2005-08-17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, ACTING SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
JOYCE HUNT
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-For the Board’s information, we have a number of administrative issues we
have to resolve this evening, at the end of the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES W. NEWBURY AGENT(S): VAN
DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): JAMES W. NEWBURY ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 62
CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT HAS A 52.52 ACRES PARCEL WITH 24.34 ACRES IN
QUEENSBURY. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 6.48,
8.44, 4.31 & 5.11 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. PART OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS IN
THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 52.25
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.00-1-46.2 AND 47 SECTION 179-4-030
MATT STEVES & LAWRENCE HAMILTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is back from tabling. So I think probably the main thing we
need to read in is the Staff notes on this.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2004, James W. Newbury, Meeting Date: June 15,
2005 “Project Location: 62 Cormus Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to subdivide a 52.24-acre parcel into four lots, however, only 24.34 acres exist within
the Town of Queensbury. The remaining 27.9 acres are in the Town of Lake Luzerne.
Lot #1 Lot #2 Lot #3 Lot #4
Queensbury 6.48 ac. 8.44 ac. 4.31 ac. 5.11 ac.
Luzerne 6.78 ac. 5.66 ac. 6.33 ac. 9.13 ac.
Total Acres 13.26 ac. 14.10 ac. 10.64 ac. 14.24 ac.
Relief Required:
3.52 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 1.
1.56 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 2.
5.69 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 3.
4.89 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 4.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
All relief per §179-4-030 for the LC-10A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 13-2003: SEQR Negative Declaration determination for 4-lot subdivision, Planning Board
4/26/05.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 52.24-acre parcel into four lots. Being only 24.34 acres
exist within the Town of Queensbury, lot size relief is required for all four lots. When looking
at the lots with the geopolitical boundaries removed, all four lots would meet the minimum
requirements for size and width. Note: the 27.9 acres existing in the Town of Lake Luzerne
are in the Residential Countryside zone, which has a 10-acre minimum lot size requirement
and a 300-foot minimum lot width requirement. It has not been identified if the applicant is
required to obtain relief from the Town of Lake Luzerne Zoning Code.”
MR. MC NULTY-I guess the other pertinent thing is a memo to the Board from Susan
Barden, Planner, dated August 17, 2005, and that memo says, “The subdivision plat
submitted by the applicant indicates 4 lots, each at least ten acres in total area, that are split
by the Town of Lake Luzerne/Town of Queensbury boundary. The proposed lots would have
vehicular access off of Cormus Rd. Lot 2 has an existing home that will remain. The plan
indicates proposed homes on the other three lots with two of the homes being located within
the Town of Lake Luzerne, and one in the Town of Queensbury.
On June 15, 2005 the applicant appeared before the ZBA requesting lot sizes less than 10
acres in the LC-10A zone. At the June 15, 2005 ZBA meeting the application was tabled and
the Board stated their desire to seek a recommendation from the Planning Board on this
application, specifically on the proposed lot configuration.
At the June 28, 2005 Planning Board meeting, the Board discussed the application, and in
their tabling motion indicated that their issuance of a SEQR Negative Declaration was based
on the proposed plan, that which is in front of the ZBA. The Planning Board had previously
asked the applicant for an alternate plan than what was originally submitted, which was a 5-
lot subdivision. Subsequently, a 4-lot subdivision and a stormwater management report were
submitted for review. This revised plan was what the Planning Board’s SEQR Neg Dec
determination was based on.
If the Zoning Board requests another plan alternative, the Planning Board would have to
revisit their previous SEQR determination for consistency with any new plan or consider it a
new application and redo SEQR.
The Town of Lake Luzerne has determined that variances for minimum lot size (Rural
Countryside 10-acre Zone) are required. Therefore, the applicant needs the granting of
variances by both municipalities. Subsequent Planning Board review and approval of the
subdivision by both municipalities is also required. A condition of “no further subdivision”
would also need to be on the final plats to be filed at both Towns. To date, no APA
jurisdictional determination has been received.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Obviously, the petitioners are at the table. Would
you please be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record please give your
name and your place of residence.
MR. STEVES-Good evening, I’m Matt Steves, representing Jim Newbury. I reside in
Queensbury, New York, and also at the table with me is Lawrence Hamilton, an attorney for
Mr. Newbury.
MR. HAMILTON-From Saratoga Springs, New York.
MR. STEVES-As the Secretary has already stated and read through the notes from Staff and
we were here a few months ago, you were asking about what the Planning Board had decided,
and I said that we had sent them a revised plan, being the four lots. I know that you wanted
some clarity on that, which I hope that the letter from Staff has clarified, and you also had
some concerns, if I remember correctly, on the issues of legal precedence on the variance of
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
less than 10 acres in each municipality. In checking with the State, being the APA, they have
a 10 acre zone in both towns. They have said that they ignore municipal lines. If the
property is in two different towns with both the same zoning, it’s one lot in their eyes. I know
that Mr. Hamilton has been in touch with your counsel, and I believe that’s what you wanted
to happen. That has happened, and I’ll let him speak on what transpired with that.
MR. HAMILTON-Mr. Chairman, both Cathi Radner and I are in agreement that there are no
rules in regard to your decision here tonight. It’s entirely up to the Board. There’s no
precedent law that would require you to act one way or the other. So we’re asking that you
do as the APA would do and ignore the boundary line. We are obviously in agreement that
there would be no further subdivision, and any approval granted by this Board would be
contingent upon approval by the Town of Luzerne.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. We would, depending upon the desires of the Board this evening, it
would be apparent to me that we may have to add some conditions, based on what you said.
MR. HAMILTON-Right.
MR. ABBATE-So if you’ve concluded your argument, then I’d like to ask the Board
members if they have any questions, please.
MR. STEVES-Just one more thing.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. STEVES-I have appeared in front of the Town of Lake Luzerne for the subdivision, and
like I said, they had no problem, but they had deferred Lead SEQRA to the Town of
Queensbury, because it all fronted on Queensbury road. So it really, it had already been to
their Planning Board. They had no problem. I talked to the Zoning Administrator, and as
soon as we have any definitive answers from this Board and the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board, then we can go back to them.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it certainly sounds like you folks have touched all bases. So now I will
ask the Board members if they have any questions, please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, just refresh my memory, because I think I have all my old
notes. If there were no town lines, we’d have four 10 acre lots. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-With no variance required for width or size, correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and, correct me if I’m wrong also. Didn’t you also say that the lots
could be divided, you’ve got like, how much do you have in Queensbury and how much do
you have in Luzerne? You’ve got 20 in Queensbury, 20 in Luzerne? Close to it.
MR. STEVES-Twenty-four in Queensbury and twenty-seven in Luzerne.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So, in reality, you could still have four lots, just two in Lake Luzerne
and two in Queensbury?
MR. STEVES-With a very difficult design plan, because of the fact that all of the frontage is
in Queensbury. There is no frontage, road frontage, in Luzerne.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand that. So I just want to understand, and this was a
question that I asked when you were here, I think, in June. Regardless of the configuration,
you could still have four lots. I understand you want to make it more practical in design and
so forth and so on.
MR. HAMILTON-It’s better planning.
MR. STEVES-It’s better planning, and there is an existing driveway, or roadway on the lot
to the extreme south, and if you did it where there was two and two, you’d have either two
right of ways or two like 25 foot strips coming onto Cormus Road to the two lots in the back,
which effectively you’d still have four houses, two in Queensbury, two in Luzerne, that do not
need any variances, but whether or not that is a better scenario absolutely not. From
planning purposes, from a long flag shaped lot. This is a better scenario all the way around.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. BRYANT-So we’re not increasing capacity, intensity, it’s all basically?
MR. STEVES-And I want to reiterate one more thing, and I know there will be other
questions. I’ll make it real quick. You have 24 acres in Queensbury and you have 27 acres in
Luzerne, both in 10 acre zones, there would be no further subdivision. So if you look at it
from that aspect solely, and you take out the municipal line, you have two houses being built
on 20 acres in Luzerne, and you have an existing house and a new house in Queensbury on
over 20 acres.
MR. ABBATE-So then you would have no objections if I included, as part of the conditions,
no further subdivision?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely not.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great.
MR. STEVES-And I would also have no objections to the fact that the two houses being
proposed in Luzerne on Lots Three and Four be built in the Town of Luzerne.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Fine, thank you. Other Board members, any questions,
please.
MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure that we’re still talking the same plans that you
submitted before.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Four driveways exiting onto Cormus Road.
MR. STEVES-Yes. Two of them existing and two new ones, correct.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Board members, any other questions or comments anyone wish to ask? Okay.
If that’s the case, then I’m going to open up the public hearing, and would those wishing to
be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify
yourself and your place of residence. Good evening. How are you?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAT WASHBURN
MRS. WASHBURN-I’m good. My name is Pat Washburn and I live at 107 Cormus Road.
This is my fifth time in front of this Board, pertaining to this subdivision, and I am very
much opposed to it. I would also like to say that unfortunately I found out about this
meeting at noon today. It wasn’t published in the paper. No letters were sent. I have been
scrutinizing the newspaper to see when this hearing would be, happen, and it was just dumb
luck that I called the office today and they told me it was on. So I made many calls to my
neighbors tonight but since it was noon on a Wednesday, they couldn’t come, but all of us in
the neighborhood feel the same way. I can’t speak for them. They’re not here, but had we
been given a little notice, gotten the letter, seen it in the paper, I’m sure we all would have
been here tonight to once again express our disapproval of this plan. Now, the last time on
June 15, Mr. Steves stated that this project was going to happen, with or without your
th
approval. He can do this legally, and we all know he can do this legally. He’s got enough
acreage to do it legally. Well, let’s see him do it legally. There’s no reason this Board has to
grant this type of a variance for this project. There’s enough acreage in Queensbury, and
there’s enough acreage in Luzerne that he does not need to divide the lots long and skinny.
He can put two lots fronting on Cormus Road and two lots in the back in Luzerne. Yes, it’s
going to involve more expense. It’s going to involve more planning, etc., etc., but let’s see
this Board stick to the rules, 10 acres in Queensbury is 10 acres in Queensbury. The two lots
up by us do not meet the minimum width in Queensbury. Four hundred feet is the minimum
width. They don’t meet minimum width in Queensbury. His house, if he creates the lines as
he says, is going to need a relief for a side yard setback. It’s 100 feet side yard setback. His
house is going to be too close to one of those lines that he proposes. Will there be an
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
undesirable change in the neighborhood? Yes. That’s three more homes, three more sets of
vehicles coming on and off Cormus Road. That’s undesirable in our opinion. Can the
applicant achieve this by some other method? Yes. We just talked about it. Two lots in
Luzerne. Two lots in Queensbury. Is the relief requested substantial? I would say it’s
substantial. There’s not one single lot that meets the required 10 acres, and the relief
requested is unbelievably exceptional, five acres one of the lots. He wants five acres worth of
relief for one of those lots in Queensbury. I’d say that’s an exceptional amount of relief. Will
the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions? We consider it will. That’s more people, more traffic, more noise, etc., etc., and
finally, was this alleged difficulty self-created? Mr. Newbury is in it for the money, plain and
simple. He is in it to make a buck, and, yes, it’s going to affect us. If he sells those lots for
some astronomical price, our property assessments are going to go up. That effects us.
We’ve just had a re-assessment in this Town. Now we’re going to sell some more lots at an
extremely inflated price. What’s that going to do to our property values? Even higher. So I
hope that you will listen to all of this. I know you’ve read it all. I know you’ve heard us.
We’re pleading, and there’s very few of us to plead, as I said, nobody knew about this meeting
tonight because apparently it was Old Business and the public didn’t have to be notified. So,
thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your comments.
THOMAS WASHBURN
MR. WASHBURN-Thomas Washburn, 107 Cormus Road. Again, affected property owner
with my wife. We own 20 acres up here, a separate 10 acre parcel that’s bordering on the
piece of property around where Mr. Newbury wants to take and subdivide. Pieces of those
(lost words) pieces are going to have an effect on us if and or we ever decide to do something,
within our rights for a 10 acre parcel within the Town of Queensbury. My feeling is, again, as
has been stated, he has 20 acres, he meets the requirements in the Town of Queensbury, which
we all live, that he can have those parcels. The other two pieces are going to be over in
Luzerne. What Luzerne’s requirements are, I don’t know, because I’m not a resident from
over there. How close those homes will be set together on those parcels over there could be
another piece of this puzzle, because you can only build in certain areas, reasonably. This
mountain goes up and down. There’s only, out of ten acres, there’s not much building
acreage, when you get all said and done on these pieces. The mountain drops right off. How
close will they be set together on the other side in Luzerne, if they’re only four and five acre
parts they go back there. Those two homes may be sitting right next to each other and that’s
not necessarily needed up here. That’s why it’s ten acres, and it should be followed through
that way. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have any other public comments? If we do, would you
either come up to the table or raise your hand so I can recognize you. It would appear that
there are no other public comments. So would the appellants please return to the table.
Thank you. I’m going to ask members of the Board to offer their comments.
MR. URRICO-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. URRICO-Is it true that it does not have to be advertised, if it’s Old Business?
MS. BARDEN-Maria?
MS. GAGLIARDI-I believe if the public hearing is left open, you don’t have to re-advertise.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Steves. I’m looking at your site plan drawing here.
Your argument against leaving two lots in Luzerne and two lots in Queensbury, you know, 10
acre lots, give or take, is that you require additional site plan and bringing right of ways, but
that’s not the case. Because the two houses that you’re building in Luzerne still require right
of ways and roads going to Cormus Road. So that wouldn’t change.
MR. STEVES-No, but they would have frontage on Cormus Road, the width that they have
now, instead of a small, narrow, like a 50 foot or a 25 foot strip. Plus, one of the comments
made by the public was that his house currently on Lot Three, or Two, excuse me, needs a
variance. No, it does not, but if we were to reconfigure Lots Three and Four to make 10 acres
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
in Queensbury, then slide that line to the north, then that house would require a variance. If
you look at Lot Two, that is the existing farm that is up there, two story wood frame house.
There’s a root cellar, there’s a chicken coop in the back. There’s a couple of spring houses in
the back, and there’s the existing barn that can no way meet the required setback of 100 feet
from the road because it’s built on the road, but that’s probably been there for, I would say,
50 or 60 years, 85 years, okay, but if, in reconfiguring, Allen, per your question, I would then,
there’s no question that that Lot Two, being the existing house, would get crunched in from
the north and the south, that it would require variances for those buildings.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the only problem that I really see is the fact that by splitting the lots,
two in Queensbury and two in Luzerne, that the two in Luzerne would then require a special
variance because you have no road frontage.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That’s what I was getting at.
MR. BRYANT-But I mean, as far as the amount of right of way and so forth and so on, I
don’t see that that’s going to change.
MR. STEVES-My point was a right of way through lands in Queensbury to get the lots in
Luzerne.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you have to have that now.
MR. STEVES-No. I have ownership now. I would have a right of way then. You just stated
the exact same thing. If I created a lot in Luzerne that did not have road frontage, I’d have
to grant it a right of way over somebody else’s property to get to Cormus Road.
MR. BRYANT-I see what you’re saying. Okay. Yes.
MR. STEVES-Okay, and one other question that was brought up is with the stormwater
report that was submitted to the Planning Board for their approval on the negative dec on
SEQRA, the houses were placed in the areas that is the best suited for them, and that’s where
they are shown, where the test pits were done, where the perc tests were done, and where Mr.
Nace did his analysis for the stormwater. There was distance between the houses in Luzerne.
