2005-01-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HAYES-I want to announce that Area Variance No. 3-2005, John and Kathleen Salvador has
been pulled from tonight’s meeting.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2005 SEQRA TYPE II GERALD A. KILLEEN AGENT(S):
MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S): GERALD A. KILLEEN
ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 15 FOREST LANE, CORNER LOT (NORTH & FOREST
LANE) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE THE EXISTING DWELLING AND INSTALL A
FULL BASEMENT WITH A 288 SQ. FT. ONE-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQIUREMENTS AND FROM THE ZONING CODE
CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2004-753 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT
SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-57 (SHORELINE COLONY SUBDIVISION)
SECTION 179-13-010(A1, E), 179-4-030
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2005, Gerald A. Killeen, Meeting Date: January 26, 2005
“Project Location: 15 Forest Lane, corner lot (North & Forest Lane) Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to raise the existing dwelling and install a full basement with a 288
sq. ft. one-car garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.7 feet of relief from the 30-foot
minimum front setback requirement, and 10.2 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side
setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is required from
the zoning code Continuation requirements, per § 179-13-010 (A1 and E). Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-753: pending this application, new foundation
and basement with a one-car garage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to raise the
existing dwelling and construct a full basement, which includes a 288 sq. ft. one-car garage. The
new dwelling height is proposed to be one to two feet higher than the existing, but still below
the 28-foot maximum height allowed in the WR-1A zone. The applicant proposes to reconstruct
the existing deck on the west side of the dwelling resulting in the request for front and side
setback relief greater than the dwelling itself, which would only require minimal front setback
relief. The footprint of the dwelling and deck once reconstructed will be the same as the
existing. Being the dwelling is part of an approved subdivision (Shore Colony), which was
approved prior to 11/23/92, the Forest Lane frontage is considered the only front yard of the
corner lot. The north side of the dwelling (fronting on North Lane) and the south side of the
dwelling are considered the side yards subject to the 20-foot minimum side setback
requirement.”
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
12, 2005 Project Name: Killeen, Gerald A. Owner(s): Gerald A. Killeen Project ID Number:
QBY-05-AV-8 County Project#: Jan05-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to raise the existing dwelling and install
a full basement with a 288 sq. ft. one-car garage. Relief requested from the front and side yard
setback requirements and from the zoning code continuation requirements. Project Location:
15 Forest Lane, corner lot (North & Forest Lane) Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-1-57 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a full basement under an existing dwelling
with a portion being a garage. The new construction will be located 21.3 ft. from one front and
35.9 ft. from a second front where 30 ft. is required, then 9.8 ft. from one side where 20 ft. is
required. The information submitted shows the existing dwelling and the elevations of the
proposed dwelling. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board
Recommendation: No Action Meeting cancelled due to inclement weather. No January
Meeting to be held.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board January 14,
2005.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am within the 500 feet. My home is within the 500
foot notification area, in this application. However, it should have no bearing on any decision
that I might render this evening.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from
the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Mr. Killeen and his wife is here in
the audience, and also with us is Gary Hughes who helped draft the plans. This is, I think, a
very simple application. It’s an existing house. They wish to raise the house so that they can
have a full basement and so that they also can create a garage. They did look at alternatives, so
that they would avoid the requirement of a variance and they did not find any practical
solutions. In fact, when they first came in, they had a two car garage. They were proposing a
two car garage underneath, and that would have required a variance for the Floor Area Ratio
because the garage is considered part of the habitable part of the house. So they scaled that
back when we said that, you know, that’s a variance they would need. If they move the house
to be compliant, and you’re basically talking about moving it further back toward the back of
the lot, it might effect their septic and their well that they presently have on the property, but it
would also cost them about 25% more, simply to have the house raised and moved. They have
a proposal from Larman House Movers and the proposal is that to raise the house, excavate for
the basement area, and then to lower the house after another contractor actually puts in the
foundation is like $12,800. He estimates, although he hasn’t given a clear quote, that there
would be an additional $2500 due if they were to raise the house and move it laterally one way
or another. So we think that we have some practical difficulty. We think that we have no
impact. I did, when I prepared this, misread the prints. Technically I misread the prints. The
total house will be four feet eight inches higher than what it presently is, but if you measure it
from the way that we measure a house from the finished grade, it would probably be the same
of what it is. What they are going to do, in order to have a gradual incline to go down into the
basement for the garage, they basically are going to only have the garage, excavated, if you will,
about four and a half feet, and then they’re going to build up the front yard, and slope it toward
the cellar wall so that they have a full height basement. The total house won’t be in excess of
the 28 feet that’s provided for. It’s not an area that requires a variance, but I just want the
record to be clear, as to exactly what they’re doing, and if you looked at Page Four of the prints
that were put in, that would show you, and there is a little difference in the information that’s
shown on the building prints, but again, when we took this in, I said that in order to be able to
complete the application and do it the way that we typically do, we would need an actual
survey, and when they surveyed it, you’ll notice the survey is the actual physical
measurements, and they’re a little bit different than what was estimated by scale or by
presuming where the boundaries were. So what we’re looking for is a variance, two Area
Variances. One is on the south line. We are 9.8 feet from the south line. We will be 9.8 feet
from the south line, and we’re looking for a variance of 10 feet 2, and from Forest Lane, the deck
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
presently is 21.3 feet, and it will be 21.3 feet when we’re done. So we’re looking for a variance
of 8 feet, 7 inches from Forest Lane. I understand what Staff has said about North Lane. I
learned something, but I understand what they’ve said, that we would not need a variance from
North Lane. That would be considered a side yard, but it doesn’t really make a difference. We
comply anyway, even if it were a front yard. That’s basically what we’re doing.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. BRYANT-Under the house, what do you have, I mean, is that a crawl space or partial
basement?
GERALD KILLEEN
MR. KILLEEN-Yes, it’s a four foot crawl space, four to five feet, crawl space foundation.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and your survey shows the well but doesn’t show the septic system. Is it
right behind the house?
MR. KILLEEN-It’s in the front of the house. The septic system’s in the front of the house.
MR. BRYANT-In the front of the house.
MR. KILLEEN-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to verify in my mind a couple three points here. The footprint, and
you made that point, Mr. O’Connor. The footprint is identical, including the deck, to what
exists now.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. The only question I had I guess, even, Mr. Killeen’s stoop. Are you
going to put that stoop back on?
MR. KILLEEN-That was our intent, to put the existing stoop back on.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Then it would be identical.
MR. BRYANT-It’s identical. Okay, and then as far as the height, you do fall within the normal
guidelines. I think they’re around 23 feet, give or take a few, and finally, have you done
anything to look at the structure of the house? I mean, when you get into raising the house, are
we going to have an issue that, well, we’re going to tear down the house because it’s not going
to be suitable, or, in your mind the house is structurally sound and you’re going to be able to
move it without coming back later on and saying, we’ve got to build a whole new house.
MR. KILLEEN-My feeling is the house is structurally sound. I had Larman House Movers look
at the project, and they indicated to me they felt it was not a problem at all to do what we’re
proposing to do.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because we have had a couple of cases in recent months where they’ve
gotten variances to do some reconstruction, and then ended up tearing down the whole house.
So we just don’t want to get into that in this case, because it looks clear cut, as long as it’s a
raising and not a reconstruction.
MR. O’CONNOR-We have an actual written proposal from Larman, which I don’t think they
would make if they inspected the property.
MR. KILLEEN-Yes. They came and saw the property, and said it’s not a problem. They’ve
simply got to lift it and then put it back down, and the house is structurally sound as is.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and having been involved in that kind of situation before, it’s a lot easier
to just lift the house, build a foundation, than it is to move it a couple of feet.
MR. KILLEEN-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-Because, and that’s where you do have problems with stress on the building and
so forth and so on. Okay. Those are all my questions.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Question on this one, the map. It says 29.3 feet.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s to the house.
MR. STONE-That’s to the house, okay, because it just ends.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that’s an eight foot by twelve foot deck, so I subtracted the eight feet
from it.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. O’CONNOR-Just for the record.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. STONE-What about the boat shed, is that going to stay?
MR. KILLEEN-It is my intent to keep the boat shed, unless there was some reason. I did check
with the Town of Queensbury originally. They viewed it as a temporary facility, and said I may
use it. Unless somebody tells me I may not, then it’s my intent to continue to use it.
MR. STONE-Because I know we did have, I don’t know what the rules are. We did have one
over on Cleverdale, two, three, four years ago, where the guy was right on the line, and he was
made to take it down. I guess you’ve got enough clearance from the east line to make it an
accessory structure type thing, I think.
MR. HAYES-Is that it, Lew?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open
the public hearing. Would anyone like to come forward and speak on this application? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think there is. Yes, there is.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-It looks like we’ve got one piece of correspondence from a David Wilcox. He
says, “As a seasonal neighbor of the Killeen residence, I support the proposed project at 15
Forest Lane, Assembly Point. The footprint of the completed improvements will be no greater
than the existing structure. The addition of a garage, while adding living space, will provide
the owners an opportunity to park a vehicle off the street, thereby improving the visual impact
on the neighborhood. Let me address the specific relief requested. Front and side yard setback
requirements. The project will not reduce the amount of setback that currently exists. The
existing setback is visually consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. Zoning Code
Continuation Requirements. I understand that this relief is requested relative to the existing
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
deck (porch) on the western side of the house. Apparently, for construction purposes, the deck
will be removed during the process of raising the existing dwelling and that a variance is
required in order to reinstall the deck. No change in the size of the deck is proposed. Also, I
understand from a conversation with a Town staff member that if the construction proposal
included raising the deck along with the dwelling (and not removing it), that no variance would
be required. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, as a neighbor of the subject property, I
recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the requested relief. Sincerely, David H.
Wilcox” And that’s it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. If there’s no one else, then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. STONE-Bruce, will this trigger septic alterations, bringing it up to Code?
MR. FRANK-That’s really a question for Building and Codes. I don’t believe so, because the
area for the garage is considered in the Floor Area Ratio, but it’s not living space as far as New
York State Building Code requires an update of a septic system. Of course, I’m not the Director
of Building and Codes. So I can’t give you a 100% accurate answer.
MR. O’CONNOR-That hasn’t been indicated to us. I didn’t do the pre-application interview.
Mr. Killeen did.
MR. KILLEEN-It was never brought up. I did do the pre-application. Nobody ever brought up
that issue.
MR. FRANK-Should he need some, when they apply for the building permit, I’m sure Mr.
Hatin would let him know, but
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-The other thing I would say, just for your record, I did speak to County Staff,
and their recommendation to the Board was going to be No County Impact. I think their
meeting got cancelled because of weather.
MR. HAYES-We have one other piece of correspondence. So I’ll re-open the public hearing for
a moment.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-I found one piece that I overlooked. This one’s from Christopher Navitsky,
the Lake George Water Keeper. He says, I’ve reviewed the application for the variance request
for the above referenced project and would like to offer the following for the record. 1. There
was no information provided for the possibility of additional wasteflows from the proposed
expansion of the residence. If no information on the existing on-site wastewater system is
available, a condition of approval for the project should be an evaluation of the existing on-site
wastewater system. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals to continue to protect Lake George. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Christopher Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Water Keeper”
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. Who was that from?
MR. MC NULTY-The Lake George Water Keeper.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-What does the Lake George Water Keeper do for a living? What’s his job title, I
mean, what’s his job description?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have his job description here.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m trying to figure out why the Water Keeper would be involved in an
application like this. Maybe I’m missing something. Help me out, guys.
MR. FRANK-It’s in the Lake George Drainage Basin.
MR. STONE-It’s in the Basin.
MR. FRANK-So he works for the Fund For Lake George.
MR. STONE-He comments on things, construction in the Basin.
MR. ABBATE-Is the Lake George Water Keeper a lobbying group? Just out of curiosity.
MR. STONE-I don’t know whether you would consider it.
MR. FRANK-They’re a watchdog.
MR. STONE-He’s an advocate for the lake.
MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-All right. Well, I guess it’s time to poll the Board members, and we’ll start right in
order with.
MR. BRYANT-Before you start, Mr. Chairman. I have a comment, it’s troubling me, relative to
Mr. Stone’s comment. If you recall, when Mr. Stone was Chairman, and there was an
application on West Mountain Road, and I was clearly identified as a resident living 500 feet
away from the project, it was upon his insistence that I recuse myself, and I don’t think that this
is any different. The fact is that Mr. Stone lives within 500 feet and he’s directly affected by this
application. He should recuse himself.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that was going to be my comment as well. He stole my thunder from me.
