs. Marcy says, and I do, that is that I had the position of representing Mrs. Cornett
when she bought it, and I know that she intended to utilize it to rent rooms, but, well, her ownership
of the home resulted in a divorce. The Rudolphs came along. I did not represent the Rudolphs in that
sale, but I represented Mrs. Cornett, and Mrs. Marcy tells you in her affidavit that the Rudolphs had
those discussions, and that's, principally, what it was all about. In a perfect world, the Rudolphs
would have come right to this Board at that time, before they ever closed on it, and said, this is
what we have in mind. This is what we want to do, and we would have Mrs. Cornett standing here saying,
yes, that was my idea and that's the way I bought it and that's the way Mrs. Weaver used it. So that
if you're concerned about, gee, we could very well be setting a precedent, in that, next month lets
have five or six more houses. Well, I guess if those applications can support a proposition of fact
that says it's been used as a bordering house in the past, that all interested and perspective purchasers
have always expressed this interest, that it's ideal for it, that is has impacts that impose themselves
upon the residence that are not really what you would expect from that suburban zone, and look at that
18
definition of suburban zone. It says that we want to protect the quiet residentia1 streets. There
shou1dn't be anybody here that beHeves that Ridge Road, at 9L, is a quiet residentia1 street. It's
45 mi1es per hour, when I was out there taking pictures, and nobody was doing 45, okay.
MR. TURNER-Nobody does the speed 1imit anyway.
MR. MULLER-Nobody does the speed 1imit. We need strict 1aw enforcement in this Town.
MR. TURNER-In reference to the traffic, isn't it true that the 1andfi11 up on Ridge does not generate
the traffic it used to?
MR. MULLER-Yes, but the trucks that I'm ta1king about are Finch Pruyn.
MR. TURNER-I know. They a1so go up County line Road and go that way. They don't necessari1y a1ways
use Ridge Road.
MR. RUDOLPH-They do come up County Line, but they come over Hicks and go out Ridge, in my experience.
MR. TURNER-Yes. They've got more than one truck. It's a 24 hour operation.
MR. RUDOLPH-They run it seven days a week.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Any other questions? Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROGER RUEL
MR. RUEl-My name is Roger Rue1. I'm here this evening representing myse1f as we11 as my wife who is
in the audience. We are neighbors within 200 feet of the Rud01phs, direct1y across the street. We
agree with the presentation. We beHeve there are many more things in the neighborhood that have much
more impact than a three bedroom Bed and Breakfast. I wou1d not support a doctors office. I wou1d
not support a funera1 home. I do support the Rud01phs in their request. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone e1se in favor? Opposed?
JOSEPH TOKARZ
MR. TOKARZ-My name is Joseph Tokarz. I Hve in Butternut Hi11, and I, too, Hke the Rud01phs, were
attracted to the Queensbury Upper Ridge Road area many years ago. As a matter of fact, the thing that
attracted me to it was the fact that I happened to be over at Irene Weavers house at the time and saw
how beautifu1 it was. I wou1d Hke to speak to this issue on a coup1e of things that I don't think
that you may be aware of. I 100ked at the beautifu1 pictures of the house over there, but I did not
see any pictures of the rear of the house, and I don't know how many of you are fami1 iar with this
house, and I haven't measured it, but I wou1d beHeve that from the back of that front facade that
is approximate1y 20 feet deep and 45 or 50 feet wide, that extends back about another 60 to 80 feet
straight back toward Butternut Hi11. A1so on the property in the back of the house, or actua11y on
the rear side of the house, direct1y abutting properties owned by our neighbors, is a swimming poo1.
So this house does extend quite far to the rear. I don't know how far from the exact property Hne
it is. There are no buffers between the home and Butternut Hi11. Therefore any noise generated through
parties or gatherings of peop1e can direct1y effect us in Butternut Hi11. That's one of the things
I think you shou1d be aware of. The second thing I think you shou1d be aware of is that the driveway,
to my know1edge, is substantia11y sma11er than you have been 1ed to beHeve. It is a semicircu1ar
driveway. It probab1y can accommodate four cars quite adequate1y, but I think once you get beyond
that, I think you wou1d find that it becomes pretty crowded. Another thing you shou1d be aware of,
and that is that, and I'll speak to Ned CrisHp's Bed and Breakfast, which is about approximate1y a
quarter of a mi1e down the road. He was approved for two bedrooms. Last year there was a wedding
there. He's approximate1y a quarter of a mi1e from our house, and though he is visua11y screened very
we11 from our house, as you mentioned earHer, we are not screened from the sound. There was a band
p1aying there quite 1ate in the evening. I won't say that it was tota11y distracting to us, from where
we were, but it was certain1y noticeab1e and apparent that there was a 10t of noise in that area.
I don't be1ieve that he is zoned to do that, but in spite of the fact, that happened. One other thing
that I wou1d Hke to be sure to mention is that one of our neighbors, who ca11ed me tonight and was
unab1e to be here, Sissy Lures, I beHeve hand deHvered a 1etter to the Board earHer today, and I
wou1d just 1ike to request that you be sure to read that 1etter.
MR. TURNER-It wi11 be read.
MR. TOKARZ-Because it, much more e10quent1y than I, can express my own persona1 fee1ings for this issue.
Though I am not persona11y opposed to the Rud01phs, I do beHeve that the area does not represent a
hardship. I beHeve both of these peop1e are gainfu11y emp10yed. I bel1eve, a1so, that Mrs. Rud01ph
is emp10yed in rea1 estate. You do have your 1icense? And they have, I know, invested a substantia1
19
amount of money in this property, but I do not believe that because they put the money in before they
took care of the zoning or took care of any problems that existed or preexisted, that they should be
allowed. I do not believe this is a hardship on them, Number One, and Number Two, I don't believe
that the original intent of the Zoning Ordinance, that this represents an unreasonable application
of the Ordinance, to maintain it as an SR-IA zone, and that I think it should be maintained as such,
and I feel that the Board, in considering this application, should vote no for it, on the basis that
both the hardship and the unreasonable application portions have not been demonstrated by them. Thank
you.
MR. CARR-Were you a border with Mrs. Weaver?
MR. TOKARZ-No, I wasn't.
MR. CARR-Just visiting?
MR. TOKARZ-I was visiting. I visited her a number of times. I became pretty good friends of hers
after we built in Butternut Hill, and, of course, we were back yard neighbors, so to speak, and I also
knew her because Buck Weaver was an administrator and I am a school teachers and knew them through
that.
MR. CARVIN-Just one question. In any of the conversation with some of your neighbors, I know there's
a lot of historical houses out through there, has anybody else expressed an interest in setting up
a Bed and Breakfast?
MR. TOKARZ-Not to my knowledge.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard in opposition?
RICHARD BATT
DR. BATT-My name is Dr. Richard Batt. I live at Four Butternut Hill Drive, and our house was the second
house in that area to be built, and since we have been there, we've seen it develop into a beautiful
residential area. For that reason, I'm against anything that would appear to make the area more
commercial. I just think we have enough traffic on Ridge Road. We don't want to see more cars parked
in the region, and for that reason, I'm against. As much as I like the appearance of our new neighbors,
I don't like the idea of there being a Bed and Breakfast in that area.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? Okay. The public hearing's closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPOrtIDCE
MRS. EGGLESTON-A memo from Robert Eddy, 17 Owen Avenue, Queensbury, "I recommend this variance be
approved. This is not only one of the oldest homes in Queensbury, but one of the most picturesque.
All of the owners during the centuries have maintained it in excellent condition. I have had the
opportunity of being shown through the house, and find the interior has been kept in traditional and
in fine shape. It is my opinion this is one way to keep these homes in a manner in which we can all
take pride. There is another Bed and Breakfast in another of the historic and picturesque homes of
Queensbury about five homes down the road. and I can find no objections to this use of these properties."