Whether the subdivision was the way it is or two lots in both Towns would not change the
location of those two homes and they are approximately 800 foot apart.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from the Board members before I ask for
your personal opinions? I don’t hear any. I’m going to ask members to please offer their
comments, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that
we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our
conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated, and this is necessary
for an intelligent judicial review. May I start with Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I was very clear the first time, the second time that you guys came before
us. I’m a firm believer in my mantra of logic, commonsense and honesty, and I think you
have been certainly honest. I think commonsense says there are 40 plus acres on this site.
The fact that two are in Luzerne and two are in Queensbury, coupled with the logic that
they’re all going to come out on Cormus Road, four homes can be built. I respectfully
disagree with the two members of the public, the two neighbors who have, in my judgment,
don’t really understand that there are 40 plus acres up there and four lots can be built,
regardless of where they are, and as long as we can condition, as you have agreed, that there
be no further subdivision, and Luzerne will say the same thing, I see no reason in the world
not to grant this variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stone. My position pretty
much hasn’t changed from the last time we spoke about this, and my concern at the time was
that we needed to see a feasible alternative, and that feasible alternative, to me, was an
alternate path, an alternate road, just to see what a configuration like that would look like,
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
and we haven’t been presented with that. So, in my mind, I’m still faced with the same
dilemma I was faced with last time, and that’s making a decision across geopolitical lines, and
I’m not comfortable with that. I’m not comfortable making a decision about what should go
in a Town that’s other than Queensbury, and what’s in Queensbury, I can tell you that what
I see I’m not comfortable with either, because it’s obviously substandard. Now maybe logic
does enter into this, but until I’m shown a plan that’s a feasible alternative, and I think there
might be, but I’m going to be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think we’re charged with granting
the least relief necessary, and I think the least relief is no relief. There’s an opportunity here
to put two lots in Queensbury, two lots in Luzerne. Yes, it’s a little bit inconvenient because
it means either deeding things differently or a right of way, but right of ways are done all the
time. For the two houses in Luzerne, there shouldn’t be any variance from the Town of
Queensbury needed for building on a lot without road frontage because that’s in the Town of
Luzerne, not in the Town of Queensbury. So, that may be a problem for the Town of
Luzerne, but it’s not a problem for the Town of Queensbury, and I have a problem granting
relief for four lots that are half or less in size of what’s required in the Town of Queensbury,
and I still have this nagging feeling that, by granting this, we’re throwing our destiny to
somebody else. We don’t know what the Town of Luzerne will do in the future for their
zoning on that side. If there were other extenuating circumstances I might feel differently,
but I haven’t seen anything that says that this lot cannot be configured with two lots in
Queensbury and two lots in Luzerne. So my view is minimum relief required is none, and
that’s where I’m going to stand. I’d be opposed to this proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico and Mr. McNulty, that there is a
feasible alternative, and I’m taking into consideration the homeowner’s feelings, people who
live on Cormus Road. I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I look at the total acreage and think of it without any geopolitical boundaries,
and I see 52.24 acres in total. I see 52.24 acres and this zoning allows five units. When you
were here last time, or originally when you submitted your application, you requested a five
lot subdivision. You went back, you re-worked it, you looked at it again, you came back with
this proposal of four lots. When I look at four lots on 52.24 acres, not paying any attention to
the geopolitical boundaries, I see a pretty good application and I see no reason to reject it,
other than we, as a Board, have no control over what Luzerne does or doesn’t do. So I think
it’s important that, if the Board does decide to grant this, we condition the approval on
conditions that are pretty tight, so that any Board decisions made in Luzerne do not effect
the variance that we’re granting. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I will definitely do that. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reading over the minutes from the last meeting,
back in June, I basically haven’t changed my mind. Regardless of the plan, we’re not
increasing the density. I would like to see some sort of restrictions, as far as, you know, no
further subdividing, no further changes. I don’t care if it’s in Luzerne or wherever it is, but
the property has to be bound together in those four lots forever. It just, as Mr. Stone said, it
makes for good planning. So I don’t see, I know that we have nothing to do with the Town of
Luzerne, , but by the same token, we’re creating nonconforming lots in Luzerne that will
become problematic eventually. So, I don’t think it’s going to change the traffic on Cormus
Road. Nothing’s going to be any different. You’ve got four lots, regardless of whether
they’re divided the way you propose or they’re divided two, 10 lot acres in each Town. So I’d
be in favor with restrictions, though.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. This is the price you pay as Chairman. Apparently
it’s three and three vote. In addition to the Statutes that we are compelled to abide by, the
various considerations, and public input, and listening to my fellow Board members, all of the
Board members had a strong position. However, I’m going to agree with Mr. Stone, Mr.
Bryant, and Mr. Rigby, that there has been some good planning, and you folks have come
before us on a number of occasions. We have asked you to do a number of things, and you
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
have done that. We have worked in a spirit of cooperation. I’m going to support your
application, with four conditions. If you agree to these four conditions, I won’t withdraw my
yes support. The first condition I would agree to is this. That APA jurisdictional
determination will not object. First condition. Do you agree with that, for the record you do
agree with that?
MR. STEVES-Yes, we do.
MR. HAMILTON-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. For the record, I will, as a second condition, state that Lake
Luzerne, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, even though we have no
jurisdictional authority there, approve your plan. Do you have any objection to that second
condition, for the record?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. HAMILTON-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The third condition I have is that this is approved by the
Queensbury Planning Board. Do you have any objections to that third condition?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and the fourth condition I have is that there will be no further
subdivision. Do you have any problems with that condition?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. ABBATE-For the record, it’s no.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Now, before I ask for a motion, I respectfully remind the
members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on
the area, as well as the fact that State Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be
carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. So I’m looking for a
motion. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 22-2004?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 JAMES W. NEWBURY, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
62 Cormus Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 52.2 acre parcel into four lots.
However, only 24.34 acres exist within the Town of Queensbury. The remaining 27.9 acres
are in the Town of Lake Luzerne. Therefore, in order to make this project work in the eyes of
the applicant, all four lots have to be partially in both communities. As far as Queensbury is
concerned, there are four reliefs that are necessary. 3.52 acres of relief from the 10 acre
minimum lot size requirement for Lot One, 1.56 acres of relief for Lot Two, 5.69 acres for Lot
Three, and 4.89 acres for Lot Four. All of the relief is because of Section 179-4-030, for the
LC-10 Acre zone. In considering this application, it is clear that four lots can be built on this
parcel of land. The applicant, listening to comments made by this Board over the past year,
has concluded that the best way to do it for all concerned, since all lots will have access from
Cormus Road in the Town of Queensbury, that these lots be laid out per the application,
which involves all four lots being in both Towns, as I understand it. In considering an Area
Variance, we balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community. In my judgment, the health, safety and welfare of the community
will not be jeopardized, since four lots could exist in either way. All four lots will have egress
onto Cormus Road. We have discussed at great length whether this benefit can be achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant indicates, yes, there is another
benefit, but it’s really not that feasible as far as the applicant is concerned, since the end
result will be exactly the same as this request. Since there is 10 acre minimum, and all lots
will be at least minimal size, and all will be on the entrance onto Cormus Road, there will be
no undesirable change in the neighborhood character. The relief is substantial if one looks at
each lot, but if you take the project in total, recognizing that there are boundaries, but that
there are still room for four 10 acre lots on this property, and certainly the request will not
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
have adverse physical or environmental effects. The alleged difficulty is possibly self-created,
but it has to do with the fact that his piece of land is in two Towns, and with the stipulations
that we are about to put on this thing, we believe that we have reduced any of the self-created
difficulties. The conditions that are going to be placed on this approval are as follows.
Number One, that the APA, who has jurisdictional determination, have no objections.
Number Two, Lake Luzerne approves, by the ZBA and the Planning Board. Number Three,
there is approval by the Planning Board in the Town of Queensbury, and, Number Four, the
appellant agrees that there will be no further subdivision in both communities. This approval
is with conditions, final approval plans in compliance with this variance must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits, are dependent upon receipt.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-For the record, does the appellant understand these conditions?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. HAMILTON-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 22-2004 is four in favor, three against. Is
there a challenge to the tally? If there is none, then Area Variance No. 22-2004 is approved.
MR. HAMILTON-Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, we’re on next with the Cavayero/Baron application, but if you
want to do the Lead Agency resolution first, for the Starks, so they don’t have to wait
around, that’s okay with us.
MR. ABBATE-I plan on doing the Lead Agency for the Planning Board later on during our
administrative.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Is there a reason?
MR. LAPPER-No, just because I know them, and they’re sitting and waiting and I know
that only takes a minute to do a Lead Agency. So I was just offering.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s awful nice of you to make that suggestion. However, I’m going
to do it at the end of the meeting.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-We’ll hear your case now.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2005 SEQRA TYPE II KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BARON
AGENT(S): CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S): KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BARON ZONING:
WR-1A LOCATION: 87 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING 1,798 SQ. FT. 2-STORY, 4-BEDROOM SEASONAL RESIDENCE WITH A 242 SQ.
FT. DETACHED GARAGE TOTALING 2,040 SQ. FT. AND CONSTRUCT A 2,879 SQ. FT.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF. BP 2004-079, AV 26-2005, SP 7-2004, AV 69-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
JUNE 8, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.22 AND 0.09 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 226.12-1-21, 226.12-1-39 SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-This, too, is returning from tabling. So I’ll read the Staff notes, for a start.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2005, Keith Cavayero & Elysa Baron, Meeting Date:
August 17, 2005 “Project Location: 87 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: The
applicants propose to demolish an existing 1,798 sq. ft. 2-story, 4-bedroom residence with a
242 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a 2,879 sq. ft. 3-bedroom single-family residence,
with attached garage. The project will also provide for a new, on-site septic system and roof
stormwater management system. The applicants have consolidated their two parcels,
creating one parcel of 12,923 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 7.5-feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement
(residence would be 7.5-feet from the South property line).
Applicant also requests .3% of relief from the maximum FAR of 22%.
Relief required is per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 42-2005: Tabled, 6/22/05, proposed 2,959 sq. ft. residence w/ attached garage, requesting
7.5-feet of side setback relief, and 1% FAR relief.
AV 26-2005: Withdrawn, 4/20/05, proposed 3,124 sq. ft. residence w/ attached garage,
requesting 8.5-feet of side setback relief, and 2% FAR relief.
SP 7-2004: Approved 2/24/04, proposed addition to boathouse and proposed addition to
existing residence.
AV 69-2003: Approved 9/17/03, relief from FAR requirement for proposed addition to
existing residence, and maximum height and side setback relief for the existing boathouse.
BP 2004-79: 3/10/04, 678 sq. ft. boathouse.
Staff comments:
This proposal is a 245 sq. ft. reduction in size of the residence than was proposed in the
applicant’s original request (AV 26-2005). The result is, 1-foot less relief from the side setback
(was 8.5-feet, proposed is 7.5-feet) and 2.3% less FAR relief.
Again, the proposal places all the development, the 2,879 sq. ft. residence with attached
garage on the lakefront parcel, however this proposal relocates the new septic system on the
vacant lot across the street, approximately 200-feet from the shoreline.”
MR. MC NULTY-And then I would ask Counsel whether he wants me to read his letter of
transmittal of July 12.
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Mr. Lapper to Chairman Abbate, dated July 12,
2005, regarding pending Area Variance application for Keith Cavayero & Elysa Baron, 87
Mason Road, Cleverdale. “The above application was tabled by the ZBA in June. To
further support the requested variance I am hereby enclosing a new set of drawings prepared
by the project architect, Curt Dybas. Essentially, by this letter I am comparing two
alternatives. One alternative is to renovate the existing dwelling and the second alternative,
which is preferred by the applicant, is to rebuild the existing dwelling. The alternative to
rebuild has advantages for the Town and the neighbors. The rebuilt dwelling would be less
nonconforming with respect to the south side setback. The current south side setback is 5’10”
and the proposed south side setback would be 7’6”. More significantly, the existing garage
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
would be removed in the rebuilding scenario. The combination of the additional side setback
and the removal of the existing garage will significantly increase views of the lake from Mason
Road and neighboring properties. For the applicant the rebuilding option is much preferable
because the existing structure contains mold and has serious structural issues including water
damage. No other variances are required other than the side setback relief. Additionally, the
new leach field will be built on the portion of the parcel which lies on the east side Mason
Road so that it will be approximately 200’ from the lake. The enclosed site plan is
highlighted to show the proposed new structure in orange compared to the existing structure
in yellow. I hope that this comparison will be persuasive. Very truly yours, Jonathan C.
Lapper”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Obviously, we have the Counsel and a
representative. Would you please identify yourself.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Curt Dybas is sitting next to me, the architect,
and Keith and Elysa are in the audience and available for any questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you are not the principal for the appeal. However, we do have
record documentation designating you as the agent for the principal?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-We do. Thank you very much. Proceed.
MR. LAPPER-I want to just clarify something. In my cover letter, I said that there were no
other variances requested, required. Curt was of the assumption that the .3% would be
rounded down, but in Queensbury things don’t get rounded down. So that was an error. Last
time there was about a two and a half percent request for Floor Area Ratio. The building was
obviously reduced in size and now it’s approximately 30 square feet over the 22%. So that’s
how it gets to 22.3.
MR. STONE-Just for clarification, Mr. Lapper, that’s 22.3 is what we’re talking about?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Because sometimes we get percentages, 22.3.
MR. LAPPER-Twenty-two point three, yes.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-So we didn’t acknowledge that when we applied, but after the Staff reviewed
it, that’s what it is, and it’s obviously a very small, the intention was to make it almost the
same size as what was permitted and a very small, few square feet, just to square it off.
Where we’re going with this, besides the fact that after the applicants heard the Board the
last time they went back to the drawing board and reduced the size. They were trying to
prove to you that this is a case where granting the variance is better for the community, and
we have a letter from the neighbor to the south who is the property owner that would be most
effected, saying that they would prefer, one, to have a rebuilt house, and, two, to have the
side setback still require a variance but be less close to their property line than it is right now.
The other big advantage here that I mentioned in the cover letter is that in order to do what’s
proposed, they would be taking down the garage, and the garage certainly blocks the view of
the lake from the road, the existing garage. So we think that both of those, in terms of sight
and light and air, would be helpful to the neighbor to the south. The addition is all being
built within the setback, either way, within the envelope, within the existing envelope and
the setback. So there’s no variance required for that. It’s a question of do you have a house
that, if they keep what’s there now, where it’s grandfathered, they would be replacing rotten
pieces, but it would be closer to the property line than what it would be if they just rebuild it,
and they’ll wind up with a better house, just because of the condition of the structure if they
rebuild it. Certainly relocating the septic system away from the lake is positive for any
potential impacts on the lake. There is a place where they could put the septic system on the
lake parcel, but that would require taking down a big old beautiful maple tree which would be
best left alone. So with that, I’m going to ask Curt to just go through the plan in a little more
detail than I did generally.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. DYBAS-Again, my name’s Curt Dybas. This Board asked for feasible alternatives, and
one of the things that’s been mentioned is we have reduced the size of this building, mainly
talking about the new construction. We would have a one and a half car garage versus a two,
which was presented to you in June. The other thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that the
front of the house either, obviously the existing would stay where it is. The new one would
also remain in that same place. The proposal that was presented in June had an eight foot
deck projecting on the front, which meant pushing the new house back. We’ve eliminated
that deck and the stairway. So from the lake it’s, from the June proposal to this proposal
we’re like three feet farther from the lake. Also, visually, we don’t have this deck, the second
floor deck, protruding out from the front of the house. The existing structure would be 37
feet wide. What is proposed for this variance is 36 foot wide, and it consolidates the entire
structure into one unit, versus having a small garage up in back. We’ve looked at every
feasible possibility of taking space out of it. The other thing with a new one, we’d have to
comply with the stormwater runoff for the entire structure, and it’s my understanding of the
Queensbury Code, if it’s a rebuild, all I have to do is handle the addition. So it’s turning to
be, you know, it’s a plus for the Town, and obviously there’s pluses for our client, and that’s
what we’re presenting to the Board this evening.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. Any of the Board members have any questions in
regards to 42-2005?