Mr. Stone indicated it would affect the application, but there’s always the perception of
impropriety and the perception in itself should be sufficient to recuse oneself for public
relations, if nothing else.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll argue the opposite direction. Any of us have got a conflict of interest
because we live in the Town.
MR. BRYANT-We’re not talking about apples and apples. We’re talking about 500 feet from a
project that directly affects the application. We’re not talking about living in the Town, okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Stone is not affected monetarily.
MR. BRYANT-Because I live in the Town, that means this project directly affects me. That’s not
what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an individual who lives within the normal
notification range of the project, and that was clear, and I agreed with Mr. Stone during the
application on West Mountain Road and I recused myself, because it did directly affect me.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
This project directly affects Mr. Stone. He lives within 500 feet of the project. So you can’t have
it both ways.
MR. ABBATE-And you talk about consistency. There’s not consistency here. We can’t say it’s
no for this guy and yes for somebody else.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t remember the other project being referred to.
MR. STONE-I don’t, either.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I can be very specific. It was the Hayes project. It was on West Mountain
Road. I can be very specific.
MR. HAYES-All right. That’s true. So far you’re completely accurate. I remember it well.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. However, conflict of interest applies to monetary.
MR. ABBATE-No, it doesn’t.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, it does. You look up the law. Obviously, if Mr. Stone or someone else
felt that they would have a problem making an impartial decision, they should recuse
themselves, but as far as the requirement goes, it’s monetary.
MR. BRYANT-That’s a great point. Why didn’t you come up with that point during the other
application?
MR. ABBATE-When Mr. Stone indicated, demanded that he recuse himself.
MR. BRYANT-This is a logical thing. It’s within the notification range. I think that it’s only fair
to be consistent, and Mr. Stone should recuse himself for this application.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I think you’re on record with your objections.
MR. BRYANT-Fine, that’s all I wanted.
MR. HAYES-And I think that that certainly is your right, and as our other Board members in
this particular case, Mr. Stone has to make that decision himself and live with the consequences
and I guess he’s prepared to do that.
MR. BRYANT-Well, actually the Town lives with the consequences.
MR. HAYES-That may be true. I agree with you, but I think we need to move on with the
application here before we get too sidetracked.
MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we’re back to Lew, if you’re still speaking, but it’s your turn.
MR. STONE-Well, I am speaking. I think this is a reasonable application. I have no idea, first of
all, it doesn’t affect me in any way, shape or form. I can’t see the house. Technically, I am
within 500 feet as the crow flies, but the crows aren’t flying today when the leaves are off the
tree and I still can’t see the house. So it has absolutely no effect on my house or my wife, who
was the person who was notified, or myself. I think it’s a reasonable project. The house sits
there. The fact that it’s going to be slightly higher. It’s going to be the same house, as I can read
this thing. I think it’s a good project, and I, for one, would have absolutely no problem in
approving this variance.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Urrico.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Mr. Stone. I think it’s a good project. I think it will
have minimal impact and a positive result to the applicant. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Basically I agree with what’s been said. Relative to the three points that I made
early on during the questioning period, the fact that the building is in the same footprint that
exists, the fact that the height is not going to go above the guidelines, and the fact that we’re
reasonably assured that this is a renovation and not a reconstruction, I’d go along with the
project also.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, Number One, we had a neighbor who was in favor of the
application. The application itself, based on the information I have, I considered to be
reasonable. I don’t consider it to be substantial. The Staff notes indicate that it’s well below the
maximum height limit. They also indicate that it would only require minimal front setback
relief, and it’s going to be on the same footprint. What would I do if I were the applicant?
Exactly what he’s doing now, and I would support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d be in agreement with everyone else. I think this maintains the
original intent of the Shore Colony subdivision. We’ve had previous applications that have
tried to greatly alter from what’s there, and I think this one maintains the cottage like nature of
the building. The increase in the height of the building is going to be minimal, and obviously
it’s not going to count as living space down there with the cellar only being four feet above
grade. So, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with what’s been said. It’s the simple fact that the building’s going
to be in the same footprint wouldn’t totally sway me, but that in combination with the fact that I
don’t see any real impact with the way the building is sitting now, raising it a little bit is not
going to make any difference. So I think, again, it’s a reasonable project, and doing the
balancing test, the balance, I think, falls to the benefit of the applicant, with very little detriment,
if any, to the neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I’ll agree with the rest of the Board, but I just simply think that,
upon examination, there is no impact, and therefore the only thing that’s left on the balancing
test is the benefit to the applicant, and a reasonable one at that. So I’m certainly in favor of it.
Having said that, would someone like to make a motion, please.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, the Zoning Administrator wanted me to request of the Board that,
in the resolution, should you move to approve, and you are, that you put that, should
something happen for that structure, where it’s not able, should it need to be demolished, that
this approval goes away and they have to come back for additional relief.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Bryant did mention that, but I wanted to wait until the end.
MR. ABBATE-Good point.
MR. FRANK-And nothing to do with Mr. Killeen. Every applicant that comes before this Board
requesting similar relief, and what’s happened in the past, which Mr. Bryant made reference to,
is why he’s questioning is. It’s got nothing to do with Mr. Killeen.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. O’CONNOR-Does that mean that in the past when a house, for some reason unbeknownst
to the owner, was not able to be modified, didn’t need a second variance, and that’s why you’re
adding this condition now?
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, why are you asking questions?
MR. FRANK-You could also make it more specific.
MR. O’CONNOR-Because I think that’s surplus. I have argued this ruling before, and I think
the position of Staff has been that if you come in and ask for a variance to modify an existing
house, and you later replace that house, you need a new variance. That’s the position of Staff,
and that’s the way that they’ve ruled upon applications. They’ve ruled upon building permits
and everything else that comes along with them.
MR. BRYANT-We just had an Appeal, though, last meeting or the meeting before, about that
same thing, arguing that ruling.
MR. O’CONNOR-I did one last month, two months. I did one in December, and I came back
and got a second variance.
MR. STONE-That’s correct. That’s correct, but there was some confusion over a previous
determination made by this Board that we, in one sense, tried to adjust.
MR. O’CONNOR-Again, I think you look at applications by the applications, and you don’t
create regulations that aren’t in our Ordinance.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, actually, what he wanted you to state, he’s requesting from the
Board, would you state in the condition that this is for the reconstruction. It’s not for any
reconstruction. It’s for the basement only. So you can phrase it however you want, but this is
what he’s asking me to request of you.
MR. O’CONNOR-That I would object to strongly, because the house actually is within the
setback, as well as the basement. We’re going to cloud this thing to the point that everybody
gets confused, and we don’t understand what we’re talking about.
MR. ABBATE-I’m lost. Bruce, start from the beginning, will you. What does the Zoning
Administrator want us to do?
MR. FRANK-He would like you to condition this that it’s only for the basement, the relief
you’re granting, and for the shed, or, I’m sorry, not the shed, but the deck. It’s not for any
reconstruction. If there’s any reason why this house needs to be demolished, due to, once it’s
raised up they find that it’s structurally unsound, if it should fall and break in half or whatever,
then this Area Variance would not apply to rebuilding that structure. He would have to come
back for another variance.
MR. ABBATE-But I think Counselor said that he has a report, a structural report or an
engineering report or something. Did I catch that right?
MR. O’CONNOR-We have a mover that has looked at it and said that it’s possible to move. I
understand and I stipulate to the fact that this is an application to modify the existing home by
placing it, by raising it and placing a basement under it, and maybe I’m standing on principle
too long, and you’ve got a busy schedule tonight, but I also take strong objection to being
provided a copy of staff comments, and not having that condition in there, or I would have
argued that before. I mean, if we’re going to have suggestions, they should be in Staff
comments. That’s the purpose of Staff comments
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, certainly through the due process, the applicant should have an
opportunity to rebut anything that’s submitted, and he shouldn’t be kind of blindsided, if you
will, at a hearing.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Well, he had the opportunity to rebut when I made the comments in the first
place.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I have no problem with your comments.
MR. ABBATE-He’s not talking about you.
MR. BRYANT-Isn’t that what the?
MR. ABBATE-He’s referring to the statement by Staff.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-But if Mr. Frank would read that exact language, he’s saying that the variance
is for the basement only? Is that part of what those comments are? That’s not right.
MR. FRANK-Again, you can phrase that any way you like, but I think you know the intent of
what he’s requesting of you, this is per the Zoning Administrator.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I would object to such a condition, but let’s move forward.
MR. HAYES-All right. Is someone going to make a motion, and it’ll either carry or not.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll give it a shot.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2005 GERALD A. KILLEEN, Introduced
by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
15 Forest Lane. The applicant is proposing to raise an existing dwelling and install a full
basement with a 288 square foot one car garage beneath. In considering this application, one of
the criteria is whether or not an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or whether there will be a detriment to the nearby properties. I think in this case
we would all agree that there will be very little change in the neighborhood and it won’t be a
negative one. About the only difference, when the project is finished, is the house will be
slightly higher than it is now. It’ll be sitting on the same footprint that it currently sits on.
Second item is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other
method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance. I think the applicant
has covered that fairly well, that the location of the septic and the location of the well may make
it difficult to move the house to a compliant location, and additionally the applicant would
incur considerable extra cost if he attempted to do that. Third, whether the requested Area
Variance is substantial. Again, the dwelling currently has existed in the current location, and all
that’s being asked, really, is that it be allowed to be in the same location as it has been. So,
based on that, I would say the variance is minimal. Fourth, whether the proposed variance will
have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. There’s nothing that is being proposed that is going to have any kind
of an affect on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and, finally, whether the
difficulty is self-created. Yes, this is a case where the proposal is because of something that the
applicant wants. So in that sense you can say it’s self-created, but that certainly is not a fatal
flaw in this case. So, on that basis, I move that we approve this requested variance to raise the
existing house and place a basement under it and grant the setbacks that are requested, which
includes 8.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 10.2 feet of
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and also relief regarding the
Continuation requirements per Section 179-13-10(A1 & E).
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES-Are you going to put the thing that he requested?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, figured that saying that the variance was to allow the raising of the
existing house.
MR. BRYANT-Can we use another word other than “raise”? Because my limited
understanding of the English language, “raise” can also mean tear down.
MR. MC NULTY-Good point.
MR. STONE-There’s a spelling different, very big spelling difference.
MR. ABBATE-Why not use elevate?
MR. O’CONNOR-Raise, and raze.
MR. BRYANT-I know that, but phonetically.
MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the motion as it was made?
MR. BRYANT-It was a good motion.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. O’CONNOR-We thank you and Mr. and Mrs. Killeen thank you, and thank you for your
patience. What I’m really wondering, though, as I sit here, is what are you going to do when I
come in here and tell you, I don’t know if we’re going to be able to save the house.
MR. STONE-You’re in deep trouble.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, no. I’ve done this in Bolton. I’ve done it in Lake George a couple of
times.
MR. BRYANT-But you see, you had the sense to come and apply for a different variance, but
the other case, that wasn’t the case.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, I didn’t have the sense. It was the shorter course, to be honest with you.
If you granted the first one, you’re going to grant the second one. You should be, I mean, all the
circumstances we had.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, put us to the test.