And a letter from Ronald Montesi, "I am writing you in opposition to the proposed Variance No. 20-1992.
by Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph, for a Bed and Breakfast in their Ridge Road home. The reasons for my
opposition are: Parking and traffic will impact the area. There does not appear to be much additional
parking available on the property. By allowing this variance, will this grow into more rooms being
rented and will we have a problem with septage, as everything flows downhill from this home into our
subdivision. There is still plenty of vacant land available on this stretch of Ridge Road which backs
up to our subdivision and I am concerned that we could be opening the door for further commercial
development. Lastly, as a tax payer and homeowner, I feel my rights, and the protection of my
residential zone should be upper most in your minds. I have made a decision to live here because I
felt the integrity of the Ordinances and zones would be protected. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my concerns to each of you. And a letter from Arthur and Augusta Loors, Cobblestone Drive,
Butternut Hill, "As adjacent property owners to the Rudolph's proposed Bed and Breakfast facility,
I, Arthur Loors and wife Augusta Loors, strongly protest the Use Variance request of the Rudolphs to
operate a Bed and Breakfast in the SR-l Acre zone. Bed and Breakfast facilities are not allowed in
this zone. The zoning is in effect, and we strongly feel that it should remain as such. We constructed
our home at Butternut Hill 14 years ago, made a sizeable investment in this home based on the single
family zoning protection. We abided by the deed restriction imposed on us by Charles Main, and the
zoning laws. Therefore the Rudolphs, knowing of the zoning. should abide by it as we have. To purchase
the Ridge Road property, construct an 1800 square foot garage, alter the residence, and then make a
request for the Use Variance just for the purpose of renting three rooms leaves us wondering how all
the work, and 24 hours of being on the premises, would possibly have any monetary return, or are there
other uses being planned for this property that are not evident at this time. The Ridge Road is one
of the last bastions of quiet
20
and beautiful rural serenity in this Queensbury area. To permit further commercialization of this
road would be to look back in later years with regret, as we do know when we drive down Quaker Road,
Bay Road, the Half Mile Million Dollar stretch on Route 9 and so on. Please consider the above comments
when making your decision."
MR. TURNER-Is that it?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? Has anybody got any feeling one way or the other?
MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm new to the Board. I just don't know whether we're going to have a cumulative
effect, here. It's not that I'm opposed to a Bed and Breakfast, and I've looked at the property, and
I think you've done a wonderful job out there, but I guess my feeling is that, we allow then we allow
two, then we have four, and this becomes a cumulative effect, and I agree with your Counsel. I mean,
if you were running a funeral home, you probably wouldn't have any problems, and, again, this is a
residential area, and I don't know where to draw the line, and I guess that's really what I have to
say.
MR. CARR-I see this property as being kind of unique. I understand the neighbors concern about it
being open in the back and a pool, because you're going to have the house guests use the pool. So,
I can understand that. I do see their concern, though, about being so close to Ridge Road. I mean,
it's a four bedroom house. You aren't going to find a lot of people who will buy that house strictly
as a residence. I mean, I have children. I wouldn't have my kids 20 feet from Ridge Road. So, I
think you've got a large house there that may not really be useful as strictly a residence. I think
there is, as Mr. Muller here has pointed out, some unique circumstances, in that this has been used
as a boarding house in the past, although they have lost their grandfathering status. I don't think
that the impact, traffic wise, is going to be that great. I mean, I see at the most they might have
three, maybe, four cars there at anyone time, other than their own personal vehicles. How many people
signed the support?
MR. TURNER-Fifteen.
MR. CARR-It's almost divided among.
MR. TURNER-Did you go to Lindstrand's house?
MRS. RUDOLPH-There was nobody home.
MR. TURNER-Did you go to Mr. Cartier's house, across the road from the Crislips?
MR. RUDOLPH-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I do see one thing here, Ted. I drove around in the back. I went through Butternut
Hill to see what kind of an impact I thought it might have back there, and I noticed, I think it's
the Biletdoux house, is the, is that, you people that live in that neighborhood, is that the house
right directly in back? You would be the most impacted by this, am I right, and I noticed you signed
in favor of this?
JAN BILETDOUX
MS. BILETDOUX-Right. I can discuss that a little bit.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Would you do that? Because I noticed, there really was quite a distance between,
in fact, your house is impacted the most, as I said, but there is a good distance between the proposed
Bed and Breakfast and the Butternut Hill Road. Could you enlighten us.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I'll open the public hearing again.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
JAN BI LETDOUX
MS. BILETDOUX-I'm Jan Biletdoux and I live at 16 Cobblestone Drive. I love Bed and Breakfasts myself.
I love to go to them. I signed it because I was very excited about this, for you. I am very nervous
about it, in some ways, I'm concerned. 1'm concerned that someone else may buy it at some other time
and have more cars than are needed, and to pull them out in back where we live. I'm concerned about
there being a wedding back there, at some point, when I have something else going on. It's very quiet
right now. In all fairness, there are times when I have friends out in my back yard and that may bother
the Rudolphs. So that I, you know, there could be a family living there who could have a lot of ruckus
back there on a personal basis anyway. So, that's why I've been reluctant. I don't feel that this,
necessarily, is a bad thing. I don't know how zoning laws work. I mean, if there could be restrictions
21
2
'I
,-",,!
put down, that it would be only three bedrooms that could be leased out. Could there be more bedrooms
built, say, over the garage, and could those be rented out, without anyone else knowing it? Could
the traffic increase, and if that happened, what recourse do I have, as a homeowner beside them? What
time would the pool be closed at night, so that there wouldn't be a lot of, I mean, again, my experience
with Bed and Breakfasts is that they're usually quiet people that go there, but are there those kinds
of 1 imitations that would be written in, or is that something that we would work out as neighbors?
I don't know a lot about this.
MR. TURNER-The Board could limit the three bedrooms, could limit the term to the occupancy of the
Rudolphs. Those could be done right here.
MS. BILETDOUX-What about, like, hours of being outside and swimming and so forth?
MR. CARR-I think they could be by stipulation.
MR. TURNER-By stipulation.
MR. CARR-Of the applicant.
MS. BILETDOUX-What about the future?
MR. TURNER-The biggest problem I have with this appl ication is that this is residential, suburban
residential. It's a historical house. Fine, but, again, I say a family could come along and buy that
house and use it as a residence.
MR. CARR-Ted, I don't think many parents in their right mind would buy a house with young kids.
MR. TURNER-They don't have to have kids.
MR. CARR-You've got four bedrooms. How many people are going to buy a?
MR. TURNER-That's beside the point.
MR. SICARD-Who else would buy it, though?
MR. TURNER-This thing has been built on to. This was not the original size of the house.
MR. CARR-But the four bedrooms were there.
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. MULLER-Those four bedrooms were in the original house.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've changed them around.
MR. RUDOLPH-No.
MR. TURNER-The two upstairs, right here. You're saying this original, right here?
MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. All we did was add bathrooms.
MR. TURNER-Now, the carriage house, this is the add on?
MR. RUDOLPH-Well, that was added on years ago.
MR. TURNER-I just don't see that they've proven a hardship. They have reasonable use of the property,
but they bought it. They had to know when they bought it that they bought it as Suburban Residential.
MR. RUDOLPH-We called the Town, and the Town informed us that it was a permitted use within the zone.
There was nothing that said that we could not have a Bed and Breakfast there.
MR. TURNER-They told you wrong.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Evidentally.
MR. SICARD-Somewhere back a few years, that house was for sale. I remember going by there.
MR. TURNER-Yes. It was for sale for quite a while at one time.
MR. SICARD-And it was for sale for quite a long time, because I saw that sign up there and I said just
the same thing as Mike said. When you're six feet from the road, you're not going to sell a house,
and I don I t know when that was, but I know that sign was up there for over a year, and whether they
just took it down because they didn't sell it or not, I don't know, and I said, what a beautiful house,
but you can't move it, but it was for sale for a long time.
