2005-09-21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 59-2005 Gerald A. Chandler 1.
Tax Map No. 309.11-1-15
Area Variance No. 54-2005 Olaf John Gabrielson 3.
Tax Map No. 253.3-1-2
Area Variance No. 62-2005 Stark Group 7.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-5.2
Area Variance No. 63-2005 Joseph & Cathleen Fuller 8.
Tax Map No. 289.8-1-33
Area Variance No. 64-2005 John & Carol Plude 14.
Tax Map No. 304.17-1-35
Area Variance No. 65-2005 Patricia A. Jones 19.
Tax Map No. 309.6-1-1
Area Variance No. 66-2005 Clute Enterprises 21.
Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO
BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL
OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
CHARLES MC NULTY
JOYCE HUNT
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Under “Old Business”, Mr. Secretary, would you please read into the record a
request by the Zoning Administrator to re-hear Area Variance No. 59-2005.
OLD BUSINESS:
REQUEST TO RE-HEAR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2005 GERALD A. CHANDLER AND
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. 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 22 FT.
CARPORT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED SIDE SETBACK RELIEF ON AUGUST 21, 2005.
CROSS REF. BP 92-193 CARPORT, AV 59-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 0.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-15 SECTION 179-4-030
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 59-2005 is a rather unique situation, and I’m going to ask
the applicant, I believe Mr. Chandler, if he would be kind enough to come up to the table. Is
Mr. Chandler here this evening?
MRS. BARDEN-He is not.
MR. ABBATE-He’s not here this evening?
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-I told Mr. Chandler he didn’t have to come this evening.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see no reason we can’t continue with that.
MRS. BARDEN-Are you comfortable with that?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that. We’ll just continue and go from there.
Since Mr. Chandler isn’t here this evening, then let me just improvise here if you will. On the
17 of August, 2005, Mr. Chandler appeared before this Board and requested two variances.
th
One of which we addressed, and due to an error, we failed to address his second request for
relief. What we did, we overlooked his request for 14 feet of side setback relief from front
property line where 30 feet is required. What I’d like to do this evening is go through the re-
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
hearing procedure as quickly as possible, and then address the request contained in Area
Variance No. 59-2005, and that’s for the 14 feet of side setback relief. So, if you folks will
please bear with us, we’ll go through this thing and get it over as quickly as possible. Now,
unless the Board members have any questions, I’d like to open the public hearing.
MR. MC NULTY-Point of order, first.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead.
MR. MC NULTY-Don’t you first have to just decide if you’re going to re-hear it?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Which shouldn’t be subject to a public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, right.
MR. MC NULTY-The public has nothing to do with it. It’s strictly a vote of the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Once we get past that, then the public hearing would apply to the
reconsidering it, assuming that we all agree?
MR. ABBATE-No problem. I would be more than happy to do that. I was just trying to be
extra cautious, but that’s okay. Let me ask the Board members, then, if they have any
questions concerning the re-hearing? If there are no questions concerning the re-hearing, then
I would like to make a motion.
MOTION TO RE-HEAR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2005 GERALD A. CHANDLER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to re-hear Area Variance No. 59-2005 is five yes, zero, no. So the
vote to re-hear the Variance is approved. Now, we’re going to move on, next, to the Area
Variance itself and consider the application.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2005, Gerald A. Chandler, Meeting Date: September
21, 2005 “Project Location: 22 Caroline Street Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a 10’ x 22’ (220 sq. ft.) attached carport.
Relief Required:
The applicant received 14-feet of side setback relief from the minimum sum of 30-feet on
August 17, 2005.
Additionally, 17-feet of relief is required from the front property line, where 30-feet is
required. The existing house is 12-feet from the front property line, the carport is proposed to
be 13-feet from same.