MR. KILLEEN-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2005 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK AND JOANNA DE NARDO
OWNER(S): FRANK AND JOANNA DE NARDO ZONING: RR-5A AND LC-10A
LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION TO
CREATE A 6.25 ACRE AND A 7.80 ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LC-10A ZONE FOR THE 7.80 ACRE LOT
AND THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 14.83
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-47 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-090A
FRANK DE NARDO, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeNardo and I have had business dealings. We continue to
have business dealings. We have discussed this application over the past couple of years, long
before he actually made it, and while I don’t think it has any bearing on my decision, I will
recuse myself.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2005, Frank and Joanna DeNardo, Meeting Date: January
26, 2005 “Project Location: Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
to subdivide a 14.05-acre parcel in the Town of Queensbury. The 14.05 acre parcel is part of a
31.73-acre parcel, of which 17.68 acres exist in the Town of Fort Ann (Washington County). The
applicant proposes to subdivide the 14.05-acre parcel into two lots of 6.25 acres (Lot A) in the
RR-5A zone and 7.8 acres (Queensbury portion of Lot B) in the LC-10A zone. Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the 10-acre minimum size requirement of the LC-10A zone to
create a 7.8-acre lot (Queensbury portion of Lot B), per §179-4-030. Additionally, 40 feet of relief
is required from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirements for the Queensbury portion
of Lot B, as the lot is proposed to front on a private road (Barthel Lane), per §179-4-090(A).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: The applicant
proposes to subdivide a 31.73-acre parcel into two lots of 6.25 acres (Lot A) and 25.48 acres (Lot
B). The 14.05-acre portion occurring in the Town of Queensbury is comprised of approximately
6.25 acres in the RR-5A zone and approximately 7.8 acres in the LC-10A zone. The 6.25-acre lot
has approximately 1.2 acres of APA jurisdictional wetlands. The 7.8-acre portion of Lot B in the
Town of Queensbury is partially comprised of APA jurisdictional wetlands. However, the
wetland acres have not been located on the submitted survey. Therefore, the amount of size
relief required for the 7.8 –acre lot cannot be identified. However, the applicant proposes to
designate the 7.8-acre portion of the 25.48-acre Lot B as undevelopable. The applicant currently
lives in the dwelling on the 17.68-acre portion of Lot B in the Town of Fort Ann.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
12, 2005 Project Name: DeNardo, Frank and Joanna Owner(s): Frank and Joanna DeNardo
ID Number: QBY-05-AV-7 County Project#: Jan05-18 Current Zoning: RR-5A and LC-10A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision to create
a 6.25 acre and 7.80 acre parcel. Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirements in the
LC-10A zone for the 7.80 acre lot and the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location:
Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.00-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 14 +/- acre parcel. The information submitted indicates lot A
is to be 6.25 and Lot B portion is to be 7.80 acres where 10 acres is required in the LC-10 zone.
The plans show that Lot B is also contains property in the Town of Fort Ann so the entire lot is
25.48 acres with an existing house and access from Ridge Road. The 6.25 acre lot shows the
location of the dwelling, septic, well and wetland area. Staff does not identify an impact on
county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Meeting cancelled due to inclement
weather. No January Meeting to be held.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning
Board 1/14/05.
MR. HAYES-Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. DE NARDO-Frank DeNardo, the owner of the property.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application or clarify?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. DE NARDO-I don’t know if everybody knows it. I own this whole road on Barthel Lane,
and I know we’re going for the 40 foot, there’s a new thing, a 40 foot easement.
MR. HAYES-Not new, but certainly relevant, yes.
MR. DE NARDO-Is it relevant to this, even though I own that road?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s not a public highway. So there’s no frontage on a public highway. I
mean, I guess part of our questions will probably be to determine the continued validity and the
accessibility to safety vehicles and such, which is part of the rationale behind the 40 foot
requirement.
MR. DE NARDO-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I guess I can start. So you live on Lot B, on the right hand half of Lot B then.
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. HAYES-And you have a house there now?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MR. HAYES-And it’s in the Town of Fort Ann?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess my question would be, if you’re going to make the 7.80
undevelopable, why are you attempting?
MR. DE NARDO-Basically I just want to build a buffer zone between everybody else that’s
building down in this area off Ridge Road, and have one lot left to myself down here for either
family member of something in the future.
MR. HAYES-So you are committed to making the 7.80 acre lot that you’re creating
undevelopable?
MR. DE NARDO-Undevelopable.
MR. HAYES-Permanently.
MR. DE NARDO-Permanently.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, would that be a stipulation?
MR. HAYES-I mean, certainly, if it’s part of his application, then.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with it. I just want to, really what I want to do is just get
on the record, that’s all.
MR. HAYES-No, if he’s representing that, and that’s part of our balancing test, then that’s part
of the record.
MR. ABBATE-Fine.
MR. BRYANT-If you’re going to use this other lot for a family member later on down the road,
if it’s undevelopable, what are they going to use it for?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. DE NARDO-It’s the Lot A I’m using for a family member.
MR. BRYANT-So Lot B is just going to be an developable lot.
MR. DE NARDO-That’s my lot.
MR. BRYANT-Forever.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes, that’s going to be my piece of property there.
MR. HAYES-So you want to keep that between you and Lot A, in case?
MR. DE NARDO-I’d like to keep it natural, yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Is that going to be a separate deeded lot, that Lot B?
MR. DE NARDO-No, actually.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s going to be part of the whole thing.
MR. DE NARDO-The whole thing, correct.
MR. MC NULTY-A good portion of it will be in Washington County.
MR. DE NARDO-Sure.
MR. MC NULTY-So it’s a little weird the way we’re talking about it because it’s really not a
separate 7. whatever acre lot, from your viewpoint. From the Town of Queensbury, it is.
MR. DE NARDO-Town of Queensbury, yes, it says 7.8.
MR. BRYANT-This discussion about the wetlands in the Staff notes, do you want to comment
on that?
MR. DE NARDO-I had a wetland biologist come in here and we delineated all the wetlands in
there, as requested. The wetlands started, there’s only one string that runs through there, and
they were basically busted up because of the loggers on this piece of property prior to me
owning it, until the lands to the south, on LoCartos, and being that they went through all their
streams, the streams just went every which way now, the one stream, and that’s what created
the wetlands in there.
MR. BRYANT-So how much of the property is actually, of the 7.8 acres, how much of that is
wetland?
MR. DE NARDO-I think I had it put on the new map there. It’s just a small section of it,
because it comes straight across. You can see on the Lot A where it comes through the stream.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it talks about Lot A, but what about the 7.8?
MR. DE NARDO-It’s really not, I mean, you’re talking a couple of hundred feet, maybe, along
this one edge.
MR. BRYANT-For Staff, technically, aren’t the wetlands deducted from the?
MR. HAYES-Definitely.
MR. FRANK-They are, but the reason why, since the applicant is offering never to develop it, it
really doesn’t make any difference. So that’s why, they aren’t clearly shown on this map for the
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
Section in the Town of Queensbury for Lot B, but it’s kind of irrelevant, because he already
doesn’t meet the acreage requirements. So anything that you take away from it, that’s wetland
is still not going to meet it, but he’s proposing never to develop that portion.
MR. BRYANT-But just for my sake, my clarification, if the wetlands are deducted from the
acreage, okay, the size of the variance would be different.
MR. FRANK-That’s true.
MR. BRYANT-So we don’t know if it’s a 1.2 acre variance.
MR. FRANK-But the intent is, is it buildable. That’s the whole intent of the Code. So whether
it’s three acres or five acres of wetland, he’s proposing never to develop that section of, in the
Town of Queensbury, of Lot B. He can never build on it. He’s offering that up to the Board.
MR. ABBATE-As undevelopable.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. DeNardo, did I hear you indicate that you had the survey done or something
or other, or someone came in?
MR. DE NARDO-A wetland biologist was in there.
MR. ABBATE-That’s it, a wetland biologist. Do we have that report in the records?
MR. DE NARDO-I believe so.
MR. ABBATE-I’ve got it. It’s on the map. Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-Mr. DeNardo, should you develop Lot A, where would you access the road?
MR. DE NARDO-That would be from Ridge Road.
MR. URRICO-From Ridge Road?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct.
MR. URRICO-And on the Barthel Road, how many houses currently access that road?
MR. DE NARDO-Right now there’s three, actually four houses that, two seasonal camps, and
one permanent residence.
MR. URRICO-And who maintains it? Do you maintain it?
MR. DE NARDO-I maintain it.
MR. HAYES-And that’s all in Fort Ann, those residences?
MR. DE NARDO-Actually, no, some are in the Town of Queensbury. Actually there’s two in
the Town of Queensbury, two lots that are in the Town of Queensbury, and half one, it’s like
half of one and then one other one other one.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to, for Staff, I just want to get back to my wetlands question, as it
pertains to Lot A. Okay. Now he’s got six, this is an RR-5, right? He’s got 6.25 acres, plus or
minus. The wetland area is 1.2 acres, plus or minus. We’re going to need that plus or minus, if
it’s plus on one side and minus on the other, are we going to need a variance there?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. FRANK-I understand where you’re coming from. You’re talking about Lot B now?
MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about Lot A.
MR. FRANK-So what was the question about Lot A again?
MR. HAYES-What’s the deduction from the density for the wetland?
MR. FRANK-Well, he actually lists that. He shows that the wetland area is 1.2 acres.
MR. BRYANT-One point two plus or minus, and the acreage is 6.25 plus or minus.
MR. FRANK-So he’s going to end up with at least five acres, which is what he needs.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. FRANK-He doesn’t need any relief for Lot A.
MR. BRYANT-Right. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Does anyone have any other questions for the applicant? At this time?
MRS. HUNT-Now this designation would carry on even if you sold the property?
MR. HAYES-As far as being nondevelopable? Absolutely.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions? That’s a good question. Any other questions? If not, I’ll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this application? Any
correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from a Robert A. and Carol Dutcher, and
they’re writing from New Jersey. They say, “We are writing regarding Variance No. 7-2005 for
subdivision filed by Frank and Joanna DeNardo. This is to state that we have no problem with
the subdivision application and request a favorable decision from the Board regarding this
matter. Thank you, Robert A. and Carol Dutcher”
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. DeNardo, as far as the 40 foot minimum road frontage.
Could you characterize Barthel Lane?
MR. DE NARDO-It’s a dirt road.
MR. HAYES-Are the emergency people going to be satisfied with access?
MR. DE NARDO-I hope so. My son’s a fireman and they are up and down there doing drills all
the time.
MR. HAYES-You’re willing to state that on the record?
MR. DE NARDO-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s part of the rationale behind that 40 foot requirement.
MR. BRYANT-Well, if Lot B is going to be forever wild, it really is a moot point.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. FRANK-It’s technical relief.
MR. ABBATE-Good point. Good point.
MR. HAYES-We have the requirements. It’s easier for him to say that it meets the requirements.
MR. DE NARDO-There’s also a storage building up on that road, there, a boat storage building
up on the left hand side of the road. It belongs to Castaway Marina, and they have no problem
getting in there with their fire equipment.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not your building, though.
MR. DE NARDO-No, it’s not. I wish it was. I would take it down, but that’s another story.
MR. ABBATE-So we have on the record, right, Mr. Chairman, your point that you made that the
40 feet of relief is required from the 40 foot minimum road, rather have it on the record now,
that that doesn’t present a problem.
MR. HAYES-He’s stipulated to the record that emergency vehicles currently use that road now.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s on the record, correct?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Good. Good point made.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Mr. DeNardo at this time? If not, it’s time to poll
the Board members. I’ll start with our alternate, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-I like the idea of seven acres, 7.8 acres being wild, and the 40 foot road access to
the Town road does not pose a problem at this point. I don’t have a problem with it. It sounds
like a wonderful win/win situation. I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I appreciate the thought process that went into this. I think Mr.
DeNardo used a lot of thought in planning this out, and I appreciate the way he’s laid it out and
thinking ahead, trying to preserve some land, not only for his benefit, but I think for the Town,
and I think it would be beneficial to him, but I also think it would be beneficial to the Town to
have some protection there, and I would be in favor of it. I think the problems that it would
create are minimal compared to what he’s giving in return.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I agree. I’d like to make sure that the designation remains, you know, forever
wild, and somewhere down the road a family member doesn’t develop it, but, that being said, I
agree with the other Board members.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Yes. Mr. DeNardo had a straightforward application. He said what
he had to say. He presented us with the bottom line, and a lot of thought went into it, and I
agree with the comments of my other Board members, and I would support the application.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in agreement, too. I think it’s a reflection of the fact that you have two
different building areas within here, the five acre and the ten acre, and it’s, you know, since the
other one’s going to remain as forever wild, it’s essentially going to be an unusable lot. So
there’s no effect whatsoever.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can agree. I think it’s a unique situation, the way the zoning line cuts
through the lot lines at that location, if this were actually a separate deeded 7. some odd acre lot,
in our ten acre zone, I would have more of a problem with it. The fact that it’s actually part of a
larger lot, and it’s the Town of Queensbury line that makes it the technical smaller lot in the
Town of Queensbury, and given that the applicant is willing to designate that this will not be
developed, so that we won’t have a house on there some time in the future, I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree with the rest of the Board. Once or twice a year we
end up with these situations where zoning, Town lines, lot lines all intersect at different points
and we have to deal with kind of a roundabout analysis, but in this particular case, I can’t see
any detriment to the area or the community by what you’re proposing, and I don’t think any of
the other Board members do either. So, essentially, the fact that you’re committing that the
parcel, the remainder parcel to be forever wild I think is a selling point and certainly tips the
balancing test in your favor. So, having said that, I have seven votes for it. Would someone like
to make a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2005 FRANK AND JOANNA DE
NARDO, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Ridge Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.05 acre parcel in the Town of
Queensbury. The 14.05 acre parcel is part of a 31.73 acre parcel, of which 17.68 acres exists in
the Town of Fort Ann, Washington County. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 14.05 acre
parcel into two lots of 6.25 acres, Lot A, in the RR-5A zone, and 7.8 acres, Queensbury portion of
Lot B, in the LC-10A zone. Lot B, which he proposes to leave as undevelopable, to not be
developed in the future, is not on a Town road, and he needs 40 feet of relief required from the
40 foot minimum frontage requirements for the Queensbury portion of Lot B, and I propose that
we pass this variance. Granting relief from the minimum size requirements to create the 7.8
acre lot, Lot B.