22
r
c
MR. TURNER-Yes. It was in the early 80's, I think, Charlie.
GARY ARMY
MR. ARMY-My name is Gary Army. I live on Butternut Hill. I have a question about the garage. Is
the garage used for anything other than just vehicle storage? I was wondering, because we see the
sky lights.
MR. RUDOLPH-It's used to store vehicles and storage, yes.
MR. ARMY-Because we see all the sky lights in the back of it from up in top. It looks like it could
be used for something else. We were just wondering if there was something else.
MR. RUDOLPH-My intent, when we built the garage, was to build a woodworking shop out there, because
I don't have a cellar anymore in the old house. It's stone and dirt and it's not practical down there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And where are those plans now?
MR. RUDOLPH-Whenever I get done with renovations of the house I will start on the garage, to build
my workshop.
MR. ARMY-Another thing I would like to point out, if I was going to have a Bed and Breakfast and that
was one of my alternatives of buying a house like this, is that I would made sure, with the Planning
and Zoning, that this house was what I wanted. I wouldn't have waited until after and built everything
up and then go looking to you people for zoning permits, because that's a lot of money, and my people
here, we're all sitting here we have a substantial amount of money invested in our properties out there,
and I think we're all opposed to this wholeheartedly. I have nothing against these people. This is
the first time I've ever meet them, but we want to keep our houses and our homes secure, and we don't
want people running around our neighborhood out there we've never seen before, and this has happened
in the past. We've got strangers coming through out there and I don't think anybody wants them.
MR. CARR-What respect? I mean, what are you talking about with them?
MR. ARMY-Well, I mean, you've got people coming in. We don't know where these people come from. We're
in our houses. We're enjoying.
MR. CARR-No, no. You mentioned something specifically, and I was wondering, where do you think these
people came from? I mean, is it just people driving around or?
MR. ARMY-No, people walking out there that we don't recognize. lIve never recognized any of the people.
I don't know where they came from.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you talking about the people who had leased the room?
MR. ARMY-It's a possibility. We don't know where these people come from. It's possible they came
from the other Bed and Breakfast place up there, because like you say, there's a lot of traffic on
Ridge Road. They have no place to go except to walk the airport road or to walk through our nice
neighborhood out there where it's nice and quiet, which we would like to keep that way. I thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else? I want to ask Mr. Rudolph a question. Where did you live, prior
to moving there?
MR. RUDOLPH-Moving to this house? In Twicwood, 3 Greenwood Lane, Twicwood.
MR. TURNER-How long did you live there?
MR. RUDOLPH-Twelve years, 1977 to 1989, twelve years.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And you bought the property in '89?
MR. RUDOLPH-Yes, that's correct.
MR. TURNER-Why I asked you the question is, in '88, they did the Zoning Ordinance over. In '82 they
did it over. It was initiated in '67. The first time around they did it over was '82. The next time
was '88. I suspect that since you lived in the Town of Queensbury long enough, that you knew there
was zoning.
MR. RUDOLPH-Yes, I did.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I rest my case. Then you should have been aware that, you should have investigated
and not go for a telephone call, investigated further.
23
MR. RUDOLPH-I guess when you trust in people, that's what happens. I mean, we did ask the question.
We did not get it in writing. No.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd like to ask Mr. Rudolph, how much would you say, roughly, you've expanded the premises
since you bought it?
MR. RUDOLPH-We added the garage, because there was no garage, and we added two bathrooms.
MR. CARR-Did that expand the outside of the building, when you added the bathrooms?
MR. RUDOLPH-No, it did not, no.
MR. CARR-So, the only outside expansion is the garage?
MR. RUDOLPH-That's correct.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And was the pool there?
MR. RUDOLPH-Yes, it was.
MR. TURNER-Then you renovated the bedrooms, then, to accommodate the bathrooms?
MR. RUDOLPH-We raised part of the roof to accommodate the bathrooms.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULLER-I understand your concern about the hardship, okay. I'm trying, in earnest, to prove it.
Mrs. Biletdoux has excenent points, and I think that they have to be addressed. I thought I did,
but I'n emphasize them. You can't expand without coming back. I think everybody on the Board knows
that. So, there's not going to be, like, the camel's nose got in the tent and eventually the camel
took over the tent. It's not going to happen. We're not proposing, here, that the Rudolphs will expand
that attic that he referred to as a future workshop, into stin another place. Obviously, that's a
violation of the spirit of this application as wen as the Ordinance, okay. So, we're not talking
about that. Dr. Batt came up and he said that he'd like it to be the exclusive residential area that
he bought into, and I totally agree, except that he and others should be wen advised that it's not
an exclusive residential area. There are other things that are permitted within the zone. If we had
a proper application, which we do not, and a proper interest, which we do not, you could run a health
related facility there. I won't torture the language. This is not a health related facility, but
if somebody wants to put an adult home at that location, boom, you're on the button. I'd be happy
to handle the application. If somebody wanted to put in a nursing home there, I'd be happy to handle
the application. If somebody wanted to put a day care center in there, I'd be happy to handle that
application. If somebody wanted to put a professional office incidental to a home use or funeral home,
I'd be happy, and I think that those deserve serious consideration and should pass. I offer those
to you because I have to show you that they're not likely alternative uses of this particular piece
of property. Now, are you going to impose upon us the requirement that we should have listed this,
and show you a two year history of trying to market it as a professional office incidental to a home
use, or as a funeral home, or as a place of worship, or a school or health related facility, because
if you impose that upon us, I suppose that we'll go back to the drawing board and do that, list it
and prove to you that I think you know deep down in your heart already that it's not going to fly,
okay. There's going to be an sorts of concerns about, wen, where are you going to park all of these
cars when they come to the funeral home? Where are you going to put all of these visitors when they
come to the nursing home? Where are you going to put all these people when they come to this place
of worship? One of the neighbors had a concern and said, well, I see it and I can hear it. That's
life in suburbia. That is that if you don't want to hear a wedding that you ~ hear, you've got to
get way out in the country. I moved way out in the country. I'm probably the noisiest guy in that
area, okay. I get complaints all the time about jack asses.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've got a lot of land.
MR. MULLER-And there's complaints, okay. So, lets an talk positive about that. It requires a little
courtesy, but there's no Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. Remember it was proposed?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MULLER-And resoundly shot down, and it should be, okay. So, it requires courtesy. So, what
representations can we make here this evening? The representations we can make are that they don 't
plan on weddings, and if you said to them, you can't have weddings there, we", gee, if that's the
cost, the expectation and the sharing of an application, you're not going to see weddings there. If
there are people concerned about, hey, after the three, they could rent four, five, six build on.
No, not so. That's not within
24
the spirit of our appJication. That's not within our intent. So, you can put a Jid on it. So, 1ets
address the hardest one of a11, and that is, what's the hardship here. The hardship tru1y is that
if you have a four bedroom house. That we haven't expanded. We haven't added bedrooms, and you're
going to have an expectation that a fami1y 1ives there, more than two peop1e. You're going to be raising
kids and it's an idea1 house for it, but it's not an idea1 spot. That's it in a nutshe11. Mrs. Weaver,
I wish I cou1d te11 you. I wish I cou1d confirm CharJie's reco11ection of this thing. I just know
that it was on the market for a 10ng time, but I didn't represent Mrs. Weaver, okay.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I remember that. It was on the market for a 10ng time.