MR. RIGBY-I have a question for Mr. Lapper. On the diagram that’s highlighted, the
orange and the yellow, it looks like the house is going to be, the new house is going to be
almost exactly on the existing footprint of the house right now. Is that correct?
MR. DYBAS-To answer your question, yes. I mean, there’s a variance of like a foot
difference. The footprint is, the cross hatch that you see on that drawing would be the
addition, represents the addition to the existing house. The orange outline would be the
envelope of an entire new structure. It’s difficult to try to do the representation on a piece of
paper, but to answer your question, yes. It almost identically mimics it.
MR. RIGBY-And there is an attached garage on the new construction, correct?
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. RIGBY-And the existing garage is removed?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-So there’ll be a driveway then going down, obviously, to the attached garage?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board?
MRS. HUNT-I do.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, yes, Joyce, please.
MRS. HUNT-I’m a little confused that the building that’s there now is 1798 square feet, two
story, four bedroom, with a detached garage, and the new construction is 2,876 square feet.
How can that be? I mean, if you add the old house and the garage, you say it’s the same
footprint, but there’s a big difference in the square area, square footage, and on your plan this
existing two story.
MR. URRICO-The two parcels are 12,923 square feet.
MR. DYBAS-If I understand you correctly, it says existing site plan information on the
bottom, and it shows an addition of all structures, or all usable space that’s on the existing
property, which is 2,040.42 whatever square feet. That’s what’s there now.
MRS. HUNT-Right.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. DYBAS-If you look in the upper right hand side, under site plan information, it says
demolition, new, and that’s 2,879 square feet, and then if you reconstructed it, on the bottom,
it’s 2,895 square feet. It’s basically the same amount of square footage either way on the site,
but if you renovate and had the addition, you have to add the existing garage back into it.
That’s where the numbers are coming from.
MRS. HUNT-You mean on the bottom, where it says existing site area information, that does
not include the freestanding garage?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, it does. If you’ll see in there, there’s a line item for a garage, it says
242.144 square feet.
MRS. HUNT-Well, how can 2,040 become 2,879, and you’re saying it’s the same amount? Is
this the square footage of what’s coming down, 2040?
MR. DYBAS-If we take everything down, that is correct, 2040 square feet is coming down.
MRS. HUNT-And you’re putting up 2,879, but you said before that it was the same
footprint.
KEITH CAVAYERO
DR. CAVAYERO-Mrs. Hunt, I know what you’re asking. I’m Keith Cavayero, I’m the
owner of the parcel. I know what Mrs. Hunt is asking, and I think the clarification is that
what Mr. Dybas was saying that on the proposed plan that we have, there’s two plans in
front of you, one is with a variance, needed with a variance. The other proposed plan does
not need a variance. It can be just, a permit can be applied for and issued with the same
amount of square footage. That’s what the, when you say the same footprint, what he was
talking about, that’s the two plans you have. One is requiring the variance with the 242
square foot garage being torn down. The other one is being left up, and the addition on the
north side of the property, which equivocates to the same amount of square footage, that’s
what he was implying before. Your question was from the original, what’s standing there
now, no, those numbers are not the same, but what you have in front of you is what can be
built without a variance, and what can be built with a variance, and with a variance, we tried
to make the accommodations at the Board’s recommendations to reduce the size and
accommodate in all directions.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
DR. CAVAYERO-You’re welcome.
MR. ABBATE-Any other comments or questions from the Board members? Okay. If not,
the public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 42-2005, and would those wishing to be
heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify
yourself and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No.
42-2005? I see no hands. Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we’ve got one piece of correspondence that Jon just handed
to me.
MR. ABBATE-Would you read that into the record, please.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter from Joseph T. Clemente, and he says, “I own the residence
immediately to the south of the Cavayero/Baron residence and I am writing to indicate my
strong support for their area variance application. Their proposal would result in the set back
between my house and their house being increased and would also include the removal of the
existing grandfathered garage which sits immediately adjacent to my property line.
Moreover, the existing residence which they purchased is in poor condition and it would very
much improve the neighborhood to replace this home with a new home with improved set
backs. I urge the Board to approve their request. Sincerely, Joseph T. Clemente”
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would now ask members to please offer their
comments on Area Variance No. 42-2005, and again, I’d respectfully remind the members
that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated.
This is, again, necessary, for any intelligent judicial review. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I’m satisfied that the applicant has proven that there are feasible alternatives,
and on the balancing test I believe the applicant has now shown to me anyway that the
benefit to him, to them, outweighs any detriment to the community. So I think, specifically,
I think the applicant has shown that this is the best feasible alternative, that the other choice
would have been putting a garage across the road, which I certainly don’t think would have
been the best plan for all. As far as an undesirable change in the neighborhood, well, we
heard from one neighbor, which helps me, but I also feel that the change is not going to be
undesirable. I think they’ve made a lot of effort to improve the quality of what’s existing
there now, and I do think that’s going to benefit to the community as well. The request, on
the face of it, probably seems substantial in terms of the setback, but again, compared to
what’s there now, I think it’s actually not going to be as bad, and I don’t see any
environmental or physical effects, and I do not believe this is self-created. I think you’ve
made an effort to un-create a bad situation, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I’ve been thinking about this, and the last time this came up, I
was concerned about so much development on the property on the lake side, but seeing the
septic system put on that other piece of property I think is a good choice, and I think that I
would support this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-The first variance request, for .3% relief from the Floor Area Ratio, isn’t an
issue at all in my mind. The second variance request I think is reasonable, too, for the same
reason that the other Board members mentioned. There’s neighbor support for the project.
It’s going to improve the condition of the neighborhood, in my view. It’s going to improve
the side setback relief situation. It’s going to move the septic system 200 feet from the
shoreline, and it’s a generally good project in my mind. So I’d have no objection to it either.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I continue my feeling of the previous time we heard this. I think it’s a good
project. I think it’s even better by a blip here and a blip there, and I congratulate the
applicants for their patience, and their help in trying to satisfy the whole Board members. I
was satisfied a long time ago. I’m more satisfied. I believe it’s certainly a benefit to the
applicant with being no detriment to the neighborhood whatsoever. So I’m in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lapper, you weren’t here the previous two
hearings, were you?
MR. LAPPER-I think I was here maybe the first one but not the second one. I don’t recall.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m just wondering if they were bringing out the big guns now.
MR. LAPPER-Or the medium guns, anyway.
MR. BRYANT-I know I’m in a minority here, and I’m going to try to briefly explain to you
my feeling about the project. I think you’ve come a long way since the April hearing. We
have a lot of applications. People come before us with real issues where they have a garage
that’s deteriorating and it’s, they need setback relief to reconstruct the garage or the lot is a
bad configuration, and they have no choice but to request setback relief, or somebody has a
pool that they want to put, but they live on a corner lot and they really don’t have a back
yard by definition. These are real problems, okay, but you have a situation here where you
have the opportunity, you’re tearing down, you have the opportunity to construct a building
that’s totally compliant, regardless of the design. You’ve got an architect, a topnotch
architect in the area, and he would have the ability to design a building that is totally
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
compliant. The statute that refers to our, we’re supposed to grant the least amount of relief
required. The word they use is required. They don’t use desired, they use required. You
have an opportunity to create something that’s just as beautiful as your plan, however, be
compliant, and I don’t understand why we’re not doing that, and that is my major objection.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the simple answer is that because they have this grandfathered
structure, that they have the right to renovate, that 30 feet is just a very narrow building. I
mean, it’s not that you couldn’t design something, but it would be pretty inconvenient. It’s
pretty narrow, and it would be better, given the alternative, it would be better for them to
keep what they have and fix it up than to go with a 30 foot. So they’re trying to offer the
Board enough justification for a compromise.
MR. BRYANT-You have a very talented architect who is very creative, and he would be able
to use that 30 feet to come up with whatever you needed to comply.
MR. ABBATE-I think both of you have made your points. I don’t think we need anymore
dialogue. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Bryant sways me a fair amount. If this were a vacant lot, and you
were coming in with this request, I would say absolutely not, make it comply. There’s some
validity to the argument that the applicant could, with more expense and a lot of pain,
renovate what he has, and that certainly is an option that’s open to him, but I think Mr.
Bryant makes a strong case that there is room on that lot to put that kind of square footage
and have it within the setback lines. Granted, there’s some good tradeoffs here. We’re
getting rid of an old freestanding garage. We’re improving the septic system and putting it
across the street, which certainly is a gain, and certainly on average probably is going to be
better for both the applicant and the neighborhood to build a new structure rather than try
to rehab the old one, and I’m in a little bit of a quandary as to which way to jump. I’m
thinking as I go here, but I think I’m going to come down on the side with Mr. Bryant in this
particular case, that there’s an opportunity here to build something that is compliant, if the
applicant opts for rebuild, and I would like to see something that is closer to compliant than
what is being proposed. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Now it’s my turn. It’s my opinion that over the
period of time that we have heard this particular case, that the appellant in each instance has
made an honest effort to not necessarily satisfy, I’m not comfortable with that word, but to
meet the concerns, I’d prefer to say it that way, to meet the concerns of the majority of the
members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I also take something else into consideration, and
as Chairman I have to take into consideration the spirit and the intent of the zoning laws in
the Town of Queensbury, and I’m going to support your application because, and it is my
opinion that not to support it would be, in view of the fact that what you folks have done in
the past, would not be holding with the true spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinances in the
Town of Queensbury. So I support your application. Before I ask for a motion on Area
Variance No. 42-2005, I respectfully, again, remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that
State Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding
whether to grant an Area Variance. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance 42-
2005?
MR. URRICO-Don’t you have to close the public hearing, first?
MR. BRYANT-Before you vote.
MR. ABBATE-The public hearing is now closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2005 KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA
BARON, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
87 Mason Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1798 square foot two
story four bedroom residence with a 242 square foot detached garage and construct a 2,879
square foot three bedroom single family residence with an attached garage. The applicant
has, in this process, consolidated two parcels, creating one parcel of 12,923 square feet, which
helps mitigate some of the relief that’s been requested. Specifically about the variance, the
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
applicant is requesting 7.5 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement.
That would be 7.5 feet from the south property line. The applicant is also requesting .3% of
relief from the maximum FAR of 22%. The relief required is per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A
zone. In making this request, the applicant has proven, or at least has shown that the benefit
cannot be achieved by any other method feasible to the applicant, at least in terms of on that
side of the property. One feasible alternative was to put a garage up on the other side of the
road, but that in itself would create some additional problems. Whether there’ll be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, it seems that the
property is being utilized similar to the way it is now, with slight modifications. The
applicant has received support from a neighbor to the south that supports this request. The
request is substantial in terms of the side Area Variance and also the request will not have an
adverse physical or environmental impact on the area as well. I do not believe, I hope the
Board supports me, that the alleged difficulty is not self-created. I move that we approve this
motion.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 42-2005 is five in favor, two against. Is there
any challenge to the tally? If there’s no challenge, then Area Variance No. 42-2005 is
approved.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, as long as they are the next item on the
agenda, and the applicant is here, you could do the SEQRA Lead Agency. It’s up to you, of
course.
MR. ABBATE-You want me to do a resolution?
MS. GAGLIARDI-As long as the applicant is here.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I can do it. I’m flexible. I can handle that. Maria, if that’s what
you want me to do, I’ll do it. No problem.
NEW BUSINESS:
RESOLUTION FOR: SEQRA LEAD AGENCY STATUS: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO
CONSENT TO PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR SEQRA PURPOSES
REGARDING THE STARK GROUP, INC. FOR A PROPOSED FOUR (4) STORY COMFORT
SUITES HOTEL AT 1533 STATE ROUTE 9, TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2 IN A HC-INT ZONE.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to offer a resolution, resolution number one.
MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD BEING LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA,
FOR THE PURPOSES REGARDING THE STARK GROUP, INC. FOR A PROPOSED FOUR
STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL AT 1533 STATE ROUTE 9, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve resolution number one is seven to zero. Resolution
Number One is approved. I think we’ve reached that point, finally, on our agenda, where
we’re going to attend to New Business.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CURTIS HARRINGTON
OWNER(S): CURTIS HARRINGTON ZONING WR-1A & SR-1A LOCATION WOLFE
ROAD & BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO ALLOW 3 OF THE LOTS TO
BE UNDER 1-ACRE IN THE WR-1A AND SR-1A ZONES. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 15-2005
SKETCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2005 LOT SIZE: 3.36 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 316.09-1-9 SECTION 179-4-030
CURT HARRINGTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2005, Curtis Harrington, Meeting Date: August 17,
2005 “Project Location: Wolfe Rd. & Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.63-acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is split-zoned
WR-1A and SR-1A and the entire parcel fronts three roads, Big Bay, Wolfe and Boss Roads.
The subdivision would result in lots sized; 1.219-acre (lot 1), .867-acre (lot 2), .732-acre (lot 3),
and .722-acre (lot 4).
Relief Required:
.133 acre (5,793 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 2.
.268 acre (11,674 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 3.
.278 acre (12,110 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 4.
All relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A and SR-1A zones.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 15-2005: Proposal for 4-lot residential subdivision, pending variance approval.
Staff comments:
The applicant indicates that a feasible alternative to the variances requested, is to make 3 lots
over 1-acre in size. Another alternative to this may be to transfer some of the acreage from
lot 1 to lot 4. This could be done by having lot 1 access from Boss Road. When the proposed
drive to lot 1 from Wolfe Road is eliminated, the proposed westerly boundary to lot 4 can be
extended west, making lot 4 approximately .91-acres. As proposed, lot 4 is the most
nonconforming relative to the zoning requirements, at .722-acre and requiring the most relief,
the additional acreage would make a less nonconforming .91-acre lot.
The lots are proposed to be serviced by municipal water and individual on-site septic
systems.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
August 10, 2005 “Project Name: Harrington, Curtis Owner: Curtis Harrington ID
Number: QBY-05-AV-56 County Project#: Aug05-42 Current Zoning: WR-1A & SR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 4-lot residential
subdivision. Relief requested from the minimum lot size to allow 3 of the lots to be under 1-
acre in the WR-1A and SR-1A zones. Site Location: Wolfe Road & Big Bay Road Tax Map
Number(s): 316.09-1-9 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a four lot
residential subdivision. Three of the lots are proposed to be less than one acre: Lot 2-0.867
acres, Lot 3 – 0.732 acres, and Lot 4 -0.722 acres. The information submitted indicates the
site layout for the less acres is compatible to the neighboring area and will assist in keeping
the costs reasonable. The plans show the location of the proposed home, septic location,
water service access, and clearing limits. Staff does not identify an impact on county
resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Warren County Planning
Board 8/15/05.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 56-2005 come to the table,
which obviously he has, speak into the microphone, and for the record please state your name
and your residence.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. HARRINGTON-Curt Harrington, 11 Wolfe Road, Queensbury, New York.
MR. ABBATE-Are you the principal?
MR. HARRINGTON-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-You are. Okay. Please proceed.