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Thanks for coming.
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2005 SEQRA TYPE II ED & JUDY MASTOLONI AGENT(S):
KEVIN MASCHEWSKI OWNER(S): ED AND JUDY MASTOLONI ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 50 BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF ONE OF THE 2 SEASONAL RESIDENCES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST
ON THE PARCEL. PROPSOAL IS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A 2,063 SQ. FT.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,450 SQ. FT. YEAR-ROUND DWELLING.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING MAXIMUM PER
LOT REQUIREMENT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 12, 2005
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-28
SECTION 179-4-010 (C6)
KEVIN MASCHEWSKI & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2005, Ed & Judy Mastoloni, Meeting Date: January 26,
2005 “Project Location: 50 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to demolish one of the two seasonal dwellings that currently exist on the
parcel. The applicant proposes to demolish the 2,063 sq. ft. dwelling and construct a new 3,450
sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional
single-family dwelling where only one is allowed per lot, per § 179-4-010(C6). Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-856: 11/05/04, 208 sq. ft. residential alteration.
BP 2001-561: 07/25/01, septic alteration. BP 2000-853: 11/27/00, 775 sq. ft. boathouse. BP 2000-
854: 11/15/00, demolition of boathouse. BP 95-033: 02/14/95, two 624 sq. ft. U-shaped docks
with a 16’ x 32’ open sided boathouse. SP 03-95: 01/17/95, remodeling of existing dock. Staff
comments: The applicant proposes to demolish one of two seasonal dwellings on a 1.48-acre lot
and construct a new 3,450 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The relief is requested for a second
dwelling on a lot where only one is allowed, is the only relief required. The dwelling is
proposed to be compliant relative to all of the dimensional and bulk requirements for the WR-
1A zone.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
12, 2005 Project Name: Mastoloni, Ed and Judy Owner(s): Ed & Judy Mastoloni ID Number:
QBY-04-AV-11 County Project#: Jan05-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of one of the 2 seasonal
residences that currently exist on the parcel. Proposal is for the demolition of a 2,063 sq. ft.
dwelling and construction of a 3,450 sq. ft. year-round dwelling. Relief requested from the one
single-family maximum per lot requirement. Location: 50 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Tax
Map Number(s): 226.15-1-28 Staff notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of
one of the 2 seasonal residences that currently exist on the parcel. They propose to demolish a
2,063 sq. ft. dwelling and construction of a 3,450 sq. ft. year-round dwelling. The applicant
requests relief to have two single-family dwellings remain on the lot. The information
submitted details the new dwelling construction and the upgrade of the septic system on the
site. The plans do not indicate the location of the other dwelling or stormwater or erosion
control measures to be implemented. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition
that the appropriate storm water and erosion control measures are implemented. Warren
County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Meeting cancelled due to inclement
weather. No January Meeting to be held.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County
Planning Board 1/14/05.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Kevin Maschewski. What’s most
interesting about this application I think, two points. The existing house that’s proposed to be
demolished would be, of course, relocated. It’s only five feet, but it makes it from non-
compliant to compliant, in terms of side setback, but more importantly, this is a very large
parcel, even for Assembly Point, at approximately an acre and a half. The Floor Area Ratio,
with an acre and a half of area to calculate, is over 13,000 square feet. So that you could have a
huge mansion on this lot that would encompass both of the existing houses, the new house, that
house that’s proposed to remain, and it still wouldn’t require any action by the Zoning Board.
So this is not even close to maximizing the value of the property or the build out without a
variance, and for that reason it’s historically been two houses. This is a couple in their sixties
that live in the house that would remain, and they want to build a house for their grown kids
and their grandchildren to come and visit, and they could attach the houses, and that would be
permissible. So, for that reason, in addition to what Kevin put in the application, that there’ll be
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
a compliant septic system, but the fact that they can attach the houses, build more house, if you
will, and not need a variance, that should make this no negative impact on the neighborhood.
Would you like to add anything, at this point?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I’ve been dealing with the Mastoloni’s for about 12 months on this
project, and we kind of looked at the existing structure, evaluated it, as we always do, with
jacking it up, putting a secured foundation. It’s an eight inch thick block foundation with a
crawl space right now. The floor joist system is a two by eight, which wouldn’t really sustain
any future addition to it. There was thoughts of putting a second floor on the existing structure,
just some way of getting, there’s five bedrooms in the existing structure now, getting the five
bedrooms, or even reducing it to four, to a future second floor. So we pretty much looked at
taking the existing structure and putting a second floor on it. Foundation won’t secure a second
floor. The floor joist system wouldn’t accommodate, I also looked into Larman, as the previous
application, the first one, of jacking the house up. Larman’s pretty much $12 to $15,000. They
can jack a house up, set it on a new foundation. Looking at that, there’s two by four walls on
the existing structure, again, cannot accommodate a second floor, and knowing that it is a 20
foot existing side yard setback, the requirement is 25 for this parcel. It kind of hinged on, would
it be financially feasible to utilize the existing remaining balance of the existing structure, or just
tear down and put a new compliant structure up. Financially it started weighing to a new
structure, and that’s pretty much why we’re here today is putting this new structure on the
property. I think Jonathan was wrong on his calculations. It is 14,138 square feet that is capable
for this lot. So the Floor Area Ratio is pretty substantial on this big piece of parcel. We’re not
even getting close to that. The septic system is proposed to go in the exact same location of the
original, which is way in the back towards Bay Parkway, which is substantially beyond the 100
foot requirement. Everything that is proposed as compliant for setbacks, heights, septic system,
in my eyes it’s pretty straightforward, but it’s certainly open to comment.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I? This is a question. Currently, one of the structures is 2,064
square feet. Is that correct, approximately?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Approximately.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and the Section 179, which is quoted in the relief required, indicates that
only one house is limited on the lot. Now can I assume that the two homes or houses that are
on the lot have been grandfathered or are nonconforming? Would that be correct?
MR. FRANK-They’re pre-existing, nonconforming because there’s two dwellings on one lot.
These lots were consolidated some time in the past. I don’t know when.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, a quick briefing on that. If you look at the survey, there’s Lot 11, Lot
10, and Lot 9 that is encompassed within this piece of property. The owner’s deed still
represents Lot 10, 9, 10 and 11, but in the Town’s eyes, it had been combined to one tax map. So
I think, years ago, when these lots were developed, there was a house put on Lot 11 and Lot 10.
Likewise, the neighbor, if you’re going west, Lot 12 and Lot 13, I believe, which is owned by the
same owner, also has an old log cabin on Lot 12 and Lot 13. So, somewhere down the line, back
in history, these were separate lots.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then is the statement correct that the applicant requests relief for an
additional single-family dwelling where only one is allowed per lot per Section 179-4-010(C6)?
Is that an accurate statement?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct under today’s zoning.
MR. ABBATE-Under today’s zoning.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the relief we’re asking for.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Under today’s zoning. Now, then the lot itself, it has two dwellings on it.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. LAPPER-Currently.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. What you’re requesting is to do away with the entity, the identification, if
you will, or the existence, if you will, of two buildings on one lot. What you’re saying now, you
wish to modify that description, if you will, of that lot with the two buildings, and construct a
new 3450 square foot single-family.
MR. LAPPER-Not exactly.
MR. ABBATE-Not exactly. Okay. Help me out.
MR. LAPPER-Right now it’s a pre-existing nonconforming lot because it has two residences.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re proposing that it would still have two residences, but one of them
would be new.
MR. ABBATE-I understand. In other words, the 3450 is going to get rid of the 2,063? Yes. I
understand all that, but what I’m saying, that once you take down the 2,064 square foot
dwelling, then it loses identity as being grandfathered and nonconforming. In other words,
then you’re starting from zero, all the way over again, and if you’re doing that, you cannot
have, under 179-4-010, two houses on that particular lot.
MR. LAPPER-Without a variance.
MR. FRANK-That’s why he’s asking for relief.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s a tall order, Counselor.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, this goes back to the first application, you know. Could I come in
here and try to jack this thing up, knowing that it’s not going to sustain the jack-up.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t think it’s a tall order at all. That’s why I really want to explain this
carefully. They could keep the two houses that are there right now, renovate it, re-side it,
whatever you want, until the end of time, and they could also knock them both down and build
a house that is many times larger than these two together because there’s no requirement of
how many bedrooms you could have. It can be, as Kevin said, 14,100 square feet. So they could
have a mansion like Phil Morse, if they wanted, on a parcel this size, and much less building
would be to have the light and air in between these two structures by letting it remain as two
structures, but just to replace one with a new structure. So we believe that this really isn’t that
much relief that we’re asking for, because they could either keep two houses or they could build
a big one.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s a pretty good argument. I don’t have a problem with that. What’s
the other house being used for, not the 2,064 square feet.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The other one is family.
MR. ABBATE-Is family.
MR. STONE-Are they both seasonal?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re both heated residences. They are seasonal use. Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, but they are year round.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-But they’re vacant during the winter.
MR. LAPPER-But they could be.
MR. STONE-They could be.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-They could be.
MR. STONE-That’s by choice, by owner’s choice not to use it, but they’re both, even with zero
degrees out, they could. Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-They’re heated.
MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to something you said in your opening remarks, relative to the
use. It’s a retired couple that owns it and they want to build this new house for their grand
kids?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, they’ve got a big family.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-However their use is, but they, right now, I think they rent, for the most
part, they do rent that, the cabin that we’re going to, it’s called a cabin or a structure, that is
proposed to be torn down for part of the season, but they also do have, I think, four or five kids,
and it’s too much for the one structure. So they use both structures for family gatherings, and
weekends and so on.
MR. BRYANT-One other question, relative to the way the lot was split some time. Why not just
split it again and try to split it so that it’s as close to conforming as possible?
MR. HAYES-Because that would be a subdivision and they’d have to go through the whole
subdivision process.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let’s talk about that. If their intention was to sell one of these houses, they
would have to come and subdivide, and they would be asking for that kind of relief, but
because they want to keep what they have now, just to have two houses on a one and a half acre
lot, they’re not asking for that. They’re not asking for permission to sell one.
MR. MC NULTY-They would have to have a variance to subdivide.
MR. STONE-Comment on the fact, we had an application, about two or three years ago on
Assembly Point Road, where the request was to do some work, expansion of a back building, a
second building, and it turns out that this was, in fact, a second residence and it was being
actually even rented. I’m not suggesting these are rented, and immediately this Board said, no
way, to the variance application, citing what Mr. Abbate said, the subject of two houses on a
single lot, and so we do have some concern about two residences on a single lot, the size
notwithstanding, because it is still not large enough to have two one acre lots.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me give you another example. I remember there was an application on
Glen Lake where somebody had a cabin by the lake and a house in the back.
MR. HAYES-Sullivan.
MR. LAPPER-And they connected the two.
MR. STONE-Sullivan, right.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. LAPPER-They built a connection between the two, which I think would be kind of ugly
and arbitrary, but I’m sure Kevin could design a very attractive connection. If these two houses
were connected with a hallway, it wouldn’t need a variance, and that’s really, you know, we
could do something that would be less attractive, but it would be permissible, or to move these
next to each other, closer, and then attach them, and what good does it do? It hurts the light
and air between, in the middle of the lot and the neighbors. It would just be a way of
conforming with the technical requirements of the Code and then a variance wouldn’t be
needed, but what would you get for it?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good point. Forget the technical requirements of the Code. Let’s take a
look at it from a logical point of view, commonsense. Wouldn’t it make more sense, they have
five children you indicated, 3450 square foot single-family home, that’s a pretty large home, but
wouldn’t it make more sense to just take down both of those buildings and build one that
would accommodate all the requirements? To me, even with five children, 3450 square foot
dwelling is a pretty darn good sized dwelling. I mean, I’m not a contractor. If somebody says
I’m wrong, well then let me know, but wouldn’t it make more sense to, if you’re going to put
the money into a 3450 square foot single-family home, why not go the extra step and say, get rid
of both these buildings, and add this, this, this, and this, and as Counselor said, you could do
that without a variance.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I agree. I mean, that was certainly one of my presentations to the owner.