MR. MULLER-And when Mrs. Cornett came a10ng she came from CaJifornia and she fen in 10ve with the
house. She just thought it was a great p1ace for something for antiques, historica1, Bed and Breakfast,
and it never f1ew. Mrs. Cornett was a nurse at the VA hospita1 down in A1bany, and her husband cou1dn't
stand it here, packed his bags and headed back to CaJifornia. She s01d the house. So, that's where
the 10ss came. Mr. Carvin is correct1y concerned about, we11, we approve this one, why isn't there
going to be six more appJications, ten more app1ications, and, honest1y, Mr. Carvin, if you see an
appJication here that can show you that it used to be a boarding house, but for the fact that the
grandfathering aspect has 1apsed and that it has the other prob1ems, c10se to the road. It's not going
to mess up its neighborhood because it's not in Butternut Hi11. It impacts upon Butternut Hi11, but
it's not in Butternut Hi11. Then it maybe that one, too, is deserving of approva1, that is, I don't
know where the potentia1 Bed and Breakfast houses are in Queensbury, but for sure, the 1esson that
we an 1earn, here, is that you take an appJication on its face, on a case by case basis, and cross
that next bridge, about the next appJication, when it comes. Do those facts support the reJief that
is requested here? I think that this one does. It is very, very difficu1t for me to prove a hardship,
to say to you, it can't be used as a res i dence. It can be used as a res i dence, and then again, I have
to ten you that I can't prove to you that something shou1d be used as a Bed and Breakfast un1ess I
inc1ude the residence. Look at your definition. Your definition requires that it be in a residence.
So, I kind of work rea1 hard in proving to you that it's perfect for a Bed and Breakfast, and what
you do is you turn around, and part of that definition, and say, but it is a residence. I mean, I'm
stuck. I can't make it not a residence, unsuitab1e for a residence, and then prove to you, but it
is suitab1e for a Bed and Breakfast. I think it's got to be both, suitab1e for a residence and have
some prob1ems which you fee1 a Jitt1e bit more comfortab1e about saying, 1et it be Bed and Breakfast,
because it makes sense. No need to crucify the Rud01phs about, gee, they didn't know and they shou1d
have checked. They shou1d have checked and they didn't know. It's a fact to be taken into
consideration, but I'm the first to admit, it's not the s01e reason, nor shou1d it be -ª. reason why
you have to approve this appJication. You have to approve it because I gave you donars and cents
proof, because I gave you what a broker had to say about it, because I showed you that the neighborhood
is rea11y not going to be disturbed by it, and it's not the first on Ridge, and if we have two or three
more, maybe that's okay for Queensbury. Mr. Eddy says it is.
MR. TURNER-What was that 1isted for, how much?
MR. MULLER-What was your house 1isted for when you bought it, not what you paid for it? What was it
Jisted for? $159? Okay, and do you know what you paid for it? $150. Okay. Mrs. Marcy said that,
based on the square foot, that she wou1d be happy to se11 that for another $80,000 if she cou1d find
that in the suburban residentia1 area that it's supposed1y zoned in. How many square feet? It's not
in Bedford C10se, but Bedford C10se has the 4200 square foot homes that se11 for $400,000.
MR. TURNER-But, again, I don't think she cou1d se11 it for $80,000 more, not there.
MR. MULLER-Not there, abs01ute1y correct. That's my point.
MR. TURNER-Because the barn is there, and that's a separate entity by itseH, but they bought it as
a residence. Even though she maybe cou1d have got $80,000 for it some p1ace e1se, it's sti11 a
residence.
MR. MULLER-Yes. That is my point. I don't want to mis1ead you there. My point is that, if this were
in, you read the description of Suburban Residentia1, it's going to ta1k about.
MR. TURNER-I've got it right there.
MR. MULLER-Okay, and do you rea11y think it is?
MR. TURNER-It's residentia1.
MR. MULLER-No, but what does Suburban Residentia1 say? You've got the book and I don't.
MR. TURNER-The purpose?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-The purpose of a Suburban Residentia1 zone is to enhance and protect the character of the
Queensbury suburban neighborhoods and to provide for future residentia1 deve10pment opportunity.
25
-
MR. MULLER-Okay. The suburban residential community that we have here is Smiths Equipment, what used
to be Queensbury Glass, State highway, Finch Pruyns packing trucks going by, and I got a picture of
the truck that was heading off towards the Industrial Park. That's not suburban. It really isn't.
I really don't think so. None of those vehicles and none of those impacts would be acceptable in
Butternut Hill, none of them, and I think you all know that.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, how would you address the issue of self imposed hardship? I mean, they have lived
in the area for 10 years. They knew the neighborhood. I mean, they knew the area. They were here
during the zoning. They knew when they bought the house what it was. How do you get by a self imposed
hardship?
MR. MULLER-Okay. A self imposed hardship would be, if they went and they built themselves a nice four
bedroom house at this location and then say, our family's all grown up, they've left. We have no
legitimate use for this place. We'd like to use it for a Bed and Breakfast. A self imposed hardship
would be that they, basically, put that house within six feet of the road. A self imposed hardship
would be that all of the traffic impacts, all of the commercial impacts, that is, that they stuck the
thing there. They made the improvement knowing that it was all there, and that's not true. That is,
that all of this has been imposed upon the property. I think what was somewhat misleading, and not
intentionally, but one gentleman got up and said, these folks both work. We all know that it's not
personal hardship. We're talking about a particular piece of property and the imposition that is imposed
upon that property. On this property, look at the drawing we have. Ideally, the impacts would be
lessened if it was centered on the lot. It's not, okay. They didn't create that problem. That fact
alone tells you that it's not really that attractive as a single family residence. The other thing
is that every broker, well, I only got one because I thought she was right on the button, in terms
of being the person who sold it twice. She will tell you that nobody is interested in it exclusively
as it is zoned, single family residence, but if you feel comfortable in saying, tonight, okay, fine,
you didn't prove a hardship. My recommendation to the Rudolphs would be, list it, demonstrate to these
people, over the course of the next year, two years, that there's no interest here. I have the courage
to say that because I know they're not interested in selling it, put a fair price on it, and propose
every possible use there, and I'll bet you that it will not sell.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, as you know, the Use Variance, Number Two, is that the property in question cannot
yield a reasonable financial return if used as zoned, used as a use as zoned. I don't know as you've
demonstrated that.
MR. TURNER-I guess mY answer to that would be that if it was listed for 159, and they only paid 150,
I think you said.
MR. SICARD-I don't think they could sell it for 75.
MR. MULLER-Again, I don't know. We're speculating, but I think it's worthy of approval. Lets assume
that you don't want to do that and you want to say, no variance. My recommendation would be to them
to list it and put everyone of the solid little uses right in there. We come back in a year and say
that there's been no takers. Have I proven mY point? I'm not asking you to say, yes, in a year we'll
approve this thing. I think tonight I can tell you, if there's a concern about how many vegetables
Mr. Martindale might sellon 149, don't you think there's going to be a concern about how many children
are coming to the day care center, okay? We're arguing about whether he can bring sap to 149. Is
there going to be a concern about the health related facility there?
MRS. EGGLESTON-I find it hard to believe anybody would put a day care center that close to the road.
I mean, it's a permitted use, but their not going to do it. So, you're saying the permitted uses,
are, yes.
MR. MULLER-Okay. I agree with you, and so you've excluded it for me. So, I'm asking you, don't put
us to the proof and send us back a year from now saying, we offered it for sale and no takers, no one
in their right mind. A place of worship, nobody in Butternut Hill wants to see it as a church, but
it's permitted. Do you really thing we're going to sell it as a place of worship? You're saying that
we can sell it as a house. That's what you're saying, all right.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Okay, and I can only say to you that if you've come that far with me and excluded all of
these permitted uses and saying that they can sell it as a house, I offered Mrs. Marcy's opinion, which
I'm obliged to do, and Mrs. Marcy's dollars and cents that say, it can be done, but at a substantial
financial loss. That's what she's saying, and that's the dollars and cents proof of a hardship.