Relief required is per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 92-193: Carport, withdrawn.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
Staff comments:
The additional relief was not identified by staff with this application. The need for front
setback relief was identified when the building permit was reviewed. This 220 sq. ft. carport
appears to be a modest proposal that the Board was amenable to at the Aug. mtg.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing. Do we have any comments on
Area Variance No. 59-2005? Anyone from the public wish to comment on that?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
MR. ABBATE-Hearing no input from the public, I’m going to now ask the Board members
for their input. I’ll start, if I may, with Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We considered most of the impacts of this thing before when we
gave the side setback relief. The front setback relief sounds substantial, until you consider the
fact that the house itself is 12 feet from the property line now. So the carport’s not going to
make anything any worse. Given that and the special conditions of this small, nonconforming
lot, I think this is a perfectly legitimate request, and I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I agree with Mr. McNulty. I think it’s a good request. I think it’s just an
oversight in the initial application. I would have approved it then and I’d approve it now.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I feel the way I did the last time. This is a 5,000 square foot
lot, and it really is not asking for a tremendous amount when you consider the small size of
the lot. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt, and I, too, support the comments of the other
members of the Board. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 59-2005?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You didn’t ask me.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. Before I do that, I want to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-You never asked me.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Go ahead.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I also would be in agreement with everyone else. I don’t think it would
have altered the unanimous vote of the Board the last time. So I’d be in agreement.
MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Jim. I believe Mrs. Hunt wants to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2005 GERALD A. CHANDLER,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
22 Caroline Street. The applicant proposes a 10 by 22, 220 square foot attached carport. The
applicant received 14 feet of side setback relief from the minimum sum of 30 feet on August
17, 2005. Additionally, 17 feet of relief is required from the front property line where 30 feet
is required. The existing house is 12 feet from the front property line. The carport is
proposed to be 13 feet from the same. Relief required is per Section 179-4-030 for the SR-1A
zone.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the setback is five, yes, zero, no. Area Variance No. 59-
2005 is approved for 14 feet of setback relief. Thank you folks for your patience, and we’ll
continue on to the next case.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2005 SEQRA TYPE II OLAF JOHN GABRIELSON AGENT(S):
MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER & FIRTH PC ZONING 1967
ZONING: R-3 CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A CRITICAL ENV. AREA LOCATION LOT 37,
HUNTER LANE RIDGE KNOLLS SECTION 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 2100 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLANDS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 2-68, SECT. 1 SUB. 2-73,
SECT. 2 RIDGE KNOLLS WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
YES LOT SIZE 2.06 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-2 SECTION 179-4-070
MATT FULLER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We have a letter dated August 10, 2005 to the Board, that was
relating to this Area Variance for Olaf John Gabrielson, and again, the project location of
that is Lot 37, Hunter Lane in the Ridge Knolls II. This letter was addressed to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and it said, “Dear Mr. Abbate and Members of the ZBA: Enclosed please
find a revised proposal for a home to be located on the above property. The revisions are as
follows: 1. Size – The size of the house has been reduced from over 2,500 square feet, to just
under 2,100 square feet. This has allowed the proposed home to be moved “forward” on the
lot towards the front setback, and further from the wetlands. 2. Repositioning – The house
has been repositioned as follows: a. Rear – Previously we had requested a variance for the
back of the house as it was proposed to locate the house 44.9 feet from the wetland. The
repositioning of the house is such that it is now 107.63 feet from the rear, which does not
require a variance. b. To the northerly most side of the house, previously we had requested a
variance from 75 feet to 40.4 feet. With the repositioning, we were able to position the house
54.77 feet from the wetland, an increase of 14.37 feet. c. To the south, previously we had
requested a variance from 75 feet to 45.0 feet. With the repositioning, we were able to
position the house 54.54 feet from that wetland, an increase of 9.54 feet. As for the location of
the house, the position was dictated by the APA’s required location of the septic system. For
the criteria to be reviewed by the ZBA, we offer the following: (1) Whether an undesirable