Unbeknownst to me, prior to my involvement, the other house on the property, which is right
around Lot 11, they just had installed a new septic, five bedroom septic system. There was
some re-model work, and updating work done in the house. So there had been some monies
put into the other house. Again, that was my presentation was let’s just go through and build a
big one.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, would you agree that my suggestion would be a feasible alternative?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but in terms of economically feasible, what Kevin’s saying, they purchased
the property five years ago. They’ve got money into it. So the idea of knocking everything
down and starting from scratch, these aren’t, you know, people that are building a mansion.
MR. ABBATE-But it’s a feasible alternative. You just said that on the record. Right?
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s an alternative, but they could, they’re allowed to have two houses there
now until the end of time.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, fine. Then don’t bother coming to us, then.
MR. LAPPER-The question is what’s the detriment to the neighborhood. That’s what it all
comes down to.
MR. BRYANT-When you talk about feasible alternatives and economic impact, somewhere
down the road they’re going to want to remodel that camp, I mean, because they’re both about
the same era, okay. So somewhere around, so this is not the last time we’ll see it, you know, it’ll
come back later on. So, feasibly, I think what Mr. Abbate is proposing is a real feasible
alternative. Even economically when you look at the long term, simply because, build what you
need now, get rid of the old stuff, and bite the bullet now and you’ve saved money in the long
haul.
MR. LAPPER-So you’re not persuaded by the argument that they could build a much, much
bigger, that we’re not asking for maximum relief, that they could build a much, much bigger
house on this lot without needing a variance?
MR. BRYANT-No, I’m not persuaded at all by that argument because they’re entitled to build a
larger house if they want. Will they need 14,000 square feet? Probably not.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. LAPPER-But there’s probably somebody in Town that will buy it from them for some
incredible price and propose it, just because that’s what keeps happening on the lake.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, but let’s go back to what I said earlier, and Counsel acknowledged, that
what I, my proposal was a feasible alternative.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I said it was an alternative, but it’s not feasible because you lose the value of
what’s in the house now, that they bought property with a house, that Kevin said, has already
been renovated.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, but if a feasible alternative is suggested and the applicant refuses to accept
it, that, in itself, is grounds for a denial.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a question of whether it’s feasible, but you still have to.
MR. ABBATE-I’m only one of seven.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-There is also, on Assembly Point, which I was blessed to be involved with
probably about three years ago, another piece of property, two residences, one was torn down.
I did not design it. I had no involvement with the variance that was granted. It was on the
Lake Parkway side, not far from Lew’s house, two residences. One was taken down, and a new
one built up, which I built it. I guess the question is, if anybody could stir their memory on that.
I know, Lew, it’s right next door to where you are, Lew, so how was that procedure and that
variance granted? I had no involvement with it. So I built it. I didn’t go for the variance.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure which one.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Tobin, right next door to you.
MR. STONE-Okay. He needed a variance, I think, but his lot is, was wider, so he didn’t have
side setback problems. I’m not even sure he needed a variance.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-He would have because it’s one acre zoning, or one resident zoning.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s true.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-And that’s the same variance we’re requesting.
MR. STONE-But that was one house on one lot. There is a second house there.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. STONE-But they didn’t touch that house.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It would be the same situation.
MR. STONE-You’re right. As you bring it forward, it is.
MR. HAYES-Is that the Judge, Judge Tobin’s?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-With two houses, yes, two houses, one piece of property.
MR. STONE-I didn’t sit on that one. I was in Hawaii at the time.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Because I had personal involvement. I didn’t make any phone calls on
past history of how the variance was granted. There was a variance granted. Ed Tobin, the
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
owner, his brother was the architect, but again, very similar situation. Two houses. One taken
down and a new one put back in its, pretty much the same location. We don’t have any setback
issues associated with the new residence. It’s all Code compliant. A new septic system was
installed across the street, away from the lake, on a separate, I guess the parcel they own. So it’s
not out of the norm that it’s been done on Assembly Point.
MR. STONE-What you’re saying, it’s been done.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, don’t misunderstand, my remarks, as you should know by now, are not
necessarily indicative of how I’m going to vote on the thing, and I’m going to be upfront. As it
is right now, I’m going to listen to what the other six members of the Board have to say. I’m
probably going to be swayed by what they say.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time?
MR. STONE-Well, let’s hear the public. I mean, we’ve got a few people here.
MR. HAYES-If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-John Caffry. I’m here on behalf of my family, including my mother. We
basically, we own the alleyway next to this house, and also our house is located across the
alleyway from it, and if you look on the site plan, you’ll see where it shows alley. We own that,
and where you see Lands, where it says Lands of Provenzano, that’s actually about just north of
our property line. We’re just to the south of that. I’ve looked at all the plans. They do have two
existing houses, but even if you decided that this is just a tradeoff for the existing house, there
will be impacts to the neighborhood because it’s so much of a larger house. It is good that it’s
going to move back and meet the setbacks, now, from the boundary of our alleyway, but there
will be impacts. We think they ought to be addressed. I know you’re not the Planning Board
and this isn’t site plan review, but effects on the neighborhood is one of your issues. One is
basically visual impact from a larger house, that they ought to be required, as a permit
condition, to retain the existing vegetation that runs along the boundary on the east side. A lot
of that is actually, although it looks like it may go with their house, a lot of it’s on our alleyway,
but they ought to be required to retain that. They shouldn’t have anymore driveways coming
off of the alleyway. Their access isn’t off the public street. It comes the alley, which is fine. It’s
always been that way.
MR. STONE-Neighborhood Way, I believe.
MR. CAFFRY-Neighbor’s Way it’s called.
MR. STONE-Neighbor’s Way. Right.
MR. CAFFRY-We’ve talked about having it re-named Lois Lane for Lois Binley who lives at the
end of the Point, but we haven’t ever got around to it, but we think they should keep the
driveways or the so called curb cuts or the dirt cuts where they are. They ought to have a
planting plan to screen the south and east sides of this structure. It’s going to be very much
larger. It is going to have a lot more visual impact. The plans say that the existing house is 21
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
feet high and the new one’s going to be 28. The existing house can’t be more than about 15, 16
feet high. It’s one story, a very low sloping roof. So it’s going to be a substantial increase.
Drainage is of particular concern. South of the site is the Otyokwa property, the whole wooded
area. It’s commonly owned by all of us around that end of the Point, and there’s a drainage
ditch that comes out of the Otyokwa property, through a culvert, and down the middle of this
property, and it’s not shown on the plans, and it does provide drainage to the interior, wooded
area, and it ought to be located on the plans to make sure that this new structure isn’t going to
effect it. Art Binley, who’s at the end of the Point there, he’s been there since the 50’s. He says
used to be a running stream pretty much, and now it’s more of a drainage swale, but that, we
think, needs to be mapped and addressed, to make sure they’re not going to affect it. Because
otherwise it could block drainage, raise the water table, etc. As the County Planning noted,
there’s no stormwater management plan or drainage plan presented. That ought to be
addressed. The drainage ought to be channeled away from the driveway that services all the
houses along there. Soils, this was originally a kind of swampy wetland area way back when.
Certainly before my time, but that’s what I understand from people who were around before,
that was filled in some time ago. Whether or not the soils are suitable, that ought to be
investigated. Septic, I didn’t know how many bedrooms were in the current house, but the new
house is going to be five bedrooms, and there ought to be some assurance that it was sized for
five bedrooms, because that’s what the plans show. So those are our concerns. I also see the
pipe going from the septic tank the leachfield going under the driveway. I’m not sure if that’s
permissible. So, those are our concerns. My suggestion would be that you table this, keep the
hearing open, and get more information before you put it to a vote, unless they have answers to
all these questions, but we think there ought to be a planting plan for the visual impacts. They
ought to check the soils. They ought to look at the drainage issue and the stormwater runoff,
and I think we’d like to know what size of structure the septic system has been sized for. So,
those are our main concerns.
MR. HAYES-Not to pin you down, Mr. Caffry, but is that a yes or a no? Because you could kind
of interpret that either way.
MR. CAFFRY-It’s a, if they answer all these concerns, we probably won’t object.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. CAFFRY-We’re not strongly opposed to the idea. I mean, we’d prefer it stayed smaller and
lower impact and all, but, you know, I recognize that they could do a lot more there, and if
these concerns are addressed, we’re probably not going to have a problem with it.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And you are the next door neighbor?
MR. CAFFRY-Yes. We own the alleyway and our house is directly adjoining that, across. If
you look there where there’s a little dot, is in the alleyway, and our house is just to the right of
the dock there.
MR. ABBATE-Your time is up.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Please come forward.
RICHARD PROVENZANO
DR. PROVENZANO-Thank you. My name is Dr. Provenzano. I am an abutting neighbor, as
you can see on the plot, and I’m here just to try to give some historic information about the
various lots, and it might have a bearing on the ratio of the size of this house that they’re
proposing and their lot, which is my main objection to this proposed house. If I can draw your
attention to Lot Nine, which is a part of his lot, in the Land of Binley, in the past, there was a
covenant that involved three lots. Lot Nine in the Land of Binley was one lot originally. Lot
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
Eight, which is my lot, was Lot Number Two. Lot Three in this covenant was Lot Ten. When
the owner, which was Nemith, Mark Nemith’s father, he divided Lot Nine, and the Binley
property into the two lots, sold off to Binley, and Binley put a house on that lot. The covenant
states one house per lot. That prevents anyone from building a lot, a house on Lot Nine, which
is why this lovely lot does not have a house facing the lake. I have a house on Lot Eight, a small
cottage. Lot Ten is where the proposed house is. I look at it somewhat differently than the way
it’s been proposed. You know the legality, and I’ll bow to that, but when I look at the ratio of
the size of the house, I don’t see how Lot Nine should be taken into account for that or added to
that potential land size to accommodate such a large house, and when I look at this proposal, I
see a large two story house, squeezed into a slice of land across from my house, and I find that
unattractive. I also don’t want to be a difficult neighbor. They’re lovely people. They have
good taste. I’m sure it would be adequately landscaped, but I think that should be taken into
account.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this
application?
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask this neighbor a question?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. BRYANT-Based on Mr. Abbate’s comments to the applicant, how would you feel about a
house that would accommodate their family slightly larger than the proposed 3450 and
eliminating the other house?
DR. PROVENZANO-When this house first, when this lot was for sale approximately four, five
years ago, I thought, myself, of buying this lot, but I found it to be a very inefficient lot, the way
it was outlined and with the restrictions from the covenant, and there are two, in my mind, very
livable houses on this land, and the idea is really an excellent one. I mean, the only way to do
an effective use of this lot is to take down both and put up a beautiful house, and I think that
would meet the needs of the lot. Whether that meets the needs of the owner, I don’t know.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak, from the public,
that would like to speak on this application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence, from the Lake George Water Keeper, and he
says there’s areas of concern regarding the site design of the proposed project, such as the
location of the proposed on-site wastewater system in the area of the existing system and
stormwater management. The project should require site plan review. If this is not required
under Town Code, the Zoning Board should consider the condition of site plan review for this
project if a variance is granted. The impacts of two residences on a single lakeside lot should be
evaluated, mitigated, and have the site conform to all aspects of the Town Code including
stormwater management.
MR. HAYES-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And it’s time to poll the Board. I believe it’s time to start with.
MR. LAPPER-Shouldn’t we respond to the issues raised during the public comment period?
MR. HAYES-Certainly. That would be fine.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. The issues that were raised by Attorney Caffry are really all site plan
issues. There was nothing that he said that was inappropriate. Retain the existing vegetation,
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
no more driveways, provide a planting plan with screenage, make sure that the drainage is
appropriate and that the septic system is sized right. Actually right now there’s a five bedroom
house on an older septic system that’s probably designed for three bedrooms. So certainly the
septic system will be designed to accommodate the new standards, and those are all site plan
issues. Attorney Caffry also stated on the record that he recognizes that the applicant could do
a lot more on this site, in terms of more construction than what’s proposed, and that’s certainly
our principle argument. In terms of the other neighbor, Dr. Provenzano, we could certainly
come back with an alternate plan that shows a significantly larger house that doesn’t require a
variance, and perhaps we should do that to prove our point, just to show you what a feasible
alternative is that doesn’t require a variance that would, to justify the cost of knocking the
houses down to build a much larger house, certainly not 14,000 square feet because there aren’t
a lot of those around, but something that could be substantially larger than what’s proposed for
the lot, and that’s why we think that this is a minimal impact on the neighborhood, and we’re
happy to do that, if you want to see that alternative.