MR. CARR-And she's also saying, as I listened to the affidavit, is that no one wanted it for a house,
that she only showed it to people who were interested with another function attached to it. Wasn't
that in her affidavit?
26
~ì
,,-'
~,
MR. MULLER-It was. Is there any interest in glvlng the Rudolphs, I don't know if you do this anymore,
because it's not sound zoning, to give them a one year trial, to see if all of those obnoxious things
that people speculate will occur don't occur? Because I absolutely trust these people that it would
not occur, but we have no proving ground, here, I mean, none. I understand Mrs. Biletdoux's concern
about, well, when does the pool close, but, boy is that awkward. That is that, sir, you're in the
front bedroom and you're not allowed to swim after 10, and there goes Bob Rudolph with the towel and
the swim trunks at 10:15 because the pool's private after 10. That's absurd. That really is. So,
lets not impose that absurdity, but I just think that it's worthy of a vote, and we'll do as you think
best.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you know if the shop he's thinking about would be for, to build things to sell on
the property?
MR. MULLER-It can't be.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not supposed to be, but you know yourself, Mike, if things aren't stopped before
they start, once they get it all done, this Town seldom takes anything away from anybody, very seldom
says, tear that thing down. How many times have you ever seen, I mean, people build things, then they
get turned in and they come here, and I've never been on this Board, I heard them, once. We told a
man he had to tear a fence down. We've never told anybody, tear it down.
MR. MULLER-He didn't tear it down, did he?
MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think he did.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But, at any rate, it's very difficult.
MR. MULLER-These people have been courteous, in the sense that their criticism has not been personal.
So, I commend them for that, okay. The criticism has been directly on the project, and the Rudolphs
understand that. If you feel uncomfortable with it, shoot it down. I say this, though, in all honesty.
It would always be my advice to the Rudolphs, then, list it, show it, try to move it, because it will
demonstrate, it will prove the fact that Board just felt uncomfortable with. I feel comfortable with
it, and I say the other thing that you must be uncomfortable with is that it is going to annoy the
people in Butternut Hill or it's going to impact upon them, and I say, if that's the concern, give
it to them. In one year you've got to come back and we'll reevaluate it, and then we'll hear that
there was a wedding, that we lied to you, that Mr. Rudolph is building boats and selling them in his
workshop. We lied to you, that people are swimming at all hours of the night, hooting and hollering.
I don't suspect that to be the case. The other thing that I really ask you to rely on quite heavily
is that you all know, well, the older Board members know, that Mr. Eddy is a real task master when
it comes to the aesthetic aspects of these things and the impacts on the neighborhood and all that.
Here's one where he comes right in, square on it, and says, this is the way to protect and preserve
what's the best of Queensbury. The one thing that I was impressed about, Mrs. Rudolph's comment, was
that she's so proud of it she'd like to open it to the public. It's not going to be a museum. It's
going to be their home, but she'd like to have guests in to really see how special it is. That's a
nice way to welcome people to Queensbury, I think.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'd like to say for myself, I really, I don't have a problem with it. I think
it's a good place for Bed and Breakfast, myself, with the Balloon Festival and everything that's there.
I agree it would be hard to sell. I wouldn't want to live that close to the road, but I think for
the protection of the people in the back, if they would be happy with restrictions, would be my thoughts,
my feelings of no further rooms for lease, or don't go past the three bedrooms.
MR. TURNER-Stipulate that they can only have three bedrooms.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and frankly I've traveled, and it's not unknown to have signs all over the place,
the pool closes at 10 o'clock.
MR. CARR-I don't mind putting all those restrictions on.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't see that as, you think of that as maybe unreasonable or maybe.
MR. MULLER-No. I didn't think it was unreasonable. I was really being honest about, I'm saying, I
bet you if we're honest about it, we all know that we can't regulate that.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but you do see it in different parts of the country where you travel.
MR. MULLER-If you told us that, and the Rudolphs, in good spirit, abided by that, you all know that
when there's a kid out there swimming on the hottest night of the summer, and the noise is carrying
and it's 11:15, it's one of Mr. Rudolphs relatives.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But your own kids could be doing that in your pool in your own back yard. I mean, it's
kind of difficult, I realize, but, and weddings, with the economy the way it is, you're going to see
more weddings in people's back yards.
27
L
~
MR. CARR-I mean, wou1d a wedding be another function? Wou1dn't that be a commercia1 function, other
than a room?
MR. MULLER-We're not h01ding weddings there.
MR. CARR-But even so, I mean, Cris1ips, are they authorized to have weddings there?
MR. MULLER-Yes. You can have a wedding anywhere in this Town.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I wou1d think it's a persona1 thing.
MR. RUEl-I just wish to reiterate the fact to our good neighbors that I wou1d be death1y concerned
about any other use, besides a Bed and Breakfast. I am definite1y against a doctors office or anything
e1se that is permitted there, but odd1y enough a Bed and Breakfast is not permitted.
MR. TURNER-I guess what bothers me is it's a1ways been a residence. It's been nothing but a residence.
MR. CARR-Wait, and a boarding house.
MR. TURNER-Now, wait a minute, that's what they ~, but there's no factua1.
MR. CARR-But Marion Marcy said it in her affidavit.
MR. TURNER-Just that one particu1ar case, but it doesn't reiterate the other case. It doesn't say
anything about the other case.
MR. MULLER-Mrs. Cornett did not rent rooms.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-We are probab1y more impacted than anyone e1se.
MR. TURNER-You are, because you're across the road.
MR. RUEL-Because we're direct1y across the road.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I think I agree you wou1d be.
MR. TURNER-And Mr. Weaver owned it in the 1ate 70's unti1 the 80's, '82, and Mrs. Cornett owned it,
and now these people own it. They bought it as a residence, a11 of them. That's my argument. Prove
me wrong, you can't use it as zoned.
MR. MULLER-You do agree with me that our affidavit demonstrates that the Weavers had borders in there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Do you agree with that?
MR. TURNER-I don't know. I never knew them to have borders there.
MR. MULLER-Okay. Let me see if I can at 1east treat that, and that is that they had borders in there.
I have no persona1 know1edge of that. I have the sworn affidavit of Marion Marcy, and it's
uncontroverted. That is that nobody marched in here to say that that's not true, that that's tota11y
outrageous, that that's ridicu10us. I be1ieve it, but I have to admit, I have no first hand know1edge
of it. I don't think these peop1e have first hand know1edge. They were told that. It was actua11y
a difficu1t situation for us. I wou1d have 1iked to have brought Mrs. Weaver in here, but now I'll
be honest and te11 you that Mrs. Weaver, I was informed by the broker, wou1d be very re1uctant to admit
that she was financia11y in need to rent rooms, and she sure doesn't want you to hear it from her 1ips.
MR. CARR-Can I ask you a question. You knew Mrs. Weaver, did she have borders there?
MR. TOKARZ-Not that I knew of, not at the time that I knew her, but I became acquainted, I met Mrs.
Weaver in, probab1y, 1979 or 1980, when a friend of mine and I went over to her house, because he knew
her husband, Buck, persona11y, and at that time I became acquainted with her, and knew her and was
associated with her on1y unti1, I think she probab1y s01d it about '84. I'm not quite sure exact1y
when, but unti1 then. I haven't seen Mrs. Weaver more than a coup1e of times since then.
MR. CARR-So, Mike, when are you saying the borders were there?
MR. MULLER-They were there, it says so in the affidavit. They were there when Mr. Buck Weaver was
there, after he passed away, in the ear1y 1980's. Mrs. Weaver continued to a110w borders in there,
28
right up through the time that Mrs. Cornett bought it. Mrs. Cornett did not take any borders in.
All she ever did was express an intention to operate as a Bed and Breakfast and that's why we're here,
because she did not continue that.
MR. ARMY-I think everybody's missing the point. We do not want this house to be zoned for this job.