MR. HARRINGTON-To answer your question to us, I was at the County meeting last week,
and that was approved, no impact on the County.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Great.
MR. ABBATE-Now what we ask you to do, basically, if you’re not familiar with the
procedures, is just, you’re here, and what you’ve done, you’ve submitted a request, and
you’ve stated to the Town of Queensbury, which they passed on to us, you’d like to do
something. So, in your own words, just explain to us what you’d like to do.
MR. HARRINGTON-Basically, you have the drawing in front of you. What we did
originally is looked at this as six lots, even though that’s not something you’ve seen. When
we did that, we took into consideration the existing subdivisions lot sizes, and typical sized
homes that you would find on those lots in that area. With recommendations from Staff
members at the Town, we opted to go with four lots, meeting all the road frontage
requirements, all the other requirements for zoning, except lot size. The reason we have the
access from Wolfe Road is two fold. One to meet road frontage requirements, two, Boss Road
is narrower, and the applicants and Daniels, Dwyer and Ash, all have driveways that are very
close there, and in the wintertime, snow removal, snow banks get pushed up very high. I
happen to be the one that pushes those snow banks up, so I felt another driveway there would
not necessarily be the best. It’s certainly doable, but I thought the other would be better.
The other thing we did lay out was the proposed housing to keep only one driveway out on
Big Bay Road, which is a higher traffic, higher speed limit type road. We’ve talked to not all,
certainly, but most of the area neighbors, and they are in favor of this. I opted not to bring
letters or ask for attendance until I had input from you and this has been submitted as a
Sketch Plan to the Planning Board also.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have anything else you think you’d like to add? Well, if you think of
something you’d like to add, just let us know. Okay. Do any of the Board members have
questions regarding Area Variance No. 56-2005?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Harrington, when you filled out this application, Item Number Two
where you say what effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood,
and you respond that it would enhance the current homeowner’s value by maintaining similar
sized lots, in reality what you’re saying is that it would enhance the value of your property
because now you would have four lots where only three should exist. Is that accurate?
MR. HARRINGTON-It certainly improves the return on my investment. There’s no doubt
about that. I’m not disputing that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that’s, I just want to understand the motivating factor, and the
other thing is, under feasible alternatives, you mention that you might do a three lot
subdivision. Why isn’t that preferred?
MR. HARRINGTON-Because, when we looked at the size of three lots, versus the rest of the
neighborhood, the size house that you would typically find on that size lot does not fit that
neighborhood. In order to get the most capital out of my investment, which is certainly part
of the equation here. I’m not denying that, I would put bigger houses on one acre plus lots
that would not fit the neighborhood. When I discussed it with the neighbors, and I actually
live on 11 Wolfe Road, the second place in on the opposite side of the street. We all felt it was
better to stay with smaller lots. It would keep lot size very similar. We would put houses
that are basically in the same square footage range, 1500 to 2000 square foot houses in this
neighborhood. The lot sizes would still be bigger than any existing lots that are there now,
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
and it would keep the tax base structure basically the same. The other homeowners across
the street felt that if we put very large lots in there, very large homes, that reassessment
would become an issue, and four lots, for the Town, is also more tax base than three. So
everybody wins.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-The Town, when they looked at this area, decided that there were too many
small lots, and that one acre was the preferred size. So when you’re saying that the Town
would benefit, I’m sure that’s something, one of the considerations they would consider, and
one of the things you’re asking for is three substandard lots, as a result of the request, which
makes it a little harder to achieve from our standpoint. So you might want to think about
that.
MR. ABBATE-Other questions, comments from the Board? Okay.
MR. STONE-Well, the only comment I would make is that we had an earlier discussion this
evening about lot sizes as it effects the Town of Queensbury, and it seems very simple that
this would be adding an extra lot, where zoning says don’t add an extra lot, and I’ve got to be
strongly convinced the other way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments or questions from Board members? If not, the
public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 56-2005. Those wishing to be heard, please
come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself, and
your place of residence. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to make any
comments regarding Area Variance No. 56-2005? If so, would you be kind enough to raise
your hand so I can acknowledge you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-There does not appear to be any public comments. I’m going to now ask the
Board members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 56-2005. I’d like to start, if I
may, with Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, I’m of the same opinion that I was at
the previous application, and that is you have the opportunity to create three lots that meet
all the zoning requirements, and regardless of the other lots in the neighborhood, obviously,
from the zoning that’s been established by the Town, they would prefer to have one acre lots
in that area. So you have the opportunity to create three standard lots. Yes, initially your
return will be less. However, being that those lots will be larger than the lots in the area, you
can put larger houses on those lots, making them indeed more valuable. So I don’t think the
argument that the return would be better with four lots really washes in the end. So, frankly,
I’d like to see three lots. That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I understand the desire for you to have four lots, your economic desire. It does
meet the character of the neighborhood to some extent, too, but there’s a reason why it’s
zoned the way it is, and the reason why it’s zoned the way it is is because that’s how the
Town felt at the time they designed the Zoning Code, and designed the zoning maps, that
that’s what would fit best, and we have an opportunity here where we’ve got new
development happening, and when I look at new development and I look at the Zoning Code,
I think that, you know, I want to be sure that new development falls as best within the
Zoning Code as possible. So I think we have that opportunity here. So I would be opposed to
the plan the way I see it now. I just think it’s too much relief.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with my other Board members. I really think there’s
an opportunity here to make compliant lots, and I see no reason to grant any relief at this
point.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Stone, please.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. STONE-I’m looking at the comments that I made when I looked at this property this
afternoon, which was one acre is enough, and I have heard nothing tonight to indicate that I
should change that opinion. So I would not be in favor of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I have to agree with the other Board members. I think in this case, you
know, it can be argued whether or not the Town zoned this area wisely, but they zoned it one
acre. As was said before, they obviously did it for a reason, and they did it knowing there was
some smaller lots in the area at the time, and I, too, have heard no compelling reason why to
grant a variance from that. I would think the applicant, while he may not be able to get a
maximum return, with three lots in that piece of property, I think he can get a reasonable
return. So I can’t see the justification, in terms of benefit to the applicant, to overrule the
Town zoning in this case. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. We’re starting
with property that’s not developed, and I don’t see any mitigating circumstances to get me to
approve four lots on this property. I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. I, too, would be, I agree with my fellow Board
members, but I have a recommendation for you. It’s a suggestion. The decision is entirely up
to you. I suspect you know that if we were to go for a vote this evening, it would be denied.
May I respectfully recommend to you that perhaps you re-think this, ask us, for the record,
on the record, to table this, if that’s what you wish to do, or, your other option is to ask for a
vote on your application. The decision is yours.
MR. STONE-He can withdraw the application, too.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, the other thing, yes, of course, you can withdraw the application.
I’m just assuming you don’t want to do that, but if you wish to do that, it is your option. Let
me go over them again, okay. Number One, you could ask for a vote this evening, but I can
assure you that you will not receive, based upon the comments, support. Number Two, you
can ask to table it, or, Number Three, you can withdraw the application. Those are your
three options.
MR. HARRINGTON-I would withdraw it at this point.
MR. ABBATE-You are asking this Board to withdraw your application?
MR. HARRINGTON-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your request for withdrawal is acknowledged, and we will, indeed,
withdraw the application. I think what I would like is a vote to affirm the fact that the
Chairman has acknowledge the fact that the appellant wishes to withdraw, and for the record,
I would like to have the vote of each member, either for or against my recommendation.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Sir, your application has been withdrawn. Thank you very much.
MR. HARRINGTON-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2005 SEQRA TYPE II GRACE PACKARD OWNER(S): GRACE
PACKARD ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 15 RESERVOIR DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 32 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. BP
90-313, 2-CAR GAR., BP 94-307 DECK LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.17-4-6
SECTION 179-5-020 C2
GRACE PACKARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2005, Grace Packard, Meeting Date: August 17,
2005, “Project Location: 15 Reservoir Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes placement of a 512 sq. ft. inground pool in the rear yard of the residence, situate on a
corner lot. It is proposed 16-feet from the rear property line.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 4-feet of relief from the 20-foot rear setback requirement, per §179-5-
020, to locate the pool 16-feet from the rear property line.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 94-307, issued 6/16/94 for a (16’ x 34’) deck.
BP 90-313, issued 5/31/90 for a (24’ x 24’) 2-car garage.
Staff comments:
The amount of relief requested in the application was not accurate. From the submitted plot
plan, the proposed pool would be 16-feet from the rear property line, not 10-feet. The
applicant should clarify which is correct.
Per § 179-5-020 C4, “All private swimming pools shall be enclosed by a permanent fence of
durable material at least four feet in height.” Is a fence proposed, one is not identified on the
map. The installation of a fence should be a condition of approval to help to minimize any
negative impacts to the neighbors to the East.
Finally, per § 179-5-020 C5, (In the case where a lot fronts on two or more public rights-of-
way), “The pool shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way and the
neighboring property by means of landscaping.”
MR. MC NULTY-And this did not go to Warren County, and it is a Type II action.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No.
57-2005 please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record please state
your name and your address.
MS. PACKARD-Good evening.
MR. ABBATE-Good evening.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MRS. PACKARD-My name is Grace Packard. My address is 15 Reservoir Drive. I’ve
applied for the Area Variance to put a 16 by 30 foot inground swimming pool in my back
yard. I’m on a corner lot, so I’ve got restrictions on both sides, 20 feet on the side, 20 feet on
the back. My lot is a little over a quarter of an acre, and it’s a hillside ranch. So the house
sits up on the top, and the back yard goes down quite a bit. So there’s quite a slope there. I
will have to take some of that slope out as it is, in order to put the pool in, but what I didn’t
indicate on the plot plan was the fact that there will be a four foot concrete slab that goes all
the way around the pool. So in fact it’s not 16 feet from the back. It would be 12 feet from
the back. So I’ve only got two feet between the 10 foot variance that I’m asking for. There is
a fence all the way around the property. It’s an existing fence. It’s been there since I moved
in. It’s totally enclosed. There’s two gates that you can open to get into it, and they can both
be locked. They have locks on them. There’s landscaping. It’s a very nice lot. So I don’t
think that that would be a problem, but I do have to have that 10 foot setback in order to
place the pool. That’s all that I have.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and if you think of anything else you feel would help you in your case,
during this hearing, please just interrupt us and let us know. Okay.
MRS. PACKARD-Okay. Well, there was one thing that I didn’t mention, which I should
have. This is the Reservoir Park subdivision. Apparently it’s been around since 1955. There
is a sewer, the City sewer, that runs through the back of all of the properties on Reservoir
Drive. So therefore I would have to have at least a 20 foot setback there, no matter what. So
I can’t change that. That’s why I’ve applied for the setback on the back portion. That’s the
only relief I can get is that one.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you have anything else at this time?
MRS. PACKARD-That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then what I’m going to do is ask Board members if they have any
questions of Mrs. Packard? Please.
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. Susan, the sketch plan that we have, which is
obviously not drawn to scale, necessarily, would appear that the northwest side of the pool
would just be behind the corner of the house, which, by the way, is a lovely setting. I think
the way your house is situated on that lot, we ought to do more of that with corner lots,
because I think it really works very well, but, I mean, it’s not going to require any front yard
relief there, I gather, from that.
MRS. BARDEN-The northwest corner would be in the other rear. She has two fronts.
MR. STONE-Except that it would be seen, could possibly be seen, from Clark Street, if it
were an inch or two out. I mean, we’re talking a very technical difference. It’s supposed to
be behind the house. Is that correct?
MRS. BARDEN-It is behind the house, and it would still be in the rear yard, because both of
those, northwest and northeast, are both rears. Right?
MR. STONE-No. I agree it’s behind, but I’m just wondering if it might stick out, if I’m
making myself clear, if I draw the corner of the house, parallel to the lot line, do I hit the
pool, which would be a technical violation, I think, but the other thing is, what is the number
that we’re talking about? I mean, I’ve heard 16, I’ve heard 10. I’ve heard four. What is the
number we’re looking for?
MRS. PACKARD-Ten feet.
MRS. BARDEN-Mrs. Packard, I think, just clarified the fact that there’s four feet of
concrete around the pool that isn’t marked. So, if you add that to the back, it is, in fact, a 10
foot setback, from the pool and the surrounding concrete around the pool to the back
property line.
MR. BRYANT-She just said it was 12. That including the concrete, it was 12 feet away from
the property line. Isn’t that what you said?
MRS. PACKARD-No, 10 feet.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. BRYANT-Yes, according to the drawing, but basically you just said that, you know,
originally it was 16, and then you’ve got four feet of concrete. So that makes it 12.
MRS. PACKARD-I’m not sure I understand where.
MR. URRICO-Originally you were asking for 10 feet of relief.
MRS. PACKARD-Correct.
MR. URRICO-And the Staff, in the Staff notes, they said that it’s actually, you only need
four feet of relief because it’s 16 feet from the property line, but you just said that you’re 12
feet from the property line, which would be a request for eight feet, then.
MRS. PACKARD-No, I’m requesting 10 feet from, off of the 20 feet, so, in other words, 10
feet from the property line.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MRS. PACKARD-Okay.
MR. URRICO-What was the 12 feet then you were going to talk about?
MRS. PACKARD-Then after that 10 feet, I have to have the four foot apron, concrete apron,
and then the 16 foot pool
MR. URRICO-Right.
MRS. PACKARD-So that actually is 14 feet, from the property line.
MR. URRICO-Of the pool from the property line?
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. URRICO-Then you have the four foot apron.
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. RIGBY-So is the distance from the property line to the pool 16 feet?
MRS. PACKARD-Sixteen feet.
MR. RIGBY-And then you have a four foot apron that goes around the pool.
MRS. PACKARD-No, that includes the four foot apron.
MR. RIGBY-The 16 feet includes the four foot apron.
MRS. PACKARD-Correct.
MR. RIGBY-So you’re really only asking for four feet of relief.
MRS. HUNT-Four feet.
MR. BRYANT-No, that’s not correct.
MRS. PACKARD-No. Don’t I need to have?
MR. ABBATE-She needs 10 feet of relief.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think 10 feet was originally, that’s right.
MRS. PACKARD-That’s what I asked for was 10 feet.
MR. BRYANT-Ten feet.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MRS. BARDEN-And I confused everybody. Sorry.
MR. URRICO-And I think Mr. Stone was asking whether the pool would extend beyond the
corner of the existing deck.
MRS. PACKARD-It’s not even going to be near that area.
MR. URRICO-If you were looking from Clark Street through the back lot.
MRS. PACKARD-Well, you have to understand, the property slopes down quite a bit. You
would not be able to see a pool, whether there was one there or not. Because the fence is very
high up.
MR. STONE-Technically the pool has to be behind the structure.
MRS. PACKARD-Right, I understand that.
MR. STONE-That’s the only question. Whether it can be seen or not is not the point.
MRS. PACKARD-Right, no.
MR. STONE-We deal in two dimensions, in this case.
MRS. PACKARD-It’s set so that it would not be more than 20 feet out of the line of the
house.
MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question. That row of trees on the line parallel to the length
of the pool, those are yours?
MRS. PACKARD-The trees?
MR. STONE-Yes, that long line of trees.
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-And they would stay.
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-I just wanted you to say it, that’s all.
MRS. PACKARD-It offers a nice amount of privacy.
MR. STONE-Yes, it does.
MR. ABBATE-I have just a couple of questions. I just wanted to clarify something, if I may,
please. I’m going to assume that you are aware of the fact that you mentioned a fence, that
there must be a permanent fence of, the zoning spells out of durable material, at least four
feet in height. Does that currently meet those requirements?