MR. STONE-Dr. Provenzano also mentioned the stormwater coming from interior, or Mr.
Caffry, one of the two, the fact that there is a drainage swale or something.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and it’s known. The owners certainly know that there is a drainage
culvert, their yard basins on their property. That will not be disturbed, and it cannot be
disturbed. I mean that’s, we can’t blatantly go in and disturb that drainage. So any concern of
the neighborhood, I mean, that will still remain a constant drainage. There’s a culvert across
Bay Parkway that goes under the Parkway and drains through their property. It drains out on
to the lake actually. So that certainly is something that would be maintained. It would have to
be.
MR. ABBATE-What is the size of that second dwelling? I didn’t ask you that question. What’s
the square footage of that second dwelling?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s in that low 2,000 square foot range, also.
MR. ABBATE-About 2,000?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. It has a garage, drive under garage, under the house.
MR. ABBATE-So, in effect, if we were to grant the 3450, that would give 5,450 square foot of
living area, right? Well, you know, again, I think my proposal makes a lot of sense, why you
may not want to go to 5,450 square foot. Certainly, even if you went up to 4,450 square feet,
that, in itself, seems to me to be able to accommodate a pretty nice size family.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The present condition of the other house, it’s not a teardown. I mean, it
certainly is not a teardown. If you ever saw the inside of it, it’s a nice house. It really, it
wouldn’t be feasible. My cost of building a 5 or 6,000 square foot house is going to be double of
what we’re proposing for 3,000.
MR. ABBATE-You’re right. I don’t know what the inside looks like. You’re absolutely correct.
MR. HAYES-I have one question, and it would have more to do with segmentation, whether,
you know, unintentional segmentation or whatever. I’m not troubled by the construction of this
house and replacement, but what assurances can we get as far as the second residence? Because
it would seem like I would feel that if they came in a year or two from now and wanted to re-do
that one to 3400 square feet that we would have been taken advantage of to some extent.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-To my knowledge, and based on the survey, Craig Brown’s been out there
with me. I’ve sat with him numerous times on this project. Even the other structure doesn’t
meet side yard setbacks. So it would require a variance. Maybe there’s a condition of no
variance granted for the same application for the second home.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. HAYES-So you don’t have any knowledge or plans, currently, to renovate that second?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. I’m there now putting a basement on part of that second home. The
lakefront, eight feet of that house, was cantilevered out on posts, from previous owner, and it
was settling. Actually, the front of the house was doing that, was tipping. We went in, got a
building permit, and we’re just putting a structural foundation under the front of it. Simple
structural modification on it, but to my knowledge, there’s going to be no future.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, that’s a good point that you made. Would I be out of order if I
suggested that perhaps we have as a stipulation, in the event that we approve this, that that
second home would not, and the applicant would have to agree to this, the second home would
not be expanded?
MR. HAYES-They may have to discuss that with their client.
MR. ABBATE-Just between the Board, I’m talking, make believe they’re not here. Would that
be unreasonable to say something like that? All right.
MR. STONE-Just comment, if you will, I think we’ve alluded to it, the septic, the on-site system
for the other home. Is that up to current Code?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There should be some form of documentation, and it might even be
on the Staff notes. There was a septic system installed, five bedroom system, installed in the
past years for that.
MR. FRANK-2001.
MR. STONE-Okay. That was for that house.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That was for the, yes, the other house.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The house we’re proposing to tear down, there’s five bedrooms in it now.
Tom Nace is involved with this, engineer. We’ve got minimal documentation of what’s there
for the house we’re proposing to tear down. The best we could tell, it’s probably adequate
today for about a three bedroom home. So, you know, we’re proposing four bedrooms, not
five, and then a new four bedroom septic system.
MR. HAYES-So the house that they’re proposing to keep, they put a new foundation in. They
put a new septic system in. They’ve done interior modifications, all of which would be
evidence that they intend to keep that house. If you’re willing to go on the record to that effect?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I will go on record, yes.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other points you want to clarify, Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-I guess Dr. Provenzano also talked about the Floor Area Ratio calculations and
Lot Nine. Lot Nine is the lot that’s nearest to the lake, and obviously we’re not proposing any
construction on that lot. Regardless of the covenants, the Town would still take that into
account in calculating the Floor Area Ratio, but even if you took that away, which there’s no
reason to, but just in terms of the, you know, you’d still be able to build probably a 9,000 square
foot house, even if you weren’t talking about the old Lot Nine.
MR. STONE-Is it not correct to say this is one lot and we shouldn’t talk of Nine, Ten and Eleven
anymore?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we didn’t. That was just the neighbor.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. STONE-I understand, but the survey you gave us has Nine, Ten, and Eleven. It’s really one
lot.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Maschewski went there a little bit, too. So that’s, there was an indirect
rationale that was applied on both sides. So I think we have to be fair in that way. You’re
exactly right.
MR. STONE-It’s just one lot.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And as Mr. Abbate says, it’s two houses on one lot.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why we’re here.
MR. STONE-Forgetting the size. It’s still two houses on one lot. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other points, Mr. Lapper, you wish to clarify?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Counselor or Mr. Maschewski?
MR. ABBATE-One clarification. This is for the Staff. In considering, and I don’t know the
answer to this. In considering the Floor Area Ratio, okay, we know what it is right now, with
these two homes, okay. The applicant now desires to increase the Floor Area Ratio. Now
would you take the Floor Area Ratio of the 3450 plus the 2,000, in other words, would that
exceed any zoning regulations that we have?
MR. FRANK-They’ll be well below the 22% allowed for that parcel. The total of the living space
for both dwellings will be below.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So they can go up to 14,000 square feet is what you’re saying?
MR. FRANK-Twenty-two percent of that parcel area, which is what, 14,183.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-14,138.
MR. ABBATE-14,138. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I didn’t know. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. I guess now it
is time to discuss it, and I believe it’s time to start with Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-This application is problematic for me. On the one hand we have a house
replacing, a proposal of a house replacing another house where there’s not going to be much
change that’s detrimental. On the other hand, we have an area that’s WR-1A, and the Code
specifically says one single-family dwelling may be constructed per lot, regardless of lot size,
and we have a lot that’s 1.48 acres, which is more the exception than the rule in that area, but
we also have two houses basically crammed into one corner of that lot as well. Even though
we’re considering it 1.48 acres, it’s not the whole lot that’s being affected. It’s only a portion of
it, and I’m really having a hard time getting over that. We have a nonconforming lot with two
structures on there in an area that’s not allowed to have more than one principle structure, and
it’s been allowed up to now because it’s grandfathered, but here we have the opportunity to
start again, and that’s the reason it’s zoned 1A, WR-1A, for the hope that some time in the
future that maybe we can get to more space in some respect. So I’m having a difficult time with
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
this, and when I look at the balancing test, I really don’t come across as very favorable. I think
there has been some suggestion that the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible. As far
as undesirable change in the neighborhood character, certainly it won’t have an immediate
impact because it’s basically trading a old house, or the new house, but it is having a
detrimental effect in that the Code specifically states one house, and we have an opportunity to
make that happen again, or make it happen period. So, to me, that request is substantial. It’s
allowing a second structure where only one is allowed. We haven’t determined whether there’s
any adverse physical or environmental effects, and I think it’s self-created. So, at this point, I
would come down on the negative side of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I listened to the argument relative to the 14,000 square feet or the possibility of
building a tunnel or walkway or whatever, and I also listened to Mr. Abbate’s suggestion
relative to tearing both down and building a larger house, but you’re a builder and you’ve
explained it’s not feasibly, economically a viable alternative. What about the possibility of
reconstructing the same size house in its current location in the same footprint? I mean, is that a
feasible alternative? When you talk about use, you’re talking about an older retired couple who
want to use the house for their grandkids and have room. You’ve got five bedrooms in one
building. What do you have in the 2004, five bedrooms? You have sufficient number of
bedroom space. So my question is, you know, that’s a realistic, feasible alternative. We’re still
giving you the two dwellings on the same lot. The question is, you know, why aren’t we doing
that? I mean, the way the application stands now, I agree with Mr. Urrico, that this is an
opportunity to start anew. It might not be a desirable opportunity, but maybe it is one we
should look at. If we can’t start new, it’s not possible because of the use, then maybe what we
ought to do is just reconstruct that one building, same size, same footprint. It’s not offensive to
the rest of the neighborhood. There’s no drastic change in the size of the construction, and
everything remains the same. Do you understand my thought process?
MR. LAPPER-The 3400 square feet actually takes into account the front porch. So it’s not, it’s
really closer to 3200 and change, which isn’t substantially larger than the 2600. I mean it is
about 800 or about 600 square feet, but I guess of all the alternatives, moving this closer and
connecting the two of them might be the easiest way to get them what they want. It may not
look as good to have a passageway between the two of them, but it would get them what they
want without a variance.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I recognize that, but I’m just saying, why not just build a house the same
size as exists?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Really straightforward, clean answer, they wanted to put the bedrooms
upstairs and have the whole first floor living area just enjoying area. So the whole design here
was to put a second floor on it. Going through the feasibilities, the structure just wouldn’t have
it. So having a one floor ranch, you know, they wanted to put the bedrooms upstairs, is what it
was.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, and the Town wants to have one single-family dwelling on each lot. I mean,
so we all have our own goals, but anyway, as it stands now, I’m opposed to the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m trying to find the right words here. It’s no doubt that it’s self-
created, and I understand that even though it may be self-created, that, in itself, is not grounds
for a denial. I understand all of that. Now, let me get to the thought process. We currently
have, or the applicant currently has, a 2,063 square foot dwelling. I think, and this is what’s
bothering me. I think I would be very sympathetic if the applicant came before us and said the
house is loaded with termites, the wood is all rotten, the walls are falling down, the house is
falling down. I think I would be more sympathetic to perhaps what the applicant is requesting,
but, you see, my problem is this. Nothing like that, I suggest, is happening. We have a
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
dwelling that’s 2,063 square feet. Granted, it is a large family, but as Mr. Urrico and Mr. Bryant
indicated, this is a retired couple, and that’s not to say that we should discriminate against
retired couples, but 3450 square foot single-family home, combined with 2,000 square foot
means you have a place 5,450 square feet, with I think up to eight bedrooms. So I shake my
head, and I have to say, this is not reasonable.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll take somewhat of a different tact here, than what everybody else has
done, and I think what really needs to be said is that I think we need to concentrate on what
possibly could be done. I mean, they could come back tomorrow, they could come back in a
month with a 14,000 foot mansion the size of the Morse property which would be very
unpalatable, I’m sure, to all the neighbors. Again, if you’re looking at the house that’s there,
that they’re taking down, as Mr. Lapper suggested, this is not a grand, giant mansion that’s
going up here. It’s a replacement of an antiquated seasonal dwelling. It’s not outside the realm
of what’s being constructed on much smaller lots up on the lake there. We have to consider it’s
a 1.48 acre lot. It might be considered segmentation to not include concerns, as Jaime said,
about the other house there and whether that could ever be improved upon at some future date.
Given the relative values of property up on waterfront, on Lake George, it’s probably a given
that that’s probably going to get redone at some point in the future. To not suggest that
wouldn’t be right, but, nonetheless, I think what you have to look at is the house that’s being
constructed there, and I think that in site plan review, the concerns that were raised about
vegetation on the side facing the Provenzano’s, I think we need to concern ourselves with the
setbacks. It meets all the setbacks of a new home construction. It’s 128 foot setback from the
water, which it’s going to look out at, which is very substantial compared to most properties up
there on the lake, and I think that, given the fact that you could build 14,000 square feet of any
kind of buildings you wanted, you know, if you took both those houses down tomorrow, with
no questions, as long as they met setback, I would think that it would be to the neighborhood
benefit, in this case, to build the new house as is, and let the other one remain. It’s still going to
be essentially that one story structure there, the other house, and I don’t think that that’s really
going to be a concern. We didn’t hear anything from the neighbors on that side there, and even
if it were proposed for re-building, they would need relief because they don’t meet the setbacks
from the side lines. They’re going to be relatively close to that other house. I can’t imagine that
somebody would propose a mega house right next door to this one that they’re building. It is
one continuous lot, Nine, Ten, and Eleven together. It’s not that we’re considering there’s all
separate possibilities on there, and I think that that’s something that we should all consider.