change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. This requested area variance
will not cause any undesirable changes to the character of the neighborhood. As you are
probably aware, one of the major considerations with permitting area or “setback” variances
is the impact that it will have on neighboring properties. In this instance, locating the
proposed house as requested maintains the character of the neighborhood, versus detracting
from it. There may be areas on the property where the house could be located within the
property line setbacks (versus the wetlands setbacks), but this would require the house to be
extremely close to the neighboring houses. In addition, given that this lot was one of the lots
granted building rights in the early 70’s per the APA letter we submitted, it is reasonable that
the property owner and neighbors would expect that the building would be located in a
similar position as that of neighboring properties. For these reasons we offer that this
proposed variance will not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. (2) Whether the
benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. Locating the septic and the house differently on the lot
cannot be reasonably achieved by another method. Taking the direction of the ZBA, the
Applicant revised the house plans to reduce the size of the house, and also moved the house as
far “forward” (southeast towards the corner of Hunter Lane) as it could, while still meeting
the side setback. The Applicant pondered an area variance for the front setback in order to
move the house even farther forward (southeast), but given that this lot is a corner lot, it did
not seem the safest course of action. Should someone fail to negotiate the corner in a car,
maintaining a reasonable front setback in addition to the property between the road and the
property line, with a reasonable variance from the wetlands appeared to be the safest and
most prudent planning for this lot. (3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
The previous requested setback was as follows: Rear: 30.1 feet of the 75 feet required = 40%.
Side (south): 30.0 feet of the 75 feet required = 40% Side (northeast): 34.6 feet of the 75 feet
required = 46% The current request is as follows: Rear: No variance requested Side (south)
20.46 feet of the 75 feet required = 27% Side (northeast) 20.23 feet of the 75 feet required =
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
27% We believe that the proposal is much more reasonable. The house has been reduced in
square footage, and the house has been positioned as close to the front setback as possible. In
reviewing the wetlands boundaries, wherever a house is to be located on this property is
generally going to require some type of area variance. We feel that this proposal is not
substantial given the practicalities of this lot, and the locations of other houses in this
neighborhood, some of which were constructed prior to the enactment of the setback
regulations. (4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. This proposed variance
will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood. Of primary concern in this regard has to be the location of the septic. The
Applicant worked with the APA to find the best soils and location for the septic on the lot, all
with the wetlands in mind. The APA indicated that it would be best if the septic were located
in the area noted on the map, leaving few other reasonable possibilities for the location of the
house on the lot. Thus, the Applicant’s proposal was drafted with the physical and
environmental conditions of the property in mind. (5) Whether the alleged difficulty was
self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but
shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. This difficulty is not self-
created. The Applicant has not taken action, and then asked for the ZBA’s after the fact
approval. The Applicant investigated this lot and contacted the Town and the APA before
buying it to see if it was a buildable lot. From both he was advised that he could indeed build
on this lot. Indeed, he was aware that he needed an engineered septic system, and he worked
with the APA to find an acceptable plan. During this review, he was advised that the house
had to meet a 50 foot setback. In other areas of the Town, the Town’s setback mirrors the
APA’s 50 foot setback, so it was not unreasonable for the Applicant to believe the setbacks
from an APA designated wetland would be the same. It was not until he applied to the Town
that he found out about the need for a variance. Given all of the above, the Applicant has
not created the reasons for the requested variance. The particularities of this lot show that
any construction will require some variance. We believe that this modified application
reflects a reasonable variance request. I thank you for your time and for your willingness to
review this revised plan, and look forward to reviewing this with you. Sincerely, Matthew F.
Fuller”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2005, Olaf John Gabrielson, Meeting Date:
September 21, 2005 “Project Location: Lot 37, Hunter Lane, Ridge Knolls Section 2
Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 2,100 sq. ft. single-family residence
to be located 55-feet from wetlands.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 20-feet of shoreline setback relief to locate the residence 55-feet from
the wetlands, where 75-feet is required in the RR Zone, per §179-4-070.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
J 2004-357, APA Approval 9/14/04; of wastewater treatment system for Lot 37, Ridge Knolls.
P 81-235, APA Approval of subdivision, 11/23/81.