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-It does.
MRS. PACKARD-It is four feet in height, yes, it is.
MR. ABBATE-The other thing I want to make sure that you understand is this, that Section
179, I’ll be happy to give you a copy, do you have a copy of Staff notes by any chance?
MRS. PACKARD-No.
MR. ABBATE-You do not, okay. Well, just let me, it’s short. Let me read it so that you
understand it. In the case where a lot fronts on two or more public rights of way, the pool
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
shall be screened from the view of the public right of way and the neighboring property by
means of landscaping. Are you aware of that provision?
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You are. Okay. For the record, thank you very much.
MRS. PACKARD-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other comments from any of the Board members?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but Susan and I were kind of
having a conversation off line here, and I want to be crystal clear on the relief that we’re,
that’s being requested. The distance from the property line to the swimming pool itself is 16
feet. Do we agree to that?
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-Is that what we’re all saying? From the property line to the swimming pool is
16 feet.
MRS. PACKARD-No, from the property line to the swimming pool will be 14 feet.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MRS. PACKARD-The 10 feet plus the 4 foot concrete apron gives you the 16.
MR. RIGBY-So the distance from the property line to the swimming pool is 14 feet.
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. RIGBY-And there’s going to be a four foot apron going around the pool?
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Which would make your variance request for 10 feet of relief.
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments? No other Board member comments? Okay.
Let me open the public hearing, and those wishing to be heard on Area Variance No. 57-2005,
would you be kind enough to come up to the table, please, speak into the microphone, and for
the record identify yourself and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB FULLER
MR. FULLER-My name is Bob Fuller. My very nice house is at 13 Reservoir Drive, right
next door to Mrs. Packard, and hers is a nice house. My concern, of course, is the impact on
my property value, that granting this variance would cause. The second is, of course, I’ve
heard as you do explain some of the events going on here, you talk about value and lot size
and what you’re going to do on a lot size, and I have not, to be honest with you, I have not
seen the drawing. I don’t know exactly what this looks like, but I was pleased to hear that
there was some concern about the sewer pipe that runs out of Mrs. Packard’s house, and joins
in at the back of her house, and that would be, I certainly wouldn’t be able to put a pool in
my back yard. My house, my bedroom is 14 feet from the property line, and I think having a,
I won’t say anything about the pool. I would just say that I think it would impact in an
adverse way my property values, and I would ask for that consideration, and if you have
anything you have anything to say, would you like to speak?
LISE FULLER
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MRS. FULLER-Yes. My name is Lise Fuller, and I live at 13 Reservoir Drive. I have a
couple of questions about this pool. One is, I did see the drawing, and there wasn’t any
indication of a concrete area around the pool. So I really have a concern about just how big
that back yard is. It’s actually a very small back yard, and it’s got a real slope on it. So I
was concerned about it. You’d have to bring in an awful lot of fill to make that an inground
pool. So I was concerned about that. I’m actually concerned that it’s such a small yard and
it’s a big pool and I don’t see how it can fit in there, and it’s also going to be right against the
line. The trees are on the line, but if there has to be a fence, there’s a fence, a wire fence along
the tree. So I don’t know if that qualifies or not, and I’d sure hate to see the trees, anything
happen to the hedgerow there, because it’s a really beautiful hedgerow, and I was worried
about the fact that that’s part of the Reservoir Park sewer district, and there’s a drain right
in the property. So I was concerned about the effect that that would have for the 25
homeowners that have to use that. It’s like a big septic tank, is what it is, so I think that’s it.
MR. FULLER-The septic tank is all the way down Reservoir Drive. It crosses Clark Street,
and it’s on almost the corner of, and this really has nothing to do with, I think, your house,
but it’s a community septic system, and it’s all the way down at the, across Clark Street,
almost on Dixon Road. So I don’t think it’ll factor anything. This is an area that Steve
Borgos used to call no man’s land.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. STONE-Well, are you concerned that if Mrs. Packard went to drain the pool that it
would adversely effect?
MR. FULLER-No.
MRS. FULLER-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure of that.
MR. FULLER-No. I don’t know what drain Lise is talking about.
MRS. FULLER-There’s a big huge drain there. There’s a big, huge drain in the corner of the
yard.
MR. STONE-It’s a storm drain.
MRS. FULLER-A storm drain, yes. There’s problems with that particular septic tank. It’s a
25 (lost word) and it’s the house across from the Packards that that would have, there’s
problems in that whole thing, because it has to drain, it has to go across Clark Street and then
it has to drain down and then it has to go straight into a place down in, like the big area.
MR. FULLER-It’s across Clark Street.
MRS. FULLER-So there’s problems there and there always has been. So I’d be concerned
about that and the water flow and everything. Because they’re going to have to, in order for
an inground pool to be there, they’re going to have to put an awful lot of fill. It’s a very steep
lot. I mean, their house is way above our house, and we’re like down there. So I was real
concerned about that. It’s just not a big space.
MR. FULLER-I might also, if I may point out, that privacy is, in this sense we’re talking a
very visual sense. On a clear evening, from my bedroom I can hear even the most civil
conversation from the deck. We’re that close, and that isn’t to say I listen, but we are that
close that I do hear conversations.
MR. ABBATE-Your time is up, folks. Do we have anyone else who’d like to make any
comments regarding Area Variance No. 57-2005? Apparently we do not.
MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of written correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a note from Patricia Geruso-Blumberg and Alvin Blumberg. They
live at 20 Old Forge Road. They say, “As property owners/occupants in the immediate
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
vicinity which will be affected by this proposal, we must object to the rear yard setback.
Niagara Mohawk maintains a right of way between our properties. The area in question is
too close to our out of door patio and the screened in portion of our home, our kitchen and our
master bedroom. We have already allowed the building of a deck, without complaint, at 15
Reservoir Drive, as well as a two car garage. The 0.28 acres simply is not sufficient to allow
for such intrusion into neighboring property. Due to the high volume of traffic and speed in
the front of our house on Old Forge Road, we have had re-arranged our living space to focus
at the rear of our home. We have not been provided with any information as to this proposal
other than the notice from the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Blumberg has a heart transplant
and is awaiting a kidney transplant. He is in dialysis treatment three days a week for 5-6
hours at a time. His physical and emotional condition on non-dialysis days is debilitated. He
needs to be at his home at 20 Old Forge Road and should not be prevented from peaceful
enjoyment of his backyard and screened room in his home because of a back neighbors
swimming pool that does not meet setback requirements. The property at 15 Reservoir Drive
has other space for a pool, such as behind the two car garage. The pool needs to go some place
that will not require setback variances. We are already putting up with the applicants
barking dog. Without additional information, we must protest the proposal as it is presented.
Sincerely, Patricia Geruso-Blumberg and Alvin Blumberg”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will now ask members to please offer their
comments on Area Variance No. 57-2005, and again, I respectfully remind the members that
precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence in the record, and of course
this is necessary for an intelligent review. If I may start with Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I’m really kind of torn here. The 10 feet of relief is a lot, and I’m
concerned about the neighbor’s comments. It is a large pool, and until I have some assurance
that there would be buffers, I would not approve this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I must say that I’m concerned by the concerns of the neighbors, since that’s
one of the tests, elements that we’re charged with considering, as to whether it’s an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and we’ve heard
from two, and I believe there might be some feasible alternatives as well. The request is
substantial when you consider the side setback, and so I think, based on that, I would be
against it at this point, unless there was some changes made.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve been considering the neighbor’s concerns, and it strikes me that the
concerns we’re hearing from both neighbors, both the ones that appeared here and the ones
that wrote in, are concerns about sound more than anything else, and I don’t believe 10 feet
setback, one way or the other, is going to make any difference in terms of sound. I think it’s
more a question of, do you allow a pool or do you not allow a pool, period, and I think part of
that has to fall to the applicant to control noise, if she does get a variance for the pool.
Certainly screening is required. The point’s been made several times from Staff notes and
other comments that the pool needs to be visually screened. So I think that probably is a
given. I’m kind of leaning in favor, but there again, it would be good to know if there is any
possible alternative in locating this pool. As I say, even though it strikes me that, should the
applicant be able to find a way of even making it totally conforming, I don’t think that’s
going to solve any of the concerns of the neighbors, but put me down tentatively in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have it. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I looked at the property this afternoon,
and based on the Staff notes, you know, the request was for four feet of relief, which is 20%.
It’s a decent amount of relief, moderate. I thought, I was leaning towards being in favor of
the application, and now we’re talking about 10 feet, which is 50% of relief. We’ve got two
neighbors that are opposed to it, and I do agree with Mr. McNulty that the 10 feet is not
going to make any difference in noise, and I don’t think that that’s really an issue, but the
fact that now you’re requesting 50% of relief, it is substantial, and so at this juncture, I think
I’m going to fall on the negative side.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone. If you would like to come up, you’re more than
welcome, but I don’t encourage dialogue. I would prefer that we finish our little dissertation
here. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-The siting of pools in Queensbury is a subject that has been presented to us on
many occasions. The vast majority of times, in my recollection, we’re dealing with back yard
setback from common property, not directly associated with a particular home. In this
particular case, you’re seeking relief from a property line which is immediately adjacent, if
you will, to a neighboring residence. While Mr. McNulty is correct in saying that our
Ordinance doesn’t necessarily talk about noise, we are talking a change in the neighborhood
character. That can be achieved by a variety of ways, and I think Mr. Urrico made a very
good argument that it would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Certainly the
request is substantial. It’s not going to have any physical or environmental effects, unless the
draining of the pool, if you so do it, would overly tax the sewer system. Listening to the
arguments that have been made, and certainly the presentation by both neighbors, written
and presented personally, I would have to come down, at this point in time, with the current
proposal, on the no side.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I was indecisive, and I also went out to the property, and I’m sorry for blocking
your driveway, but when I was out there, I was looking at a minimal amount of relief, and I
looked at the property and it seemed like, you know, it looked like it could probably work in
my view, but now understanding more of the facts and understanding it’s 10 feet of relief, and
hearing the neighbor’s feedback, I don’t think I could be in favor of it either. I think there’s
some other alternatives that maybe you could pursue, a smaller pool, moving it, or something
along those lines. So I’d be open to another alternative.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, may I get back to you, please?
MR. MC NULTY-Back to me? I’m going to stay where I am. I think I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-All right. You’re going to be in favor. Okay. We are charged with taking
into consideration, and I think you heard it earlier, there are five concerns, and one of the
concerns is would there be any adverse effect on the neighborhood. While we do not make
decisions on public opinion, nonetheless, when there is an immediate impact, which there
would be, in this particular case, on both neighbors, for whatever reason, I think that it’s
important that we do take that into consideration. Any decision that this Board makes really
must be in the best interest of everyone concerned. At this particular point, I would probably
not support your application. So I have a suggestion or recommendation. The decision is
entirely up to you. You have several choices. One, you may ask this Board to table your
application, and that would give you an opportunity to kind of reconfigure, kind of re-think
this thing, maybe talk to your neighbors, come to some sort of an agreement, if that’s
possible.
MRS. PACKARD-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Or, the second one would be to withdraw your application. At the present
time, you could ask us to hear it, but I would suggest to you that if you ask to proceed, you
would probably, your application would be defeated. So the choice is yours, Madame.
MRS. PACKARD-Right. I will withdraw. I don’t want a smaller pool. I wanted to be able
to swim laps in it because I have an arthritis problem in my neck, and it’s important that I do
that. If I have to have a smaller pool, I wouldn’t be able to do that. We’ve worked this
around quite a bit with Sprague Pools, and this is the only design that he could come up with
where it would fit. So I’ll withdraw the application.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Packard, then, am I correct, you are asking this Board to withdraw your
application?
MRS. PACKARD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Ms. G., would you take a roll call. It’s my recommendation to the Board that
we do, in fact, honor her request and withdraw the application. Would you do a vote call,
please.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. The request, Mrs. Packard, for a withdrawal of your application is
approved.
MRS. PACKARD-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2005 SEQRA TYPE II HARRY & BETTY GOLDSTEIN
OWNER(S): HARRY & BETTY GOLDSTEIN ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 48 MEADOW
DRIVE, RIDGE MEADOWS SUB. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-CAR
GARAGE (22 FT. BY 24 FT.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 88-482 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297-17-1-80 SECTION 179-4-030
HARRY & BETTY GOLDSTEIN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2005, Harry & Betty Goldstein, Meeting Date:
August 17, 2005 “Project Location: 48 Meadow Drive, Ridge Meadows Sub. Description of
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 24’ x 24’ (576 sq. ft.) detached 2-car garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 10-feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum in the SFR-
1A, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 93-1993: Similar application as this, approved 10/21/93, for 7-feet of side setback relief to
build a garage. This approval was not acted upon.
BP 88-482: Issued 7/14/88, for a 36’ x 56’ single-family dwelling including septic system.
Staff comments:
The applicants propose a 24’ x 24’ detached 2-car garage on the South side of the property.
The garage, as proposed, would be 7-feet from the South side property line, at the closest
point. The applicants indicate on their submitted plot plan that this boundary is buffered by
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
trees and shrubs, and that their immediate neighbors to the South, and potentially most
impacted, are in favor of the plan. Consideration should be given to requiring that the
natural buffer along the property lines be left undisturbed.
The applicants have suggested that this is the best location for their project, due to the
stream on the North side of the property.”
MR. MC NULTY-This is a Type II Action, and it was not referred to Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 58-
2005, please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record please state
your name and your residence.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-Hello. My name is Betty Goldstein. I live at 48 Meadow Drive in
Queensbury.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Harry Goldstein. We’re requesting this variance because we really need a
garage for both our cars and storage. The setback, the difference between the seven and ten,
is we’re pushing it back a little farther. The property line runs at an angle. That’s why
there’s the difference between the ten and the seven.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to add before we begin?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Actually, yes. There is no other place that we could find that we could
actually put this garage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and if, during our conversation, you think of anything else, don’t
hesitate to let us know, please. Thank you. You are the principal, I see, of the property
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do any of the Board members have any questions concerning 58-2005?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. They’re asking for 10 feet of relief. It shows 10
feet on the sketch over here, to the southwest corner, but here in the Staff comments you said
the garage as proposed would be seven feet from the south side of the property line. Which is
it, 10 feet or 7 feet? Is that a typo? Am I missing something?
MR. STONE-It said 13 in your setback requirements.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-I think I just explained that. The difference is we’re pushing the garage a
little farther back on the property line. So that’s why it’s seven instead of ten that I’m asking
for.
MR. BRYANT-You’re still asking for 10. According to Staff notes, you would be asking for
13.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Shouldn’t be.
MR. STONE-No, it would be 13, Al. That’s why they need the seven. The building would be
13 from the property line, at the point.
MR. BRYANT-At the high point, but at the low point it’s 10, according to the sketch. If you
look at the Staff notes, the second line.
MR. MC NULTY-It may be that the comments on the bottom of the Staff notes were picked
up from the previous 1993 application which doesn’t give a seven foot.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s what I’m trying to determine.
MR. URRICO-Well, it also looks like the map was written on, and that originally it says 13
and then 10 is written over it.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and it corrected it. So it’s 13 at the back of the garage and 10 feet at
the front of the garage.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. URRICO-Is that right?
MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s not what it says on the.
MR. BRYANT-So the Staff notes are really a typo. Is that right? It’s actually 10 feet from
the property line at that southwest corner.
MRS. BARDEN-It is, and it shows 10 feet and 13 feet, but as Mr. Goldstein indicated, that
it’s on an angle. So the front part is 10 feet, and the back part is 13 feet. On their
application, they have that it’s 13 feet from the property line, but the closest point is 10 feet.