So, I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts, but I guess one of the ones up front, I don’t want to
presume to tell the applicants what they should want on this lot. So I’m not going to argue, you
know, that they should build one house or whatever, in place of what’s there. However, this is
an area of one acre zoning. The one acre zoning does not reflect what’s there in the
neighborhood now. Therefore, I have to go with the people that framed the zoning. They
obviously wanted something different than what’s there now, for some time in the future. So I
can’t justify what is existing on this lot and approve it again, based on the idea that several
neighboring lots have something similar in the way of size houses or whatever. I think we’ve
got to look at the zoning. The zoning says one acre, and it says one house per lot, whatever the
size of the lot is. The existing lot’s not big enough to subdivide without a variance. So it leaves
me basically from my view with no choice but to say no, two houses on one lot does not meet
zoning. I don’t see any compelling reason to allow two houses on one lot. If we can’t get
compliant construction on this size lot, I don’t see why we’re bothering to do anything on any
lots on the lake. I mean, most of the things that come before us, it’s somebody is trying to put a
house on a small lot, and maybe in one acre zoning, but the only lot they’ve got is 100 by 200
feet or something, and they’ve got no choice. In this case there are options out there. They may
not be really palatable ones for the applicants, but nevertheless, they can build a compliant
house, and as has been indicated, they can build a large one if that’s what they need, but I can’t
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
go along with two houses on one lot when we’re building one of the two new ones. So I’m
going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-The compelling factor here is basically the fact that it’s 100% relief. I’m not
concerned about size. I am concerned about number. I think Mr. McNulty, as well as a number
of the others, made it very clear that this is one acre zoning. This has been the intent of the
Zoning Code for Lake George and all waterfront areas in the Town, starting in the Hudson
River and Glen Lake and here, and the point that he made, if we can’t do it on smaller lots, if we
can’t force compliance to the largest degree, then we’re just giving away the store if we allow a
second house on this property. I also would not tell the Mastoloni’s how to build their house,
but it is a large lot. One house is allowed, a very large house can be allowed. I just can’t get
beyond the fact that it’s two houses. I mean, in the things that, the criteria we’re supposed to
consider, one of those is an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and in a sense, this would
be, we’re going the other way. We’re trying to make it a more desirable change in the
neighborhood by complying with the Code, and there certainly are feasible alternatives. I think
Mr. Bryant talked to a couple of them. There are a lot of ways, and I wouldn’t tell them how to
do it, but there are ways to do it. It’s certainly self-created. They bought the lot. They
combined them for whatever benefit they got by, for tax purposes, and we know there are
benefits for tax purposes. They could have left them alone and just said, okay, I’m a
nonconforming lot. Let me fix the house up, and we have granted those, but here where we
have almost one and a half acres, I think one house is one house.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, historically I have avoided, as Chairman, I have avoided making
comments when the outcome was already determined. So I guess, Mr. Lapper, what is your
preference as far as proceeding?
MR. LAPPER-I guess we’d ask that it be tabled so we can consider alternatives and talk to the
owners and come back and talk to you again.
MR. HAYES-I think that that’s fine.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2005 ED AND JUDY MASTOLONI,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
50 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. Tabled for a period not to exceed 90 days, so that the
applicant can consider points brought up by the Board at this meeting. I make this motion to
table this variance so that the applicant can come up with feasible alternatives to the plan, also
to possibly answer questions brought up by the public in the public comment period and by
Board members during their examination.
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. FRANK-I just wanted to mention a couple of things. Board members mentioned site plan
review. One of the comments from the Water Keeper requested that. I don’t know if this
application, if you were to approve it tonight, would go before the Planning Board for site plan
review. If somebody’s under that impression, I’m not sure if that’s correct.
MR. STONE-We’re going to table it.
MR. FRANK-Regardless, I want to bring this stuff up, because it’s going to be continuing on.
They’re going to be coming back. So just to make it clear now, there were some site plan
concerns. I don’t think this is going to go before the Planning Board, should you approve
something. Secondly, I heard a few comments mentioned about connecting the two houses. I
don’t think you can connect these two houses. You can’t expand a nonconformity. If you
connect the two, you’re going to make it a nonconformity, because now you have a structure
with two kitchens, everything that the Zoning Administrator has determined makes something
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
a single dwelling unit. So I don’t think that’s a feasible alternative to connect the two because
you would still need relief for two dwellings, two dwelling units, if you were to expand these
by connecting them.
MR. HAYES-That’s a good point, and you guys have been informed of that position. Thank
you. Good point.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Good night.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RAY SIGN, INC. FOR
STARBUCKS COFFEE AGENT(S): RAY SIGN, INC. OWNER(S): DONNA E. BALTIS,
PETER BALTIS ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 607 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 5 WALL SIGNS AND 1 FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 2000-3497 WALL SIGN, BP 2000-3498 FREESTANDING SIGN SV 66-2000
FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACK NY CITY DOGS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 12, 2005 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-41 SECTION 140-6(B3c)
RUSS HAZEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HAYES-Mr. Vice Chairman, based on the fact that I do own two coffee shops in Town, I’m
going to recuse myself from this application. I think it’s the right thing to do.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 4-2005, Ray Sign, Inc. for Starbucks, Meeting Date: January
26, 2005 “Project Location: 607 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes to install five wall signs and one freestanding sign. The four additional wall signs
requiring relief have a total area of 55.8 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for
four additional wall signs where only one is allowed, per § 140-6(B3c). Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-894: 11/29/04, 40.1 sq. ft. wall sign (“Starbucks
Coffee”). BP 2004-893: 11/29/04, 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign (“Starbucks Coffee” logo).
Numerous other building permits, sign permits, and reviews for previous tenants. Staff
comments: The applicant proposes to install four wall signs totaling 55.8 sq. ft. in addition to
the permitted 40.1 sq. ft. “Starbucks Coffee” wall sign on the east facing façade (BP 2004-894).
Sign #1: “DRIVE THRU” (12.6 sq. ft.) facing east. Sign #2: “STARBUCKS COFFEE” (11.2 sq. ft.)
facing west. Sign #3: “STARBUCKS COFFEE” (16 sq. ft. logo) facing south. Sign #4:
“STARBUCKS COFFEE” (16 sq. ft. logo) facing east.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January
12, 2005 Project Name: Ray Sign, Inc. for Starbucks Coffee Owner(s): Donna E. Baltis, Peter
Baltis ID Number: 05-SV-4 County Project#: Jan05-27 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of 5 wall signs and 1
freestanding sign. Relief requested from the maximum number of signs allowed. Site Location:
607 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-41 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant
proposes to have five wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The information
submitted indicates that the five signs are smaller than the allowed one wall sign. The plans
show three of the wall signs to be located on the copal like structure, the other signs area are on
the door, the area above the awning on the west and east, then another sign on the building
itself. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources based on the information
submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
Recommendation: No Action Meeting cancelled due to inclement weather. No January
Meeting to be held. Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 1/14/05.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you please identify yourself?
MR. HAZEN-Yes. Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Russ Hazen. I’m with
Ray Sign Company. I’m representing Starbucks tonight, in their request for the variance. Pretty
basic request. Rather than have one large sign on the building, they would like to break that
square footage up and place smaller signs on the building where they feel that, strategically,
they would, it would help them out, and aesthetically it’s part of their look, the Starbucks look.
None of the signs are huge. There was a last minute request today that we withdraw the sign
on the west side of the building. That request came later today. So we would not be even
looking for that west elevation sign, and they were hoping that, given the fact that they’re not
utilizing all the square footage, that it would get some consideration to get the smaller signs on
the building. Pretty basic.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any members have any questions for the petitioner?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the freestanding sign’s going to remain where it is?
MR. HAZEN-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. My question is relative to the, I can understand the sign facing south. I
can understand an additional drive thru sign. My question is relative to the sign facing east. In
reality, when you’re coming around that bend, you see the freestanding sign. You don’t even
see the building. You see that first. So my question is, isn’t that a sign we could eliminate?
MR. HAZEN-Well, this is the east elevation. Everyone has a copy of this here?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s not the point. The point is, you’ve got to get, you’ve got to come
around the bend, beyond Empire Vision, and see that portion of the building, and my question
is, why not just stay with your freestanding sign, put a sign on the front, maybe a little drive
thru sign, and eliminate that other additional sign, and then you’re only asking for relief for one
additional wall sign, and it sounds more logical to me.
MR. HAZEN-That’s fine. I’m here, again, to represent Starbucks, to see if the Board would
consider the signage that they’re proposing, and we are withdrawing the one on the west side.
MR. BRYANT-The west side didn’t make any sense because you can’t see the west side of the
building, but I’m just saying the same goes for the east, the freestanding sign, and you’ve got to
really get up on the building before you see the east wall. So my question is, why don’t we just
eliminate that sign?
MR. HAZEN-Well, the request here would be, the sign, Starbucks Coffee, to the right, was
permitted under the, we received the permit for the Starbucks Coffee sign on the right east
elevation, because we were within the square footage. That was the one sign that they chose to
use as their wall sign. The variance request is for the four foot round logo, around 16 square
feet. Just aesthetically it looks good. It’s their logo, trademark, and they would like to have it
up there.
MR. URRICO-Why not put the logo with the other part of the sign, then, if that’s part of their
logo?
MR. HAZEN-That’s a possibility. They wanted to take advantage of this feature up here, this
tower, rather than have it blank, have their logo on it. It’s a nice focal point, and they thought
that that would look good up there.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-That’s facing, actually that logo, the way I understand it, is going to face south
towards the Mall?
MR. HAZEN-This logo will be facing, I believe, not towards the Mall. It’s more, I would think,
southeast.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be on the driveway between the two buildings?
MR. HAZEN-Yes. It would be, this is actually facing.
MR. BRYANT-I see it’s facing east.
MR. URRICO-Is the entrance going to be where the current location is, the current entrance is,
or are they moving the entrance to a new location? In other words, is this entrance facing
Aviation Road or facing the parking lot?
MR. HAZEN-This is going to be facing, I believe, the parking lot and Route 9.
MR. STONE-Route 9 toward Empire Vision.
MR. HAZEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAZEN-That would be the east elevation, yes, and they just thought that this tower is up
high. The sign to the right here is a little lower. This would have some visibility, but this is just
a nice focal point. If you’re in and about that area, and you look up there, you may see that nice
tower and.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s the south view right there, that’s the south view facing the Mall is
what that is.
MR. HAZEN-That’s east. This would be, I believe what you’re seeing here is coming off of Exit
19.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, yes, I understand that, but the face of the building is facing the Mall. This
side that you can’t even see. This thing that you’re talking about, okay, is in here.
MR. HAZEN-No, sir. That would be on the opposite side of the tower.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, on this side. That’s the addition.
MR. STONE-Question for Staff. What is the technical status of menu boards and things like
that? Because they do have the name of the business on them. Are they signs?
MR. FRANK-Well, typically, I know this is true for some fast food places in the Town. The
menu boards are not facing public right of ways. So when you go to the drive thru at Wendy’s,
for instance, that menu board is facing obviously to just the customers they’re in line. It’s not
really advertising to the public going in the public right of way. So I think that falls under the
category also. I mean, obviously the intent of that sign is for their customers that are in the line
queuing up to go to the order window.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying it’s not considered a sign? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. FRANK-I didn’t say that. I said you’re allowed to have an on-premises sign if they’re truly
advertising for customers on their property. They’re not visible from the public right of way.
MR. STONE-Okay.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. FRANK-That’s how the Code is written. That’s the intent of the Code. I mean, obviously
that’s for their customers waiting to order.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board to the applicant?
MR. URRICO-Would you consider, okay, you’re withdrawing the Starbucks Coffee to the west.
MR. HAZEN-Yes, sir.
MR. URRICO-It says Starbucks Coffee, not the logo.
MR. HAZEN-That’s right.
MR. URRICO-And then on the, for want of a better term, the tower, then there would be left a
Starbucks logo facing south, which is Aviation Road, and then one facing east which is above
the entrance.
MR. HAZEN-Right, facing Route 9.
MR. URRICO-Would you consider eliminating the one facing east, leaving us with the logo
facing south. I’m not speaking for everybody. So this is just my idea, but and then keeping the
other logo. So you would have the logo facing south, and the Starbucks Coffee lettering facing
east or the parking lot or Route 9, whatever, plus the freestanding sign.