SB 2-73, Approved 9/4/74; Section II of the Ridge Knolls Subdivision.
SB 2-68, Approved Section I of the Ridge Knolls Subdivision.
Staff comments:
The APA approval (P 81-235) for 7-lots, included the condition, “Any single family dwelling
constructed on Lots 37 and 39 shall require the use of on-site sewage disposal systems
consisting of a raised fill system. Said systems shall be designed by a Professional Engineer
and shall require prior approval of the Adirondack Park Agency.”
Revised plans regarding the wastewater treatment system for Lot 37, submitted to the APA
by Hutchins Engineering, dated 8/30/2004, were approved (see 9/14/04 letter from APA).
The Board, at its July 20, 2005 meeting, tabled the application and requested that the
applicant position the proposed structure further away from the wetlands and/or reduce the
size of the dwelling. With this submission, the applicants have both, reduced the size of the
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
structure, as well as moved it closer to the front of the property (South and East) and
effectively increased the distance from the wetlands.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the two gentlemen please, sitting at
the table, please identify yourselves and your place of residence, please.
MR. FULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Matt Fuller, attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris,
Baker, Firth of Glens Falls.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering, principal.
MR. ABBATE-Before we begin, I’m sure you were here for the announcement. We have five
members this evening, and if you folks are comfortable with the five members being present,
we’d be more than willing to have the hearing. If not, you have the option of asking for a
tabling. It’s up to you.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think we can go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-You’ve got it. All right. Counsel, would you please proceed.
MR. FULLER-That letter stole all of my comments. However, I wanted the information,
and you guys have the information. As you can see, we took the comments under advisement
and went back and revised the house plans, reduced the size substantially. The size reduction
allowed a couple of things. One, to move it in a different spot on the lot, and it also did help
us gain reductions in I guess the encroachment to the setback, if you will, and pulling the
house as far forward to the front setback line, really as we possibly could, again allowed us,
and I think one of the comments was, let’s see, you maximize that benefit to the front setback
and we did that, pulled the house. Those plans are really right up to the line, with the front
steps right to the front of the house there on the porch. So, with those things, as the letter
points out, I think we were really able to gain substantially from the last proposal, and here it
is. We did look at the possibility of other spots, but again, I think, Number One, flipping the
setback to somewhere else on the lot really is, I think the opposite of what we want to do. If
we’re going to put a septic in the middle of the wetland variance area or the house, probably
just logic dictates I think we want the house there, not the septic system, and also really, and
I sincerely believe this, if you look at the other houses out there, most of them are centrally
located on those lots. So, trying to stick with that look of the neighborhood, I think it’s the
Collins family next door, you know, if you move real close to that lot, it just doesn’t position
well on the lot, and, you know, being that this was one of the other lots that were granted the
building rights, a lot of them weren’t, coming out of that enforcement action back in the 70’s
and 80’s. We hope that it’s a reasonable request and that you would agree.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. Do Board members have any questions
concerning Area Variance No. 54-2005? Questions? None of the Board members have any
questions? Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing. The public hearing, then, will be
open for Area Variance No. 54-2005, 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. Do I have any folks in the public who may wish to comment on Area Variance No.
54-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised for Area Variance No. 54-2005, so we’re going to
continue. I’m going to ask Board members to please offer their comments on 54-2005. May I
start with Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the applicant has made a significant effort to change and alter
the plans to what we had requested, and it better reflects something that fits in and doesn’t
interfere with the wetlands in the background there, too, and I think that the APA would
have given this a major, thorough analysis, as far as the septic system and where they were
going to put the septic system. So I think where the house is now is probably as best a
location as where it could possibly go. So as far as the request for the relief from the
wetlands, I think we can grant it.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll acknowledge that certainly the applicant has made an effort to
accommodate our comments. However, I’m going to make my decision based on the effect on
the wetlands, not on the degree of compromise that’s been obtained, because the real question
is the affect on the wetlands. That being said, I think getting 50 feet or more from the
wetlands in most locations is substantial. In many places in the Town 50 feet is the rule.