So they need 10 feet of relief.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying that where it is on the drawing is correct, or did they go back
further? That’s the question. Mr. Goldstein seems to be saying they’re actually going back
further.
MRS. BARDEN-From his previous application from years ago. This garage is back further
than was originally submitted.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we are talking 10 from the southwest corner?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-For the record, it appears to me that the application is in order, for 10 feet.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Anyone else have any questions concerning 58-2005?
MR. URRICO-I have a question. You were originally approved for it in 1993 and you didn’t
act on it then?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-We got the approval but we didn’t act on it because we kind of ran out of
funds and decided to do other things with it.
MR. URRICO-Those things happen, but at that time, you only needed seven feet of relief.
Was it a smaller garage then?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Actually, we pushed it back farther.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Instead of level with the house, we pushed it.
MR. BRYANT-Why can’t you do that again?
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-Why can’t we?
MR. BRYANT-You’re asking for 10 feet of relief. You got approved for seven. Why don’t
you just live with the seven?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Because we want the space to be able to drive my riding tractor between
the garage and the house.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but the more you push the garage back, the more space you’re going
to have, therefore, and the less you’re going to need.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-No, because the property line, if you look at it, runs not parallel but
diagonally away from the house.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. URRICO-But it’s the front of the garage is what’s creating the problem. So if you
moved it back a couple of feet, then the relief would be less, is what we’re saying.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, so why aren’t we doing that?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes. I thought I did, that’s why I said that it might be a little bit less, if
I move it back even farther, right, but I can’t go back too far because of my leach field.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the leach field shows behind the house not behind the garage. In
this sketch, the leach field, you could move the garage almost to the back of the property. So
the question is, why aren’t you moving the garage back far enough so that you don’t need
any setback relief?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Well, there again, I don’t want the garage that far away from the house.
I still want just enough room to.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you got seven feet approved before, okay. You obviously had the
garage in some other configuration, where it was approved. Now you need 10. Why don’t
you just go for the seven and we’ll all go home.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-I guess I could do that.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-It may have been a smaller garage, too. I don’t recall.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-No, I don’t think so. I think it was the same size garage.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-It wasn’t? Okay.
MR. BRYANT-And the other question is, I have a two car garage, but it’s not side by side.
It’s front by front, okay. That’s the way my house was built. Go figure. That’s a possibility.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-I’m totally confused now.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes. No, there’s no, if you look at the picture, there’s no way to put the
garage any place.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m just saying, get a narrower garage. That’s all.
MR. URRICO-Is that a septic box behind your house?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Like I say, we don’t have a basement.
MR. URRICO-So behind the house you have a septic field, a leach field and a septic box?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes, actually off to the side that’s why I can’t come closer to the house.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the tank and the distribution box, I think, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments from the Board
members? Okay. Apparently we do not.
MR. STONE-Well, I just want to confirm, Mr. Chairman, that the southwest corner of the
proposed garage is 10 feet from the property line at its closest point.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-We’ll go with that.
MR. ABBATE-For the record, as I understand it, not only from the applicant but from Staff,
the request for 10 feet is in order.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the Board? All
right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 58-2005, and those
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the
record, identify yourself and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARTY STRIEBLE
MR. STRIEBLE-My name’s Marty Streible. I live at 40 Meadow Drive, and he’s the one
that’s been building beside us, and you were talking, a few minutes ago, about why he didn’t
want to push that back. He was keeping it up front so he comes out of his side, come out his
garage, come right onto his existing sidewalk. That’s why they didn’t push it back any
farther than it was. So it would be more convenient for him to come out of a garage and right
out into their house, and the other thing is, before he mentioned it was a 22 by 24. It’s a 24
by 24.
MR. STONE-And you’re the neighbor to the south?
MR. STRIEBLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-And you’re in favor of it?
MR. STRIEBLE-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s all I wanted to hear you say.
MR. STRIEBLE-That’s fine. You were just asking questions about it, and I just, he didn’t
understand.
MR. BRYANT-You were going to answer about the seven feet. They got seven feet before.
Now they need ten.
MR. STRIEBLE-I didn’t know they had to have seven feet before.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So why do we have the three foot difference here?
MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Bryant, I’m not so sure that’s an appropriate question for the
public.
MR. BRYANT-Well, he was raising his hand that he was going to answer it.
MR. ABBATE-I understand that.
MR. STRIEBLE-Well you were just trying to badger him about that. I was just trying to
explain, that’s all it was. That was from an old, old, it was from something old about it.
MR. ABBATE-You are in favor of this application?
MR. STRIEBLE-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. STRIEBLE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who wishes to be heard concerning
Area Variance No. 58-2005? Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mr. Secretary.
MR. MC NULTY-Very brief note from Phyllis and Henry Hess. They’re at 30 Meadow
Drive, and they say they have no objection.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. No objection. I will now ask members to offer
their comments on Area Variance No. 58-2005. Again, remember, folks, we have to address
the evidence in the record. May I start with Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I look at this plan, if the garage were moved
back 24 feet, you would need only the seven foot, but I can understand not wanting to walk
that distance from your back door to the garage, especially in bad weather. I would be in
favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I come down the same way Mrs. Hunt did on this. I think I’ll be in favor.
As she’s pointed out, there’s certainly benefit to the applicant not moving the garage further
back. They’ve got a shorter walking distance. Also that means they’ve got a shorter
driveway to shovel in the winter. So I think there’s some benefit there. Given the conditions
on the lot, and comments of the neighbors, I don’t think it’s going to impact the
neighborhood. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I have a quick question. The sidewalk that was put in, was that put in after
your original request? So that sidewalk didn’t exist before when you had the first plan for the
garage.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-That was an afterthought. That came several years.
MR. URRICO-So that’s the reason that’s changed?
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I have no problems with it. I think it satisfies all the criteria in the balancing
test, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to agree with all of the three guys ahead of us. I think this is a
very modest request. Certainly if the most affected neighbor is in such strong support, I see
no reason, on this size lot, that this should be any problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m somewhat in agreement, but I’m just still, I know Mrs. Hunt, the
educator, told us that if you move the garage back 24 feet you’d get that extra three feet, but
I’m not so sure I understand, if you were satisfied, at one point, with seven feet, why you
couldn’t be satisfied now, but I’m not going to argue the point, and I’d be in favor, too.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I don’t think there’s a real good
alternative, and the neighbors not being opposed to it, I’m in favor of it as well.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. It’s up to me now. Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, I think your
application is a reasonable one, and if I were in the same position as you are, your shoes, I
would probably be asking for the identical thing. Again, I mentioned earlier that I vote based
upon the spirit, if you will, and the intent of the Zoning Ordinances in the Town of
Queensbury, and I would like to think that, overall, we vote for what’s in the best interest of
all parties. Your neighbors did not object. I think your request is reasonable, and I will
support it. Now, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And before I ask for a motion, again, I respectfully remind the members we
have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. All of
you now are familiar with that. So I’m going to ask if there is a motion for Area Variance No.
58-2005.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2005 HARRY & BETTY GOLDSTEIN,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
48 Meadow Drive, Ridge Meadows Sub. The applicant proposes a 24 by 24, 576 square foot
detached two car garage. The applicant requests 10 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot
minimum in the SFR-1A per Section 179-4-030. In the parcel history, a similar application
was approved in 1993 for a seven foot side setback relief, and it was not acted on, and I think
we talked about the fact that, to get that, you would have to move the garage 24 feet back,
and since then, a concrete walk has been put in. So I don’t think that the benefit could be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Considering the support of the neighbors,
I don’t think an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties
would result. While it is a substantial request, there is a lot of natural buffer there, along the
property line, which I think mitigates that. I don’t think the request would have adverse
physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty is only self-created in the fact
that the Goldsteins want a garage, but I would like to add that this natural buffer along the
property line should be left undisturbed, and I propose that we pass Area Variance No. 58-
2005.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, to keep the record straight, on the agenda it
says 22 by 24. This is 24 by 24.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-It’s a 24 by 24.
MR. STONE-Just make a note, the agenda said 22. We ought to at least have it on the
record that we saw it, in case it was advertised that way.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 58-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. Is
there any challenge to the tally? If there is none, then Area Variance No. 58-2005 is
approved, upon condition, and I remind the appellant, that is Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, that
this approval is with conditions, and you have acknowledged, for the record, that you
understand the condition.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Area Variance No. 58-2005 is approved.
MR. GOLDSTEIN-Thank you, gentlemen.
MRS. GOLDSTEIN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2005 SEQRA TYPE II GERALD A. CHANDLER OWNER(S):
GERALD A. CHANDLER ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 22 CAROLINE STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. BY 20 FT. CARPORT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. BP 92-193 CARPORT
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 0.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-15
SECTION 179-4-030
GERALD CHANDLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance 59-2005, Gerald A. Chandler, Meeting Date: August 17, 2005
“Project Location: 22 Caroline Street Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 10’ x 22’ (220 sq. ft.) attached carport.
Relief Required:
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
The applicant requests 14-feet of side setback relief from the minimum sum of 30-feet (6-feet
side setback existing on the West side of the property, and 10-feet proposed on the East side,
thus 14-feet of relief needed to total 30-feet) in the SR-1A, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 92-193: Carport, withdrawn.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 220 sq. ft. attached carport on the East side of the house. The
carport is proposed to be 10-feet from the property line, because the existing setback from the
house to the West property line is 6-feet, relief is for 14-feet to total 30-feet for combined
sides.
The proposed will be placed over a portion of the existing blacktop driveway. Revised site
development data sheet to reflect reduction in paved area (220 sq. ft.), with same area added
in as carport.”
MR. MC NULTY-SEQRA is Type II and it did not go to Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 59-
2005 please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, please identify
yourself and your place of residence.
MR. CHANDLER-Gerald Chandler, 22 Caroline Street in Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-And you are the principal?
MR. CHANDLER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you please proceed.
MR. CHANDLER-Well, I’d like to put the carport up. The only thing I could add is that I
spoke to the neighbors on the side that would be affected, and they have no objections.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you think you’d like to add to convince the Board to
approve your application?
MR. CHANDLER-I don’t believe so.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t believe so. Okay. Fine. If that’s the case, then, any of the Board
members have any questions for Mr. Chandler?
MR. STONE-I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Please.
MR. STONE-I don’t understand how a 5,000 square foot lot can be zoned one acre, but
that’s, it’s just a little strange. I didn’t look at the rest of the neighborhood, but I assume
the lots are similar in size to yours, Mr. Chandler, or are there some one acre lots?
MR. CHANDLER-There are some, but there are also a lot of them that are the same size.
MR. STONE-Yes, most of them are, yes. This is just something that we ought to have in the
record, because it’s, you know, this is even worse than lake property where we haven’t got a
one acre lot in the carload.
MR. CHANDLER-I wish I had an acre.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions or comments for Mr.
Chandler?
MR. STONE-The tree will stay, that very pretty tree at the corner of the driveway?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. CHANDLER-Yes. I’m going to have to trim up a little bit, but it’s going to stay.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, Mr. Stone, I make that a condition?
MR. STONE-I would like to, I think, because it certainly makes the property very attractive.
Mr. Chandler doesn’t want to get rid of it, either.
MR. CHANDLER-I’d move if I had to cut the tree.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments? Then what I’m going to do, I’m going to open
up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 59-2005. Anyone wishing to be heard, please
come up to the table. Do I see any hands? Any public comments? I do not see any hands,
then I’ll move on.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask, now, that the Board members please offer their comments,
and respectfully remember what I said earlier about precedence mandating evidence in the
record. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m a little bit, as Mr. McNulty would say, I’m a
little bit torn on this one. I really, I don’t know where I am. Simply from an applicant’s
standpoint, everybody deserves a place to put their car, okay, whether it be a garage or a
carport, everybody deserves that. On the other hand, I talked earlier about another
application, I think the swimming pool, where she was requesting relief of 50%, and you’re
close to 50% relief here, and that’s troublesome. Looking at the property, there is the slope
back there, and I don’t see you putting the carport, or a garage or anything in the back. So I
really don’t know where I’m going, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s fair.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-This is kind of a unique condition, I guess. Looking at what the Zoning Code
says, SR-1A requires a 10 foot minimum side setback requirement, but a sum of 30 feet
setback on both sides, should total 30 feet. Mr. Chandler has the 10 foot side setback
requirement on the side where the carport is going. So he’s asking for relief from the sum, not
from the carport. He’s fine on the carport side, but he’s got a sum problem of 30 feet. So
when you look at the other side of that house, he’s only got six feet on the other side of that
house, and that’s what’s presenting the problem. So he kind of has a unique condition here,
and looking at that and saying that, okay, the carport does actually fall within the side
setback relief, it doesn’t fall within the sum of the 30 feet relief, I think I’m more inclined to
approve this. Taking a drive around the neighborhood, looking at, and I talked to Mr.
Chandler about the tree, and he agreed that it was going to stay there. He was going to trim
it back. Took a drive around the neighborhood, looked at some of the other conditions on
some of the other properties, I think it’s a good plan, and I think I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I would be in agreement with it, too. If you think about the
fact that he needs 30 feet of setback on the sides, but his property is only 50 feet wide, I mean,
it’s really a catch-22 there. I don’t think that the benefit could be achieved by any other
feasible means. I don’t see an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of
nearby properties. It’s substantial only because of the width of the property and the fact that
the house was placed so close to the other property line. I don’t think it will have any adverse
physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty is self-created only by the fact
that the gentleman wants a carport. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I’d be in favor, too. I think we have to look, in this case, you could argue
that this difficulty was Town created, because obviously the zoning was put in place after
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
that lot was created. So we’ve got a substandard lot there, and as has been pointed out, it’s
next to impossible to comply and put a carport in, given the width of the lot. So, having said
that, and looking at it, I don’t see an adverse impact on any of the neighbors. So clearly
there’s a benefit to the applicant. I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I think my colleagues have made very good arguments, particularly Mr.
Rigby. This combination side setback is something that does exist in the Code, but it
certainly was never intended to exist for a 5,000 square foot lot, because otherwise you could
almost put nothing on the lot at all. Totally nonconforming. Totally pre-existing. I think
the fact that Mr. Chandler has made every effort to maximize the setback on the carport side,
namely 10 feet, I think speaks well for his application, and I’m certainly willing to support it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in total agreement. I also think that the side setback, the offending
or the closer of the side setbacks, the six feet is not going to change one way or the other,
whether this carport goes in or not, and so I really think I don’t see a problem with the
application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I also don’t see a problem with the application, and I’m
going to support the application, but I do have one question for you, and that’s this. Give me
a fast description of that tree, in terms of height, etc., and the kind of tree it is.
MR. CHANDLER-It’s a sugar maple.
MR. ABBATE-A maple?
MR. CHANDLER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Give me a height, approximately.
MR. CHANDLER-Twenty-six feet, maybe, twenty-seven.