MR. HAZEN-Yes. I mean, I’m here to consider your input. Again, they would like to take
advantage of that feature there, but if that’s a consideration and it furthers this along, that’s fine.
MR. STONE-How many logos are going to be on that tower, just two?
MR. HAZEN-Just two.
MR. STONE-One on the east and one on the south?
MR. HAZEN-On the south.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAZEN-And they’re four by four. So they’re not a big.
MR. STONE-I get it. So there’s two, two of those round signs?
MR. HAZEN-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions, gentlemen, ladies? If there are none, then to meet the
obligation for a fair and open process, I’m going to open the public hearing, and this Board
invites public comments. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your
comments to only the facts and information given this evening, and would those wishing to be
heard please come to the table and for the record speak into the microphone, identify yourself
and place of residence, and your statement will be limited to five minutes. Is there anyone in
the audience wishing to come forward to comment on Sign Variance No. 4-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-I would now request comments from my fellow Board members, and we’ll start
with the most senior individual on the Board, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-Well, thank you for the most senior. Is that in age?
MR. ABBATE-That’s subordinate to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary.
MR. STONE-Is that senior in terms of age or service?
MR. ABBATE-No, seniority. Based upon length of service and dedication to the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I guess I would like to see, first of all, I would like to see better
renditions of where these things are. I mean, I’ve got all these west, east, south, north and all
those things. I really can’t understand what you say you gave up. I don’t even know what sign
that is. We have been inundated, in recent days, with new businesses coming into Town and
saying, well, this is the way we operate other places, and what I say is we don’t always operate
that way in Queensbury. We have a Zoning Code. It’s a fairly strict Zoning Code. We have
granted variances from it, but only on some justification, not just the fact that, this is what we’d
like to do and we do it because we do it other places. I guess I would like to see, for me, I mean,
I’ve got here from Staff in terms of where these signs are, and I see a lot of signs, more than I
would be comfortable with, and quite frankly right now I can’t tell you which ones I would like
to see changed. Obviously, a big Starbucks on the east elevation at the corner there, back to the
back of the property, is very important. No question about that, and I certainly have no
problem with the two logos up on top, but beyond that, I really don’t think I can go any further.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, would you please comment?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I have to go back to the Sign Variance sentences that I’ve read
previously, and I’ll try to paraphrase them, but it basically says that this Board should not give
a variance in the strict application of the Sign Ordinance unless the applicant is going to be
deprived of the use of his land or his sign, and I can’t see that the applicant’s going to be
deprived of the use of either his land or his sign in this case if he’s held to what is allowed in the
Zoning Code, one building sign and one freestanding sign, and as has been mentioned, we’ve
had a lot of applications in for additional signs. I think we’ve had a lot, over the last couple of
years, of people coming in saying, well, our company doesn’t have one big sign, it has a whole
bunch of little signs, and we end up with the little signs being positioned in such a way that it
makes the entire wall of the building or the entire building the sign instead of just the thing
that’s got the letters on it, and I think we’ve got to come back to our roots, as it is, as indicated in
the Sign Ordinance. Granting that we have allowed some buildings extra signs whether that’s
been proper or improper, I think it’s time for us to make a decision based on the current
situation, and not repeat past mistakes. Given that, I’m going to stick to the Zoning Ordinance,
say I don’t see any justification for allowing anything other than the two allowed signs here.
The drive thru sign could be a directional sign. It could be set up so once somebody’s on the
property, they can find the drive thru with a compliant directional sign. So that could be an
additional sign that wouldn’t require a variance if it were sized and placed properly. So I’m
going to be opposed to this application the way it’s been presented, and I’m going to be
opposed, even if one of the logo signs comes off or whatever.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to say that you’re going to make my wife
a very happy person. She loves Starbucks. Anyway, that being said, I can understand your
need for the logo sign facing south towards the Mall, because out of that driveway, you cannot
see the freestanding sign. You can’t read it anyway. I agree, somewhat, with some of the other
comments that the Board made early on during the question period, relative to the side facing
east. You’re entitled to the Starbucks sign. That’s fine. I agree with Mr. McNulty relative to the
drive in sign, but I don’t think that that’s offensive even. I think you can get away without
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
having that logo on the east side because the freestanding sign is so well visible from that side
on the approach to the building. There’s not going to be any, you’re going to change the
awning, I’m assuming, to the green color or whatever. So I don’t think there’s going to be any
chance to mistake that for the Vision Center or anything else, even though they can’t see the
back Starbucks sign. So, personally, as the application is presented, I would be opposed to it.
However, if you eliminate the eastern facing logo sign, I would be in favor of an application
with the southern facing logo sign and the drive thru sign.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would try to focus the attention again. The drive thru sign I don’t
have a problem with. I think that’s necessary to advertise the fact that you can. Also on the east
side, I don’t really see any need for that 12 foot by 10 and 5/8’s inch Starbucks Coffee sign, as
th
Mr. Bryant has also suggested. The tiny little four by four, the sixteen square foot signs that
you’re proposing up on top of the turret, like up on top of there, I don’t really have a problem
with either one of those. I think they are somewhat redundant, given the fact that you do have
the freestanding sign out front, but, you know, it does pay to advertise. This has, traditionally,
been a very difficult location for businesses to draw business into. I think Starbucks is a better
known name. So maybe you’ll have better success than these people have had in the past, but I
would like to see some of those signs go, the ones I suggested.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. On principle, I don’t like the idea of saying that I have a certain space
allotment, and I’m going to decide to break it up into a lot of pieces. To me, a sign is a sign, no
matter what the size of it is, and so that sort of defeats the purpose of what we have as a Sign
Variance. On what you’ve presented here, I think the freestanding sign certainly, I don’t know
if you’re going to have it facing east/west, but that seems to present an ample opportunity for
something like 25 to 33,000 cars that go through that area every day to see that sign. I also feel
that how you chose to use your wall sign is up to you. Do you want to incorporate a logo with
it, or if you want to put the logo on the south side, I probably would be in favor of that, but I
think the drive thru can easily be incorporated into the freestanding sign, along with a
directional sign, people will find the drive thru. So, on the face of it, I’m against the application
as presented. I would probably accept what you’re entitled to, the wall sign and probably one
of the four by four logo signs facing south, since there is something that’s needed on that wall. I
think, from the Aviation Mall ramp coming down, there probably needs to be some sort of
identification there, that would be helpful, and that would be the limit for me.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico, and our lady on the Board, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to say that my thoughts are colored by the garish awning and
signs that you’re going to be replacing. I think whatever you put up there will be a big
improvement, and I go around there quite often, and I do think that the sign on either side of
these, that’s south and east of the turret, would be helpful, and I think they’ve added tasteful
signs, and I don’t think they would be obtrusive at all, and you eliminated the sign, too, in the
back. So I would be in favor of the two round signs on the turret, as well as your wall sign.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, folks. You heard what the members
of the Board had to say, and I’m going to give you an opportunity to respond.
MR. HAZEN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I’m certainly not going to direct that you do anything, but I might suggest that
perhaps you might want to consider redoing, rethinking and resubmitting, because looking at
the comments on the Board, as the application is right now, you may experience some problems
with the vote. So I will now give you, sir, an opportunity to respond to any of the comments
made.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. HAZEN-Okay. I did want to address Mr. Stone’s comment about, that there was confusion
as to where the signs were located. We did submit a site plan indicating.
MR. STONE-I’ve got it now. Staff was kind, I just hadn’t looked at it quite as thoroughly as I
should have.
MR. HAZEN-Rather than come back, if we can make a decision tonight, I don’t know, I’d
appreciate it. The drive thru sign, I think we feel, Starbucks feels, is a necessity to get that traffic
moving around, and I did want, when I interrupted Mr. Underwood, what I was trying to
comment on, this is their first drive thru, I believe, in this area. It may be one of their first. This
is a new concept for them. So they felt the drive thru, maybe it’s overkill, but they want to get
that traffic moving through that parcel up there. It doesn’t have a logo on it. So we’re hoping
that would be kind of a directional, serve the public type sign. As far as the, we eliminated the
sign on the west side. We could live with eliminating the logo on the east and keep logo on the
south if that’s acceptable.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, then may I suggest, sir, that if the Board is willing to wait a few moments
longer, I would suggest that you, now, spell out exactly your feasible alternative for our
consideration.
MR. HAZEN-It would be one drive thru sign.
MR. ABBATE-One drive thru sign.
MR. HAZEN-And one logo on the south round four foot by four foot logo on the south side.
MR. STONE-So Sign Three, according to this?
MR. HAZEN-Yes, Sign Three.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you want Sign Three.
MR. BRYANT-And Sign One.
MR. ABBATE-And Sign One?
MR. HAZEN-And Sign One.
MR. URRICO-Bruce, that shot there, you’re facing the south wall, west wall? Which wall are
we facing?
MR. FRANK-That’s the west facing wall, and a portion of the south facing wall. You’re seeing
the southwest corner.
MR. URRICO-So the drive thru sign would only be seen from that side at all. It would be from
the east.
MR. BRYANT-My question to Staff is, technically, if he decided to put a directional sign that
said drive thru, somewhere in the driveway, he could do that?
MR. FRANK-I think there was one there in the past, from the previous tenant. He’s entitled to a
four foot directional sign, without any kind of permit or relief. There’s a height maximum,
which I think it’s six feet. I’m not sure about that. I can look it up. That one, he’s entitled to
one as long as it’s less than four square feet. That drive thru definitely would be a directional
type sign.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-Yes. See, Mr. Chairman, the way I feel, the drive thru sign, he could almost have
that size sign in the parking lot with an arrow on it. So I don’t know that it’s going to be that
offensive to me, and if he eliminates the logo on the east, I’d be willing to accept it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine, well, let me try this. Do I have a motion on this application, with, of
course, the proposed changes by the petitioner if it’s favorable. First we need to do a SEQRA.
Okay.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Okay. Let’s get back now. I am more than willing to
entertain a proposal. The proposal, hopefully, if it’s going to be an approval, will include the
changes, the proposed changes by the petitioner. Do I have any kind of a motion?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2005 RAY SIGN, FOR STARBUCKS
COFFEE, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
607 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes to install three wall signs and one freestanding sign.
The two additional wall signs requiring relief have a total area of 28.6 square feet. Going
through the criteria. How would this benefit the granting of the Sign Variance? The applicant
would receive greater visibility, particularly on the south side, where the freestanding sign is
not visible from Aviation Mall. What affect would the variance have on the character of the
neighborhood? There would be no significant affect on the character of the neighborhood. Are
there feasible alternatives? Not feasible alternatives and give them the same type of coverage
for their business. Is the amount of relief substantial? Two hundred percent is significant,
however, under the circumstances and the location of the building, it’s necessary. Will the
variance have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? No, I don’t believe so. It’s a business district, and it’s similar to
what’s existing now. So with all those things in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve
Sign Variance No. 4-2005 as modified. Specifically, the signs are the drive-thru sign facing the
east, which is 12.6 feet, and the Starbucks Coffee logo sign on the tower facing the south, facing
Aviation Mall, which is 16 square foot.
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I’d like to know which signs we’re approving.
MR. BRYANT-Specifically the signs are the drive-thru sign facing the east, which is 12.6 feet,
and the Starbucks Coffee logo sign on the tower facing the south, facing Aviation Mall, which is
16 square foot. Those are the only two we’re giving him relief for.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s two.
MR. BRYANT-But he’s installing three.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/26/05)
MR. STONE-We don’t care about the third one.
MR. FRANK-You’re granting relief as Mr. Bryant just stated.
MR. BRYANT-I made it clear. He’s installing three. He’s only asking for relief for two.
MR. ABBATE-We’re addressing two.
MR. STONE-Right.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have a number of six, I believe I have six votes for yes. Is there anyone
wishing to challenge the tally? If not, Sign Variance No. 4-2005 is approved with the
stipulations as agreed to during testimony.
MR. HAZEN-Thank you very much for hearing me out at this late hour.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
MR. HAZEN-I appreciate it.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, do we have any other business before the Board?
MR. BRYANT-When are you going to open?
MR. HAZEN-They’re telling me next week, but they always tell me that. I think in a couple of
weeks.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, do we have any other businesses before the Board?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe we do.
MR. ABBATE-I think not.
MR. MC NULTY-I think we’re done.
MR. ABBATE-Then we are concluded. Thank you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Chairman
42