If you do this one, then you're going to have to say yes to somebody else next door, if they sell their
house.
MR. SICARD-Well, they've got one up there now, and I don't think we're looking at that one and bearing
any bearing on having on this one. This one happens, you happened to be close to this one.
MR. RUEL-That's right. We're close by.
MR. SICARD-But there's people up there that are close to that one.
MR. ARMY-We realize that.
MR. SICARD-I've been through that house just recently, and really it's kept up like, immaculate.
wish mine looked that way.
MR. CARR-And it's not necessari]y that one will lead to another, because there are special, I mean,
you have to look at the special circumstances.
MR. ARMY-We're looking at a special circumstance right now, and if you say yes. you're going to have
to have the same meeting, again, for somebody else that wants to do it.
MR. CARR-Who mayor may not have the same circumstances.
MR. ARMY-That mayor may not.
MR. CARR-And if they do have the same circumstances, they may be deserving of the variance. If they
don't. then they may not. I don't think that this application would open the flood gates in that.
MR. ARMY-I would hope not.
MR. CARR-I'm almost positive that it won't because I don't think there are that many homes up there
with circumstances as unique as this is.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you not think this would be a lot less negative on your neighborhood than some of
the other permitted uses there?
MR. ARMY-I don't know. The other permitted uses, don't think it would ever happen.
MR. CARR-Right, but that leads to a Use Variance. I mean, that's the exact thing for a Use Variance,
when it can't be used properly as it's zoned.
MR. ARMY-Unless they were to purchase some other property which we may not know may be going to happen
in the future. We don't know.
MR. CARR-What's that?
MR. ARMY-Maybe Charlie Main decides to sell his property. If they buy it, there's an opportunity.
MR. CARR-For what?
MR. ARMY-For them to expand.
MR. CARR-Well, they can only expand by coming back to this Board.
MR. ARMY-True, but Charlie Main's property is already zoned commercial, right? It's not?
MR. TURNER-It's SR.
MR. CARR-His is probably a preexisting, nonconforming. As soon as he sells it, it's gone.
MR. ARMY-It's gone? Okay. I didn't know that.
MR. CARR-Unless somebody comes in with the exact same business.
MR. TURNER-The same thing, and they've got 18 months to do that.
MR. ARMY-Okay. Well, those are things I'm not aware of. So, thank you.
29
'-
MR. CARR-Yes. No, that would revert back.
MR. ARMY-Thanks.
JUNE BURKE
MRS. BURKE-My name is June Burke and I have nothing to do with this. I live over on Dixon Road. I've
never been to a Zoning Board meeting, but sitting through what appears to be a filibuster, I just want
to tell you that I moved into this Town in 1977, and I've lived through all the changes on Dixon Road,
and one thing, and I've not wanted to open a business, but just as a homeowner, I have learned to come
up here in search of files. You wouldn't believe the maps I have of this Town, just through looking
at the growth of my own neighborhood. We have educated ourselves and come to your meetings, talked
about Dixon Heights, and about the duplexes, and as a Board, I just want you to expect that from your
constituents, or whatever we are. Don't let us put our money in our homes because it doesn't sound
right to approach it that way. Expect us to be smart. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak, for or against?
MRS. RUDOLPH-I guess I just wanted to say one more thing. I don't know if everybody understands what
a Bed and Breakfast is, and it's mostly people that stay the night, they have breakfast and they leave.
It's not anybody who stays, probably not a whole lot of people that would even want to swim. It's
mostly people that stay the night, have breakfast and leave. It's not a high impact business. It's
just, I don't think that there would be any change in the house, other than maybe a few more cars.
Nobody, I can almost guarantee there wouldn't be any more noise or people or anything. It's the kind
of thing that's what it says it is. It's a bed for sleeping, and it's breakfast and people leave.
We're not running an all day vacation center. I have no intentions of doing that, just basic Bed and
Breakfast. I don't intend to cook dinner or lunch or anything for anybody other than breakfast and
give them a clean bed to sleep in, and give them the history of the house and the history of Queensbury,
and hope that they go away happy and that they'll come back again, to stay for the night or for two
nights or whatever, and breakfast. It is not a resort. It is never going to be a resort. It is simply
a Bed and Breakfast.
MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. Balloon Festival, would you book them for the week?
MRS. RUDOLPH-I don't think people come for the week.
MR. TURNER-Yes, they do.
MRS. RUDOLPH-They do?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Well, I talked to Ned Crislip.
MR. TURNER-I know Bed and Breakfasts because I know the couple that live next to me opened one.
MRS. RUDOLPH-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Not here.
MRS. RUDOLPH-I talked to Ned Crislip who, again, just has limited space, and he said he's usually booked
up, and I don't know what that means, if that means for the whole week. If it is, then I guess it
would be for the whole week, but I don't intend to serve meals. I mean, if somebody comes for a Bed
and Breakfast, they sleep and they have breakfast and they go somewhere else during the day. Most
people that visit an area travel. They want to see the area. They don't want to hang around somebody's
house.
MR. TURNER-No. That's true. You're right.
GARY KOPP
MR. KOPP-My name's Gary Kopp. I was a real estate broker, coincidentally, with Marion Marcy for many
years, now in private home sales. My last two vacations I took, one was with my wife to Rockport,
to a Bed and Breakfast. Our intent was the ocean, romanticism, no television, no radio, which, I don't
know if they're going to provide or not, but by enlarge they don't provide that. It doesn't make for
a raucous weekend. It makes for a romantic, quiet weekend. I just got back from Encinada and Catalina
with my daughter who's graduated from college and we wanted to celebrate. We had a hell of a time.
We drank a little champagne, we had a great time, and that's where we wanted to go. I would have never
gone to a Bed and Breakfast with her, nor for the quiet romantic weekend would I have gone to Catalina
with my wife. The intent, I think, there's a little confusion, here. There's a little confusion about
what the intent of a Bed and Breakfast is, and I think Mrs. Rudolph just, I just want to emphasize
30
what she said.
quiet weekend.
Thank you.
I think anybody who's been to a Bed and Breakfast knows what the intent is. It's a
It's a get away. It's breakfast in bed. that type of thing. and not pool after 11.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
MR. TOKARZ-I had a couple of questions. I had two questions of the Rudolphs and Mr. Muller. The first
being, Mrs. Rudolph, have you ever worked for Mrs. Marcy in her business? You have? Okay, and the
second question is, was Mrs. Marcy the broker or salesperson when you purchased your house?
MRS. RUDOLPH-She was not the salesperson. She was the broker.
MR. TOKARZ-She was the broker. I think those two things, in themselves, tend to discredit Mrs. Marcy's
statement and affidavit, in that, should she have sold this piece of property under false pretenses.
I think she has to cover herself, and I think maybe she's doing that, but I think you should take that
into consideration also.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MULLER-I don't wish to filibuster it. You get your witnesses from people who know the facts.
I had only one broker who listed the house twice, and represented both sellers, Weaver and Cornett.
So, I don't think Mrs. Marcy's covering anything. If I had gotten a broker who had never been in the
house and never sold the house and never listed it at all, certainly they would have not had a conflict,
but they wouldn't have had any knowledge, either. I'd just like to vote. We won't filibuster it.
We'll live with your vote. If you need restrictions on us, tell us what they are. If you want to
put a time limitation to evaluate us, fine. If you want to knock it down, that's okay, too, but you
know what our approach would be, that is it's no intents, well, fine. we'll straighten this out in
the Supreme Court, not at all. We're going to go back and prove these facts. We'll list it and come
back, after a ghastly year or two, and show you that it didn't sell.
MR. TURNER-Last time around. Anyone else wish to speak?