MR. ABBATE-Twenty-six feet. The reason I’m asking, I’m going to make that a condition
of the approval, that that not be cut down. Again, before I ask for a motion, I’m going to
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And respectfully remind the members of the balancing benefit of the variance,
and I’m going to request a motion for Area Variance No. 59-2005. Is there a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2005 GERALD A. CHANDLER,
Introduced by Leo Rigby who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
22 Caroline Street. The applicant proposes a 10 foot by 22 foot, 220 square foot attached
carport. The applicant requests 14 feet of side setback relief from the minimum sum of 30
feet, six feet side setback existing on the west side of the property and 10 feet proposed on the
east side, thus 14 feet of relief needed to total 30 feet in the SR-1A zone, per Section 179-4-
030. In our opinion, looking at the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant, in relationship
to the health, safety and welfare of the community, seems to be well balanced. We considered
the benefit that can be achieved and if it can be achieved by any other means. We don’t
think it can. We see no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties. We don’t think that the request is substantial. We don’t think that the request
will have an adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, and the difficulty
is not really self-created in that the way that the house is situated on the lot presents a unique
problem. The request for 14 feet of relief is due to the Zoning Code Section 179-4-030 which
states that the SR-1A property has to have 10 foot minimum setback relief and a sum of 30
feet. We think that this property presents a unique situation in that the six feet of setback on
the western side of the property presents a unique situation. So, considering the balancing
test and considering the facts in this particular case, I’d like to make a motion that we
approve Area Variance No. 59-2005, with the condition that the sugar maple tree with a
height of approximately 26 feet remain, unless the tree is determined to be diseased.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 59-2005 is seven in favor and zero against. Is
there a challenge to the tally? If there is none, then Area Variance No. 59-2005, with
conditions, is approved.
MR. CHANDLER-Thank you, folks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2005 SEQRA TYPE II FRANCES & WILLIAM HANNAN
OWNER(S): FRANCES & WILLIAM HANNAN ZONING 0.24 ACRES LOCATION 7 GLEN
HALL DRIVE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND
STAIRWAY (280 SQ. FT.) TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE LAKE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BP 2005-545 PENDING, BP 91-325 DECK,
BP 96-293 ADDITION, SP 5-96, AV 18-1996, SP 22-91, AV 31-1991 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-29 SECTION 179-4-070,
179-4-030, 179-13-10
FRANCES & WILLIAM HANNAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2005, Frances & William Hannan, Meeting Date:
August 17, 2005 “Project Location: 7 Glen Hall Drive, Glen Lake Description of Proposed
Project: The applicants propose a 280 sq. ft. deck extension and stairway on the lakeside of
the existing house.
Relief Required:
?
The applicant requests 29-feet of shoreline setback relief
for the proposed deck to be 21-feet from the shoreline. The actual amount
of relief sought is unclear and needs to be addressed by the applicant. The
setback from shoreline to the proposed deck scales at 19-feet (if map is to
scale), requiring 31-feet of relief. Furthermore, if the existing setback is
30-feet, and the proposed deck is 10-feet wide, the deck would be 20-feet
from the shoreline (requiring 20-feet of relief). This needs to be clarified, so
the Board knows exactly how much relief is required. This relief is per §
179-4-070, where a 50-foot minimum shoreline setback is required in the
WR-1A zone.
?
12-feet of side setback relief is requested for the deck to be 3-feet from the
East property line, however it appears from the submitted site plan that
the existing deck and the proposed are and will be along the property line.
This would require 15-feet of relief for 0-foot setback. Furthermore, AV 31-
91 granted relief for a deck to be 2-feet from the side yard. This relief is per
§ 179-4-030, where 15-feet is required in the WR-1A zone.
?
Relief from the continuation requirements (per § 179-13-010), for expansion
of a nonconforming structure.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 96-293: Approved 6/21/96, for a 624 sq. ft. residential addition.
SP 5-96: Approved 4/16/96, for 636 sq. ft. vertical expansion of existing single-family
dwelling.
AV 18-96: Approved 3/27/96, for 636 sq. ft. addition, expansion of a nonconforming structure
in excess of 50% above existing.
BP 91-325: Issued 5/20/91, for a 224 sq. ft. deck.
SP 22-91: Conditionally approved 4/23/91, for 256 sq. ft. deck.
AV 31-91: Approved 5/15/91, for deck 24-feet from shoreline, and 2-feet from side yard.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
Staff comments:
It may be necessary, due to the abovementioned inconsistencies, to require the applicant to
have a new surveyed map produced with the existing structures and the proposed.
I cannot find a building permit issued or any approval for the stairs and deck that have been
removed, which encroached on the neighbor’s property. These are what the applicants desire
to replace.
A feasible alternative to the proposed may be to build the stairs on the existing deck toward
the lake and not the additional deck area.
Included in the motion to approve AV 18-1996 for the vertical expansion it was stated, “In so
much as the trees in the front, from the shoreline side of this property and home, are an
important part of protecting the visual impact or limiting the visual impact from this
building, we would just make note that there is a 35-foot area within the shoreline where trees
cannot be cut.”
MR. MC NULTY-This is a SEQRA Type II, and it was not sent to Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioners of Area Variance No. 61-
2005, Mr. and Mrs. Hannan, please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the
record give your name and your place of residence, please.
MRS. HANNAN-Good evening. I’m Fran Hannan, 7 Glen Hall Drive.
MR. HANNAN-I’m William Hannan, 7 Glen Hall Drive.
MRS. HANNAN-First of all, to clarify the footage that I have to take blame for. I did not do
that accurately. What we are asking for is on the page that requests the actual site
development data and the setback requirements, I would correct it to be the shoreline that
we’re proposing 20 feet, and that, for the side yard, we’re proposing zero. So Susan was
correct.
MR. ABBATE-You’re requesting 20 feet of shoreline setback relief? Is that what you’re
saying?
MRS. HANNAN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-So in other words there’s a modification from 29?
MRS. HANNAN-From 21 to 20, and from 3 to 0.
MR. STONE-You’re proposing that’s where it’s going to be.
MR. MC NULTY-You want the deck to be 20 feet from the shoreline.
MR. STONE-Which is 30 feet of relief.
MRS. HANNAN-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay.
MRS. HANNAN-But it’s not worded that way on the form. It’s worded proposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead, continue, if there’s anything else you’d like to add.
MRS. HANNAN-Yes. We just purchased this home in November. We never saw the access
that was evidently under some kind of dispute. So we’re not aware, other than the schematic
drawing that you have. We are concerned about having access to the lake, and if you’ve been
to the home, it’s on a drop, and from the existing deck to relatively firm ground is another
drop, and right now it’s a terraced rock wall that’s not secured with any mortar or anything
like that. So our hope was to cover several bases. One to make a safe access, because right
now I have to crawl down the rocks to get to the lake, and secondly, not only to access the
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
lake, but to sort of encase the rock terrace, and we got this idea from our neighbor, because
that’s what our side neighbor did.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you folks would like to add?
MR. HANNAN-I think you’ve got it covered.
MRS. HANNAN-I do want to add one other thing, because I wanted to respond to Susan’s
comments. We do not need to cut down any trees. I know that we’re asking for considerable
setback, but it’s already existing, and it would be, as I said, just going over the rock wall
that’s there. So it would be sort of covering it.
MR. HANNAN-And the side variance request being zero, our house straddles the property
line. It seems to be that all the houses in the neighborhood straddle the one property line.
MRS. HANNAN-But our neighbors on our property line, it seems that’s, however it
developed, that’s the way it is.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and during this little hearing this evening, if there’s anything else that
you feel that you wish to introduce, feel free to do so.
MRS. HANNAN-Thank you.
MR. HANNAN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Do any of the Board members have any questions?
MR. STONE-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Hannan, you bought this in October. You closed in October?
MRS. HANNAN-In November.
MR. STONE-And it was in the condition it is now?
MR. HANNAN-Yes.
MRS. HANNAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you went in knowing that there was a problem in getting to the lake?
MR. HANNAN-Yes.
MRS. HANNAN-Yes, but we thought it was a solvable problem, as the real estate agent said,
an easy solution.
MR. HANNAN-We knew we would have to do something to correct it.
MRS. HANNAN-We knew would.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other comments, please?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to address the Staff comments relative to Area
Variance No. 18-1996, where the condition is that no trees are cut in a 35 foot area from the
shoreline, and my question is, you’re saying that no trees have to be cut, and yet the deck is
20 feet from the shoreline, and there’s 15 feet there somewhere that we overlap. So how does
that happen?
MRS. HANNAN-There are no trees there.
MR. HANNAN-All the trees are on the shoreline.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MRS. HANNAN-They’re on the edge, and they’re right on the shoreline. One’s right in the
water.
MR. HANNAN-The trees are all within five feet of the lake edge.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other comments or questions for Mr. or Mrs Hannan? Okay. If not, then
what I’ll do, I’ll open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 61-2005, and if there’s
anyone in the public who would like to make any comments, would you be kind enough to
come up to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of
residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STEVEN L. JOHNSON
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. I’m Steven L. Johnson. I live at 96 Hall Road, and the only issue that
I have is actually one that the Town of Queensbury could share. The access to this property
at Glen Hall Road goes over a right of way that is my property. I have granted that right of
way. It’s been historically granted for a few years, and the road is getting wider through use,
and as it becomes wider, speeds increase, which do impact on the safety and the character of
the neighborhood. I have no real problem with the stairway, and the actual use of their
property. I’m fully in favor of making that a usable piece of property. However, the access
to the property is my concern, and I don’t really, I’m afraid of the trees getting damaged in
through the increase of the vehicular traffic over the roadway and I want to make the point
known that the road is widening through use, and it is through my own attempts to be a good
neighbor that I have allowed people to use the road and make it wider, and I want to express
my concerns that it doesn’t become any wider, and more of a traffic intersection. Other than
that, I have no problem with the request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and your notes certainly are for the record. Everything will be for the
record this evening, and you certainly have access to the record if you wish to gain a copy of
it.
MR. JOHNSON-I thank you very much, and I appreciate your consideration.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience who wish to be heard, for
the record? Apparently not. Okay. I’m going to ask, then, if members of the Board wish to
offer their comments on the Area Variance No. 61-2005. May I start with Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize the need for access to the lake and the
stairway and so forth and so on, but the amount of relief is astronomical, 100% on the side,
and I don’t have my calculator, and Mr. Urrico will tell me what the percentage is. It’s just
astronomical, and I can’t, we’d have to come up with some kind of alternate plan, and I think
Staff also makes a note about getting some kind of site surveyed map or something to
determine exactly where we are, because we start putting stairways and stuff, and pretty soon
we’re going to be over the property line, and then have additional problems. So, as it stands,
I could not be in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what Mr. Bryant said. If, indeed, all the camps or
places in that particular area are all crowding the property line, that changes my view a little
bit on the side setback, but that also, as Mr. Bryant’s pointed out, makes knowing where that
property line is and what’s going to be there critical. So that we don’t end up with a deck
being built over the property line and somebody saying, oops, later. I am considerably
bothered by the deck traveling 30 feet out into the shoreline setback. At the same time, I can
understand the need to have some reasonable way of getting down to the lake without
breaking a leg or creating an erosion problem by creating a dirt path or whatever down there,
but I would, I need something different before I could approve it, more accurate plans and
something that’s scaled down, perhaps as Staff suggests in their notes, just a simple stairway
or something that would get down the elevation, but as it’s presented right now, I’d be
opposed.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I would echo the comments of the two people who proceeded me.
Certainly, we need a drawing that, and I don’t like to incur expense for people, but when
we’re dealing with these close numbers, we need to know exactly, if we choose to grant relief,
what kind of relief we’re granting. We also, I also must say, for the record, that that close to
the lake truly troubles me. Being a lake resident, not on Glen Lake, but on another lake, I
have been fairly zealous in protecting the setback, and certainly I would have great difficulty
considering 20 feet from the lake, but as Mr. McNulty said, obviously, you have a lake house,
you’d like to get down to the lake without breaking a leg every time. I see the young woman
in the back who probably scrambles more often than you do, but I think we need to find a
way to give you what you need at a minimum cost to the Zoning Code. So I would be not in
favor. I would like to see a revised plan that takes into consideration my comments and the
ones you’ve heard so far and I assume you’re going to hear from other people.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I understand that you probably inherited this, and it sounds like you
inherited the problem, but I think we’re seeking a remedy rather than compounding what’s
already there. So that you’ve heard some suggestions, and even Staff made a suggestion as
far as a feasible alternative, maybe building the stairs on the existing deck toward the lake,
rather than the additional deck area. That’s a suggestion, but I would suggest that you seek a
tabling tonight and you go back and get a survey done and think about some alternatives, so
we have all the facts in front of us when we deal with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I don’t think I
have enough information, and I don’t think we want to turn you down, but I think there are
feasible alternatives that you could follow. I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I think this is a good start, but I agree with the other Board members,
too. We just need some more information and some other alternatives. So, as it stands right
now, I would be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Would you folks come up to the table, please. While you’re walking up here,
I, too, would agree with my fellow Board members, and I do have a couple of
recommendations. I think one of the first things I would do, and this is merely a
recommendation of course. The decision is entirely yours. One of the first things I would do
is get together with Staff and ask them for a copy of the Staff notes and what have you, so
that you can address specifically the issues that were raised. If you wish, I’ll set this here, and
if you certainly.
MRS. HANNAN-I think I have it.
MR. ABBATE-You do have it? Okay. Great. I think, if you were to get together with Staff
and try to resolve these things and come up, perhaps, with some feasible alternatives, or even,
again, I think one of the Board members indicated it’s not our intention to impose upon you a
tremendous amount of expense. That’s not our intention, but we really have to have the
facts. You heard me earlier say that we based our decision on the evidence that’s contained in
the record. Unfortunately, it’s my feeling we do not have sufficient evidence in which to base
an intelligent decision. Okay. So I would suggest that you get together with Staff, make sure
that you work out whatever you folks have to work out and gather whatever type of
documentation you need, and then I would this evening suggest that you ask this Board to
table Area Variance No. 61-2005.
MR. HANNAN-Mr. Abbate, would you please table the amendment.
MR. ABBATE-The appellant has requested that this Board table Area Variance No. 61-2005.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2005 FRANCES & WILLIAM HANNAN,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
7 Glen Hall Drive, Glen Lake. For up to 60 days.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Okay. The motion has been approved by seven to zero that you
have requested that we table this, and we have gone along with your request, seven to zero, so
that Area Variance No. 61-2005 is tabled.
MR. STONE-For how long?
MR. ABBATE-How much time do you folks, 30 days, 60 days?
MR. BRYANT-Sixty-two days.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, give me a number. Sixty days.
MR. STONE-Sixty days is the max.
MR. HANNAN-Can I submit it before 60 days?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-You can submit it any time you wish.
MR. STONE-You can do it tomorrow.
MR. ABBATE-For a period of 60 days.
MR. URRICO-Susan, when do you have to get it in to get it scheduled for?
MRS. BARDEN-The 15 of every month is the deadline for the following month.
th
MR. HANNAN-I’ll see you tomorrow.
MRS. BARDEN-Actually, for you two, too, there are some surveyed maps from ’91 that you
can work off of.
MRS. HANNAN-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-So that’s a really good start.
MR. HANNAN-Great.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you folks.
MR. HANNAN-Thank you.
MRS. HANNAN-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You bet.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED PYRAMID COMPANY OF
GLENS FALLS NEWCO BED BATH & BEYOND AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ.
OWNER(S): PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 11,288 SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SHOPPING MALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. MANY WARREN
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2005 LOT SIZE: 56.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-
92.1, 92.2, 92.3, 92.4, 1, 47 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-090, 179-13-10
JON LAPPER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2005, Pyramid Company of Glens Falls NEWCO
Bed Bath & Beyond, Meeting Date: August 17, 2005 “Project Location: 578 Aviation Road,
Aviation Mall Description of Proposed Project: This project is for a 23,000 sq. ft. retail store.
This total area is divided into 11,712 sq. ft. interior renovation (was Klein’s) and 11,288 new
retail space. This new retail space is located to the West of the Target store. Because Target
is its own parcel, the proposed encroaches on the East side setback of the Target property.