Here it happens to be 75, but I think with the new positioning of the house, we’ve probably
minimized any potential effect on the wetlands, at least to enough degree to satisfy me. So I
think this is a good plan, and I’d be in agreement with it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I have to agree with the two Board members who spoke, and
I think you’re to be congratulated for making these adjustments and I think it’s a reasonable
request, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I agree as well. I think you’ve done everything we’ve asked you to do.
You’ve located the house centrally on the property where it’s going to aesthetically look best
in the neighborhood. You’ve minimized the impact on the wetlands. So I’m in agreement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I also am in agreement with my fellow Board members. I
believe that Counselor and his client has worked in the spirit of cooperation with the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and I think you’ve made an honest effort to come to some sort of an
agreement, and I would certainly support the application. The public hearing is now closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, but before I ask for a motion, may I again
respectfully remind the members precedence mandates 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 No. 54-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2005 OLAF JOHN GABRIELSON,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Lot 37, Hunter Lane, Ridge Knolls Section 2. The applicant proposes a 2100 square foot
single family residence to be located 55 feet from wetlands, and the applicant is requesting 20
feet of shoreline setback relief from the 75 foot in that zone, per Section 179-4-070. I think
that the applicant has addressed the problems that we raised at the previous meeting, and I
think that, in this instance, 50 feet of distance for the home from the wetlands is adequate to
protect those wetlands. So I would move that we approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 54-2005 is five in favor, zero against. Is there
a challenge to the tally? If not, then Area Variance No. 54-2005 is approved.
MR. FULLER-Thank you for your time.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED STARK GROUP AGENT(S):
JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S): STARK GROUP ZONING HC-INT LOCATION 1533
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN THE HC-INT.
ZONE. CROSS REF. AV 75-2003, SP 49-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14,
2005 LOT SIZE: 4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2 SECTION 179-4-030
MR. ABBATE-We have scheduled Area Variance No. 62-2005 on the schedule this evening.
The project applicant is the Stark Group. However, late this afternoon, the Town has
received a fax, and I’ll read it into the record, to support my motion to table. “Dear Mr.
Chairman: I represent The Stark Group, Inc. in connection with the above area variance
application scheduled for public hearing at tonight’s meeting. I am writing now to request
that this application be tabled tonight and added to the Board’s agenda for public hearing at
its meeting next Wednesday, September 28. Last night the Planning Board accepted lead
agency status and commenced its SEQR review. We hope to complete the SEQR review next
Tuesday. We would then be in a position to proceed to the public hearing before the Zoning
Board the following evening. This addition to next week’s agenda will allow the project to
stay close to schedule and will be a great help to the applicant. Thank you very much for
your consideration. Very truly yours, John H. Richards” Now, Staff, I don’t see any
problem moving this to next week. Okay. Would you note that, please. So I’m going to
move a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2005 STARK GROUP, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Based on the applicant’s request, that Area Variance No. 62-2005 be moved to next week’s
meeting.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The motion is passed. Area Variance No. 62-2005 is tabled will indeed be
moved to next Wednesday’s meeting. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH & CATHLEEN FULLER
AGENT(S): ALLSTATE OWNER(S): JOSEPH & CATHLEEN FULLER ZONING RR-3A
LOCATION 971 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 624 SQ. FT.
GARAGE WITH A 624 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2005-497 PENDING AV, BP 93-
740 SFD WARREN CO. PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.8-1-33 SECTION 179-4-030
JOSEPH & CATHLEEN FULLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2005, Joseph & Cathleen Fuller, Meeting Date:
September 21, 2005 “Project Location: 971 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. garage with second-story residential addition.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 18.5 feet of side setback relief, where the minimum is 30-feet in the
RR-3A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 93-740: Issued 12/17/93 for a 1560 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and septic system.