ELEANOR VILLAJUAN
MRS. VILLAJUAN-Hi. 1'm Eleanor Villajuan, for the record, and I live over on Butternut Hill. This
is the first time that I'm going to speak in public. This is also the first time that I came to one
of your meetings. I want to tell you all that I appreciate, and I know everybody here, especially
my neighbors, appreciate the fact that you are very diligent in going about your business about the
zoning. I cannot be as eloquent as the other people, especially with Mr. Muller, here, but we bought
our property, just like Mr. Turner said, because of the quiet, because we know the value will increase
as years go by, and as Mr. Turner reiterated, over and over again, this is not what it is intended
to be. It is not zoned that way. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
DR. BATT-I'm Dr. Batt of Butternut Hill. I'd like to say something in defense of Mrs. Weaver, Mr.
and Mrs. Weaver. They were very dear friends of ours, and never, at any time, did we see signs of
a border at their house. We heard there were borders there, but we never heard them or saw them, nor
did we ever see an automobile that they used. That's my personal observation.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Okay. The public hearing's closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any discussion? What's your thoughts?
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you've heard mine and yours. What's Charlie's and Fred's?
MR. TURNER-To me, they haven't proven the fact. Charlie, it's been sold, three times, three times
it's been sold residential.
MR. SICARD-I've been thinking about the sale. 1'm one of the few that goes up Main Street and Corinth
Road, and I see. every day there's a new one up for sale, and you know how close they are to the road.
You do, too. I think they're closer than this one.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SICARD-Some of those houses have been sold three times in the last six months, and prices are coming
down. and you know how close they are. I can visualize this one being the same way. I think, like
Counsel says, if we, we've tried it before. with many times, for a period of time and Wayne Mechanic.
and I can name them all, and some of them didn't turn out too well, and we turned down a few, and we've
moved a few houses, in my time, in Twicwood. We've moved a house in Twicwood back about 28 feet.
31
I was afraid to go home that night, but we did it. I say if we have a problem there, certainly, I
woul d want the peace and quiet these people want, but I'm not sure whether they'd have it. I go by
this other place on Ridge Road and it seems just like a very nice house to me, and I took the opportunity
to stop and go through it here awhile ago. If they're going to have weddings and stuff like that,
I'm going to be right out front leading the band to not renew it the next year, and we've done that
many times. We haven't done it of late, but we've done it back, I don't know if it's legal or not,
but I remember doing it. We did it to Wayne Mechanic, and they cleaned it up. They had a problem,
and we cleaned it up, really, and it's still cleaned up.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you'd be in favor of doing it with the restrictions that it doesn't expand, and
have a time limit?
MR. SICARD-I would like to have a time limit. I think if there's any noise there we're certainly going
to hear about it, and I would want to hear about it, and God bless it when they came back to get that
renewal, they wouldn't get it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think that's fair.
MR. SICARD-And I think it's fair. We seem to be on the fence. There's pros and cons to this thing.
I, for one, am for living in a quiet neighborhood. If you're going to pay a lot of money for a house,
it's because you've looked at it and you've looked at a lot of others you've finally come down on this
one and that's the way you should have it, but by the same token, this is a house that's rather unusual.
It's got all the ear marks of people that are going to take care of it well. I go by there real often,
and I think they're going to continue to take care of it, and if they know that in a year, these people
come up, all we've got to do is have one or two complaints, and that'll take care of it, and we just
can forget about it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That sounds fair.
MR. TURNER-Fred?
MR. CARVIN-I guess the one year limitation is a fair compromise, and, again, I kind of side with a
lot of the folks, here, that this is a residential area, and do disagree with Mr. Muller, that sometimes
you just can't take things on an individual basis, because there is a cumulative effect. I am unclear
as to who can start a Bed and Breakfast. I mean, can I just all of a sudden say, I've got a couple
of extra rooms, and now I want to start a Bed and Breakfast?
MR. SICARD-Well, I think anyone can start one, and if they come before a Board that takes into
consideration what this Board takes into consideration, and goes down and looks at the place and
everything else, and we know the place, I think, probably, they'd turn you down, but I don't think
there's any law that says you can't start it, no matter if you want to put a store in the middle of
a cemetery, you can start anything. You can go out and dig a whole in somebody's lawn until you get
stopped, but I'm a firm believer in something like this, to give it a try, and God knows I'll be watching
it as much as anybody. I'll be the first to complain, long before the year is up. They won't hardly
get going before the year is up.
MR. CARVIN-Are you in a position to get started within the next few months? If we put a year limitation
on this thing, how does that effect advertising? I mean, we may be very gracious in allowing you a
year, but I mean how does that effect your?
MRS. RUDOLPH-We could start in a year.
MR. MULLER-One year from today would be perfect. They could start tomorrow, although no one would
be there.
MR. CARVIN-Well, you'd indicated maybe a maximum usage of 25, 30 percent of the time, anyway.
MR. MULLER-Right, but the year would start, when you say, today, and there would be no one there.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Marie?
MRS. PALING-Yes. I would go along with the restrictions.
MR. TURNER-My observation is that it's a Suburban Residential. Single Family is the dominant use,
and although there's one a quarter of a mile down the road, and we entertained it and we passed it.
MR. SICARD-I've been watching that one for parking in the road. I did see parking in the road once,
and it was on that wedding that they had down there.
MR. TURNER-Well, this one's almost 10 years ago, and times have changed in 10 years, and I think there's
a nice subdivision in the back. There's a lot of nice houses on the road. There's some businesses
there, but the businesses were there long before zoning came along, many of them.
32
MR. SICARD-Well, we've got a hospita1 down there. We were concerned about the dogs barking and
everything, and we watched that one pretty c1ose, too, the Anima1 Hospita1. and it's not comparab1e.
but it's just one of those things that cou1d be very bad. There cou1d be a 10t of noise around there,
but you can stop and ta1k to the peop1e around there and they've restrained that.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but on the other side of the coin, they bought it as a residence. They paid for it
as a residence. They're using it as a residence. They're getting a reasonab1e return. They haven't
proved their case, to me. Okay. Motion's in order, if the discussion's a11 over.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 20-1992 ROBERT AND CAROLYN RUDOLPH, Introduced by Bruce Carr who
moved for its adoption. seconded by Char1es Sicard:
With stipu1ations. The first stipu1ation wou1d be that this variance wi11 be reviewed and sUbject
to revocation one year from tonight, or at the nearest meeting to it. The second stipu1ation wou1d
be that it is the intent, with the granting of this variance, that there wou1d be no expansion ever.
The third stipu1ation wou1d be that the proprietors of the estabHshment restrict the use of the po01
by the guests between the day1ight hours. The app1icant has demonstrated that the use of this property
strict1y as sing1e fami1y residence may not be appropriate due to its 10cation on the property, the
street on which it fronts, and the past use of the bui1ding, a10ng with the number of bedrooms 10cated
in the residence. The app1icant has further demonstrated that the other a110wab1e uses of this premises,
other than sing1e fami1y residentia1, wou1d not be practica1 for the property, and wou1d a1so have
a more severe impact in the neighborhood. The granting of this variance wou1d not be detrimenta1 to
the purposes of the Sing1e Fami1y Residentia1 One Acre Zone, in Hght of the 10cation of this bui1ding
on a State highway. A review of the Short Environmenta1 Assessment Form indicates that there wou1d
be no adverse environmenta1 impact. Signage wou1d be 1imited to the mai1box.
Du1y adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Pa1ing, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Sicard
NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (10:53 p.m.)