Relief Required:
Relief from minimum road frontage requirements, per §179-4-090 was identified erroneously
on the agenda, and is not required for this project.
The applicant requests 8-feet of side setback relief, where 30-feet is required in the ESC-25A
zone, per §179-4-030.
The applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, per §179-13-010.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 80-2003: Approved 9/17/03, minor modifications to similar application (AV 64-2003),
relief related to accommodate the new dept. store.
SB 14-2002 Mod.: Approved 7/22/03, relocation of lot lines to accommodate an addition to
the mall.
SP 44-2002 Mod.: Approved 7/22/03, relocation of a previously approved anchor store
addition, 130-feet to the East.
AV 64-2003: Approved 7/16/03, relief from the setbacks, lots size, and permeability
requirements related to subdivision of the mall property.
SP 21-2001 Mod.: Approved 7/16/02, relocation of the previously approved anchor store, to
the West and further from Aviation Road, with a portion of the footprint incorporated into
the mall.
SP 44-2002: Approved, construction of a 3,500 sq. ft. addition to the mall.
SB 14-2002: Approved, subdivision of the mall property (56.72-acres) into 2-lots of 48.36 and
8.36-acres, respectively.
AV 72-2002: Approved 9/18/02, Relief associated with subdivision of mall property; front and
side setback relief for the parent parcel; as well as, rear and side setback relief, relief from
permeability requirements, and minimum road frontage requirements for the smaller parcel.
Staff comments:
This is a request for relief associated with the addition of a new store at the Aviation mall.
Specifically, relief of 22-feet is required from the side setback, to locate the new store 8’ feet
from the Target property line. Relief is also required for expansion of a nonconforming
structure. Both of these requests for relief are technical in nature due to the fact that the
Target store is its own parcel and not considered “part” of the existing mall complex. The
new store addition and associated site work will meet the other requirements associated with
the ESC-25 Zone, including permeability, parking, and FAR requirements.
Additional staff concerns with this proposal are primarily site plan concerns, which will be
addressed at the Planning Board review, and don’t have bearing on the relief sought.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
August 10, 2005 Project Name: Pyramid Company of Glens Falls NEWCO Owner:
Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls ID Number: QBY-05-AV-60 County Project#: Aug05-46
Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant
proposes a 11,288 sq. ft. addition to the existing shopping mall. Relief requested from side
setback requirements and minimum road frontage requirements and expansion of a non-
conforming structure. Site Location: 578 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.5-1-92.1
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct an 11,288 sq. ft. addition to
the Aviation Mall on the north side. The new addition is to be located 8 ft. from the side
property line where 30 ft. is required. This eastern property line is the Target store lot and
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
building . Relief is also requested from the minimum road frontage requirements and the
expansion of a non-conforming structure. The information submitted shows the location of
the new addition and parking area improvements. The new addition is to accommodate the
store Bed Bath and Beyond. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on
the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Warren County Planning Board 8/15/05.
MR. ABBATE-This is an Unlisted Action.
MR. ABBATE-Obviously, the Counsel for the petitioner is at the table. Would you be kind
enough to identify yourself.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the Mall Manager, Bob Orlando, and behind
us are Chris Round, from the Chazen Companies, which prepared the plans, and John
Berrara, who’s the Operations Manager at the Mall now. I guess very simply the Staff
comments were pretty thorough. This is somewhat technical in nature. When we were here
for the Target Store, Bob had envisioned that having Target here, front and center, to clean
up the front façade of the Mall and also to draw the customers would also serve to draw more
tenants, quality tenants, and Bed, Bath, and Beyond is an example of that. It’s going to be
located in the existing empty, vacant Klein’s space. So it’s really an important part of the
Mall to fill up that vacant space. To the west of this site is the new Ninety-nine pub and
restaurant that will be open in less than a month. So it really completes that whole front
section of the Mall, which is important. As you may recall, when we were here for Target,
because Target insisted on owning their parcel, we had to ask for the identical variance on the
other side of the line and that included everything for the existing Klein’s building. We
didn’t have any idea at the time that whatever the tenant would be, that they would need to
do an expansion in the front, but we certainly had room for it. Let me just show you quickly
on, this is the Target building on the east side right here. So this part of Bed, Bath and
Beyond is the existing Klein’s building where we already received the variance. These two
walls but up against each other. The area that we’re talking about now is eight feet, because
there’s a sidewalk to an entrance door to a service door. So this part of the building is
actually a little less of a variance because there’s eight feet of separation, but again, this is
really unimportant and of no significance, just that there happens to be a property line, but
there’s not a case where the 30 feet is important to anyone in terms of giving anyone
protection from the building next door because it’s all part of an enclosed shopping mall.
MR. STONE-But it was filled, today, with shopping carts.
MR. LAPPER-Was it?
MR. STONE-Right next to the Target building. I mean, that whole wall was, when I drove
by, was covered with Target shopping carts.
MR. LAPPER-So they won’t be there for long.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ORLANDO-We haven’t bothered the Target people as it relates to those shopping carts,
but they will have to be moved once the store is open.
MR. STONE-Okay. I figured that, but it was kind of shocking to see them lined up like that.
MR. URRICO-Are they aware of the Bed, Bath, and Beyond going in there, or proposed,
Target? Have they commented on it?
MR. ORLANDO-They haven’t commented on it.
MR. URRICO-Okay. How many parking spaces are we going to be losing, as a result of this
expansion?
MR. LAPPER-We’re actually going to be adding spaces for the whole Mall.
MR. URRICO-In that section there, though?
MR. LAPPER-In total, we’re going to be adding spaces.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. URRICO-Okay, but how many are you going to be losing in this section here, and where
would the new spaces be?
MR. LAPPER-I’d have to defer to Chris on that. That’s Chris Round in the background.
Twenty-two will be lost on that part of the Mall, and 60 will be added in total.
MR. URRICO-And where would those 60 go?
MR. LAPPER-By Sears.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions or comments?
MR. URRICO-Have you seen the letter that has gone to, I mean, I know Susan has been
trying to get a connection between Burger King.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We just got the Staff notes, and we’ll be prepared for the Planning
Board meeting, next week, to deal with that.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So that’s something that you would be thinking about?
MR. LAPPER-We can only provide the entrance on the Pyramid side of that. It would be up
to Carroll’s Corp. to match it on the other side, or the next time they’re before you for a site
plan, we could only deal with Pyramid’s property.
MR. STONE-Just a quick comment. Mr. Orlando, do you have responsibility for the two gas
stations that were bought at the time the expansion was proposed?
MR. LAPPER-They were never bought.
MR. STONE-Neither one of them?
MR. LAPPER-We were working with them to get them under contract.
MR. STONE-I thought the Sunoco Station was. Anyway, it’s a nice job, whatever they’re
doing there. I thought it was attractive.
MR. ORLANDO-Yes. We had the Sunoco Station under contract, through an option, but
that option lapsed and we let it go, and we never had the other one.
MR. STONE-I know you didn’t have the other one. I realize that.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from any other Board members? If not, then
I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 60-2005, and those wishing to
be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, for the record identify
yourself and your place of residence. Do we have any public comments on Area Variance No.
60-2005? I see no hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now what I’m going to do, then, is ask members to please offer
their comments on 60-2005. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MRS. HUNT-Really it’s almost a moot point. If Target were part of the Mall, then there’d
be no question. So I have no problem with this.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby, please.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. RIGBY-I agree. The relief is technical in nature, and having had no feedback from
Target, no adverse opinion, I’m in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it’s a great sign that we’re seeing so much growth there. I think
it can only be good for the community to see the stores that are attracting more consumers is
good for the community as well, and I really think this is a positive sign, and the reason, that
it’s technical in nature is great, but I’m going to say that I think it’s a great thing that you’re
doing there.
MR. ABBATE-Then I’m assuming, Mr. Urrico, you will support the application. Mr. Stone,
please.
MR. STONE-I would certainly echo what Roy just said. I think it’s great when the Mall can
begin to attract national entities. For so long the interior, all credit to Mr. Orlando, you’ve
kept them filled, but I don’t know who they are in most cases, and it’s nice to get some
names. When I said to my wife, this is anecdotal, she said, great. I can only tell you that. I
certainly am in favor, and I recognize the technical nature of it. We went through the Target,
I want my building and I want zero setback, and all that stuff, and so this is fine.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’d be in favor. I’ll agree that it’s technical in nature. One side
comment that it still bothers me that every time something happens with a townhouse or
condo or a shopping center like this, that we have to do a variance. We shouldn’t have to.
This should be revised in the Zoning Code, and we’re going to be working on that, and so I
guess on behalf of that Committee, I’d sort of request to Counsel that you certainly should
have some thoughts about what should be changed. We ought to hear them at some point, so
that we can at least minimize the number of times that we have to do this and you guys have
to go through all this.
MR. LAPPER-You’re absolutely right.
MR. MC NULTY-But having said all that, I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can we say technical in nature too many times?
Actually, kudos to Mr. McNulty, because every time you come before us, and I’ve said this
numerous times, that the Town has got to develop specific guidelines for these shopping
malls, so that you don’t have to come back here for a variance, and hopefully it goes on the
record again, and during the debriefing you’ll mention it again, but I’m in favor of it, because
it’s technical in nature.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-We’re having a workshop on the 24. I wish you would attend. I, too, agree.
th
The shopping mall has made a significant positive contribution to the Town. There’s no
question in my mind, and I’m really delighted to see the number of stores that are coming in.
I think it will be helpful to the Town as well. I have no problem supporting this application,
and I intend to do just that. I think, Mr. Secretary, don’t we have a Short Environmental
Assessment Form?
MR. MC NULTY-We do, indeed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MOTION THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS
CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT ON THE BASIS OF THE ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE
RESPONSES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The public hearing is now going to be closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And before I ask for a motion, may I respectfully remind the members again
that we have a balancing benefit. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 60-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2005 PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS
FALLS NEWCO BED BATH & BEYOND, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
578 Aviation Road. Aviation Mall. The project is for a 23,000 square foot retail store. The
total area is divided into 11,712 square feet, interior renovation at the location of the former
Klein’s, and an 11,288 square foot new retail space to be located outside of the adjacent area
for what was formerly Klein’s. The relief requested is eight feet of side setback relief where
thirty feet is required in the ESC-25A zone per 179-4-030. The applicant is also requesting
relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure per 179-13-010. In making the application,
the applicant has shown that they come out on the positive end of the balancing test which is
a benefit to the applicant which outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community. In considering this, the applicant has also shown that there are no feasible
alternatives. The approval has been described as technical in nature, but I’d like to point out
that the ESC-25A zone only refers to that specific location. There are no ESC-25A zones, and
the relief is sought because of an application made previously that was granted relief by
Target. So that’s why we’re here. There won’t be an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character or to nearby properties, seeing that they’re all similar stores, and venues where
people shop. The request is substantial in some respects, but again, it’s been described as
technical in nature because of the zero lot line setback, because of Target’s owning that piece
of property. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and the
alleged difficulty can be described as self-created. I would say yes to that. I move that we
approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 60-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. Is
there a challenge to tally? If there is none, then Area Variance No. 60-2005 is approved.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. ORLANDO-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-It’s still earlier than I thought.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, folks. Now we have a number of things on the agenda, administrative
issues we have to take care of. Mrs. Hunt has requested to move a resolution. Joyce, would
you want to do it.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. It seems kind of strange to make it.
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS TO SEVEN PER MEETING, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
In the event Staff is of the opinion more than 7 appeals should be heard on a particular
evening due to mitigating circumstances, a meeting with the Chairman shall be called to
discuss the matter.
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Joyce, would you mind if I added to that resolution of yours that if
Staff feels that there may be mitigating circumstances to hear cases in excess of seven, that
they call a meeting with the Chairman and we will discuss that matter. Do you have a
problem with that?
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there a second to Mrs. Hunt’s resolution?
MR. URRICO-I’ll second.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I thought that was one of the reasons we were meeting next
week. I mean, I’m certainly in agreement with Mrs. Hunt’s motion, but I thought we were
meeting next week.
MR. ABBATE-You mean at the workshop?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-That will not be discussed at the workshop. I have worked this out with the
Executive Director of Community Development. So I made her aware of the fact that I was
going to do a resolution this evening.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-I want a clarification. The clarification being does that mean between the
Staff and the Chairman they will decide if they’re going to take another case. Is that what
that means?
MR. ABBATE-No. It means that the.
MR. BRYANT-They’ll discuss it and we still won’t take more than seven?
MR. ABBATE-When I say Staff, it’s not up to me to dictate which Staff. I’m going to
assume that it will be the Zoning Administrator, but that is the prerogative of the Executive
Director of Community Development to determine with Staff. It’s not for me to dictate to
her which Staff.
MR. BRYANT-No, I’m not saying that, but you would jointly decide to add cases. Is that
what you’re saying?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I want to understand that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. No problem. Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-As it stands at this point, I would vote against this. Two reasons. One, I
don’t see the problem. I know that people were upset that we had nine items on tonight, but
it’s 10:30. It’s not a problem tonight. Second, absent adding something to the effect that if
there is sufficient applications that we’ll add meetings. Otherwise, I’ve got a problem. If
there’s twenty people that want to do something, they need a variance, and we’re only going
to take fourteen a month, and we’ve have that happen for two or three months in a row, then
we’re not being fair to the citizens of the Town because we’re not serving them. We’re
putting them off three or four months.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, that would be mitigating circumstances. Just as a mitigating
circumstance would be that if we’re only going to have one meeting in a month, and there are
eight applications, well it certainly makes sense to hear all eight on one particular evening.
MR. MC NULTY-Then why do we need the resolution?
MR. ABBATE-Because I feel that we do. Now you can vote against it if you wish.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six in favor, no is one. The resolution is passed. There is another
resolution to introduce.
MOTION THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN LAW SECTION 267-A7 WE ADOPT A
FORMAL RESOLUTION FIXING THE DATE AND TIME FOR HEARINGS. AS SUCH, I
MOVE A RESOLUTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL HEAR APPEALS
ON THE FOLLOWING DATES AND TIME: SEPTEMBER 21 AND SEPTEMBER 28 AT 7
TH
P.M., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to look at these one month at a time, and
eliminate October and only vote for September.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is that the third and fourth Wednesday?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, nothing has changed, guys.
MR. STONE-Why do we need the resolution? I don’t understand.
MR. ABBATE-Because according to the law, we can have no hearings until we have a
resolution. If you wish to check out the reference I just gave you, Town Law Section 267-A-
7, you will find out that cases have been overturned because the Zoning Board of Appeals has
not made a resolution to fix the date and time. I’ve checked with the Town Attorney. I’ve
checked with the Executive Director of Community Development. They agree with me.
MR. STONE-Fine. If that’s the feeling you’ve gotten.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the resolution is seven to zero. The resolution is
approved. Now Staff please take a note, that the Chairman will scheduled a meeting with the
Zoning Administrator and the other Staff on the first Monday of each month to determine the
order in which the appeals will be heard. Once that is done the notice of the hearing can be
given, and that’s under Town Law 267-a(7). I’ve already discussed this with the Executive
Director of Community Development and she has no problems with that. Approval of
minutes.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 15, 2005: NONE
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/17/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JUNE 15, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Rigby
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood
June 22, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JUNE 22, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Rigby
MR. ABBATE-Now, if anybody has any questions on these resolutions, I’ll be more than
happy to chat with them. Are there any questions on the workshop coming up next week?
I’m assuming everyone will be there. Hopefully. Wonderful.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
52