USE VARIANCE NO. 22-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 LI-lA RICHARD RooGE C*NER: FLOYD AND MARGARET
BARNES FELD AVEflUE FOR CONSTRUCTIOrt OF A SIJI&LE FAMILY RESIIEJlCE ON 1110 LOTS. 0fIE LOT IS ZONED UR-I0
AND ONE LOT IS ZONED LI-lA. A SIJI&LE FAMILY RESIIEJlCE IS NOT ALUIIIED Irt AN LI-A ZONE AND A 50 FOOT
BUFFER ZONE IS RE~IRED. TAX MP NO. 117-9-10, 11 LOT SIZE: 7,300± SQ. FT. SECTION 179.72, 179.26
GARY KOPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:53 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Use Variance No 22-1992, Richard Rogge, March 17, 1992, Meeting
Date: March 18, 1992 "The app1icant is requesting a variance to uti1ize an UR-I0 10t and an LI-IA
10t to construct a sing1e fami1y residentia1 house on. This appHcation was reviewed with regard to
the Use Variance criteria: 1. Is a reasonab1e return possib1e if the 1and is used as zoned? The
10ts are preexisting and nonconforming and wou1d have to be combined with other parce1s to be used
as zoned. 2. Are the circumstances of this 10t unique and not due to the unreasonab1eness of the
Ordinance? Yes. The 10ts are ±115 ft. by ± 40 ft. each. They are rectangu1ar and without combining
them no Hsted use is possib1e. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? No.
This is a sing1e fami1y residentia1 neighborhood. The on1y industria1 use is the Canada Dry BottHng
Co. which will not be affected."
MR. KOPP-In Rick Rogge's stead, my name is Gary Kopp, a friend and emp10yee of Rick Rogge. He's unab1e
to attend this evening. I do have authorization. I won't be1abor what's a1ready been said. These
two adjoining 10ts have been offered for sa1e on the active market for quiet a whi1e, both to Curtis
Lumber to the 1eft, facing the road, and to the residentia1 party on the right. It's been offered
for sa1e. There have been no takers. The best possib1e use of the 10ts is to be combined for one
residentia1.
MR. TURNER-Is it going to be a stick bui1t. or modu1ar or?
MR. KOPP-Our intention is modu1ar home, approximate1y 26 by 44, maximum.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we need a different authorization to act as agent, Ted?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
33
MR. KOPP- I can gi ve that to you if you'd 1 i ke. I have a faxed copy. I can get you an origi na 1 if
that's necessary.
MR. TURNER-Yes. We have to have it for the file.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Now, it says the present use of the property is vacant. Is there not a house on there,
or am I in the wrong?
MR. KOPP-You're in the wrong, there's a fire hydrant there, and that's it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I drove to the end of the street, and our directions said, on the left hand side.
MR. KOPP-Right hand side.
MRS. EGGLESTON-End of road on the left. That's our directions on this.
MR. KOPP-You'll have to excuse me, because I've been thrown in at the Eleventh hour, here, obviously.
Rick is in Pennsylvania.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Go down Western, turn left on Columbia, left onto Feld and the property is at the end
of the road on the left, and there's a house there. So, I was confused as to what.
MR. KOPP-It's my understanding that the property is on the right hand side by the fire hydrant.
MRS. EGGLESTON-There was a fire hydrant across the street.
MR. KOPP-Yes, as indicated on your map.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. TURNER-You've got a survey map right on, it just circles where it is, that's all. The survey map
just has the general location, that's all.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And is this going to be rental property the Rogges are going to put on there?
MR. KOPP-No. We're going to offer it for sale, with our modular homes, in other words, as a package,
the home and the land.
MR. CARR-So, you aren't going to build on it until you sell it, basically?
MR. KOPP-Correct.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think my concern is, this is in the same neighborhood where the Reverend has been
trying to sell those houses for so long, and we've had so many problems on that he just came back and
turned into duplexes. It just appears not much sells in that area.
MR. CARR-Well, the good thing about this, though, is the applicant's aware that it is single residences,
and they aren't building it until they get a buyer.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Is sold.
MR. KOPP-Exactly. There will be no spec.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And what price range will be in, the modulars.
MR. KOPP-Depending on size of home and options involved in the interior of the home.
MR. SICARD-Will that have full basement.
MR. KOPP-Once again, we have the option of doing it on a slab, doing it in a crawl space, or doing
it in a full basement.
MR. SICARD-Either or.
MR. KOPP-Yes. Sure. I think the neighborhood lends itself upwards to $60 to $65,000, will be maximum.
MR. CARVIN-Are there any restrictions about how close they can be to each other? I mean, will the
lot satisfy any of those requirements, if there are any?
MR. TURNER-The setbacks are proposed right here on the application. Look on the sheet.
MR. CARVIN-In other words, I know there was a house, okay, on the right.
34
MR. TURNER-The side yard proposed setback's 15 to 18 feet, and the front yard is 35 feet, and the rear
yard is 44 feet.
MR. SICARD-They could just about get it in there.
MR. TURNER-Just about.
MR. KOPP-And the home to the right, as you face the proposed site, is already encroaching on your
guidelines right now. You're around nine feet from the line.
MR. SICARD-And you don't construct unless they're sold.
MR. KOPP-That's correct. No speculative building at all.
MR. SICARD-It's nothing that's going to sit there for six months or a year.
MR. KOPP-Lets hope not.
MR. TURNER-Is' this variance going to give you the option to buy the lot to do what you want with it,
if it doesn't fly, then you don't buy it?
MR. KOPP-Right. The offer is contingent upon approval for a building site, from the Barnes family.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO CO_NT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIArtCE NO. 22-1992 RICHARD ROGGE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
And grant the applicant his request to construct a single family residential house on the property.
The lot is preexisting and nonconforming, and by not allowing this variance, it would deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of the property, or to show a reasonable return from the property.
I don't believe there would be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character because it's a single
family neighborhood and the applicant has demonstrated their intent to build a single family residence.
Further, there is no neighborhood opposition, and public utilities would not be effected. The Short
EAF shows no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (11:06 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 LI-lA RICHARD ROGGE (liNER: FLOYD ArtD MARGARET
BARNES FELD AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMn Y RESIDENCE ON lVO LOTS. PREEXISTING LOTS ARE
TOO SMLL BECAUSE OF IIJFFER ZORE RE~IREŒNTS ArtD SIDE YARD SETBACKS. TAX MP NO. 117-9-10, 11 LOT
SIZE: 7,300± SQ. FT. SECTION 179.72, 179.26
GARY KOPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (11:06 p.m.)
STA.FF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 23-1992, Richard Rogge, March 17, 1992, Meeting
Date: March 18, 1992 "The applicant requires a variance from the 50 foot buffer zone requirement
when differing zones abut each other. 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 practical difficulty is the ±114 ft. by ±40 ft. lots which
there is not sufficient room for a buffer, even without development. 2. Is this is minimum variance
necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which
would require no variance? Yes. There are no other options. 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 effects of the variance on public facilities and services?
35
,-
None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty?
Yes."
MR. TURNER-I don't want to belabor the application. It's self explanatory, and I think we can move
it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It actually goes with the use.
MR. TURNER-Right. It goes with the use and they couldn't use it if they couldn't get any relief from
it. It would be unbuildable.
MR. CARR-Is that a motion, Mr. Turner?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
tl)TION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1992 RICHARD ROGGE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
The practical difficulty is that the lots are diminutive in size and that there's not sufficient room
for a buffer, even without development, and this is the minimum variance to alleviate the specific
practical difficulty. There are no effects on public facilities and services. The Short EAF shows
no environmental impact.
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Shea (11:11 p.m.)
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
January 22nd, 1992: Page 1, seventh line up from the bottom, Mr. Turner is speaking, you stored personal
vehicles in your, "garage" should be added; Page 10, third line up from where it says, Motion to Approve
Use Variance, Mr. Turner is speaking, Isn't it a fact also that some of your work takes you out of
town "and you're gone for some time" should be added
MOTION TO APPROVE JANUARY 22J1D, 1992 MIIllTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carvin
ABSENT: Mr. Shea
January 30th, 1992: NONE
IIJTION TO APPROVE MIJllTES OF JAJlJARY 30TH, 1992, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling
ABSENT: Mr. Shea
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
36