Staff comments:
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
The applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. garage with 624 sq. ft. of second-story living space
including 2-bedrooms and an office. It appears that the positioning of the proposed (East of
the residence) is necessitated by the location of the septic system on the Westside.
The amount of relief is substantial, however the 30-foot side setback for the RR-3 zone is
indicative of the larger minimum lot size of 3-acres, the applicant’s parcel is a nonconforming
.5-acres. It appears that the proposed addition would minimally impact the neighbor to the
East due to the size of the lot and the location of the residence in the rear of the property.
The existing septic system is sized for a 4-bedroom residence. The applicants plan is to
relocate the existing first-floor bedroom upstairs therefore, only one bedroom will be added.
Dave Hatin, Director of Buildings and Codes, has indicated that the existing system can
adequately service a 5-bedroom residence (see memo dated 9/7/05).”
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, I have a letter here, I don’t know whether you received it or
not, from Dave Hatin, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement. Do you have that
there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can read that in.
MR. ABBATE-Would you do me a favor and read that into the record, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Dave Hatin, Director of
Building and Code Enforcement. The date on it is September 7, 2005. RE: The Joseph &
Cathy Fuller application for addition to a single family dwelling, Building Permit Number
2005-497 “Please be advised that we have verified that the septic system installed at the
Fuller residence does meet the requirements for a five bedroom system, and therefore is in full
compliance with the requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance for the above project. I
trust this will answer any concerns you may have. If not, please don’t hesitate to contact
me.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
September 14, 2005 Project Name: Fuller, Joseph & Cathleen Owner(s): Joseph & Cathleen
Fuller ID Number: QBY-AV-05-63 County Project#: Sep05-28 Current Zoning: RR-3A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing the construction of a
624 sq. ft. garage with a 624 sq. ft. second story addition. Relief requested from side yard
setback requirements. Site Location: 971 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 289.8-1-33 Staff
Notes: Area Variance; The applicant is proposing the construction of a 624 sq. ft. attached
garage with a 624 sq. ft. second story addition. The building is to be located 11.5 ft. from the
north property line where 30 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the elevation
drawings and plot plan locations. The plans also show a new well location at 100 ft. from the
leach system. 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 Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/17/05.
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 63-2005 please come to the table
and speak into the microphone and for the record please identify yourself and your place of
residence, please.
MRS. FULLER-Hi. Cathleen Fuller and Joseph Fuller.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Fuller, I’m going to give you the same option that
I gave the other folks.
MRS. FULLER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-You heard what it was, but I’ll say it again. That, in view of the fact that we
are five members this evening, I’m going to offer you the option to, if you feel uncomfortable
with that, to move your application to next week. If you are satisfied with the five members
on the Board this evening, we will certainly go ahead and hear your appeal.
MRS. FULLER-That’s fine.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-You have no problem with that? Okay. That’s fine. All right. You’re on.
Tell us what you want.
MRS. FULLER-All right. Our project consists of a building, a 624 square foot attached
garage and an addition on top of the garage. We would like to build this addition to add more
space to our home. We need an approved variance because we cannot meet the 30 foot side
setback on the east side of our house, because we are zoned for three acres. Our lot size is only
half an acre. We would have minimal impact, or none, on the property next door because the
property owner lives behind us and there is a vacant land next door to us. So that’s what we
would like to do.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and feel free that obviously this is new to you, but any time during this
meeting this evening, if there’s something that you felt that you left out that’s important,
you know what, raise your hand and stop us and then interject. We have no problems with
that at all.
MRS. FULLER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-If there’s anything at all, you don’t understand what we’re doing, stop us and
ask what it’s all about and we would be more than happy to explain it to you.
MRS. FULLER-Great. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do any of the Board members have any questions concerning Area
Variance No. 63-2005? Okay. None of the Board members apparently have any questions
concerning that. So what I’m going to do is open the public hearing, and is there anyone in
the public this evening who would like to come before the Board and voice their opinion
concerning Area Variance No. 63-2005? Yes, ma’am, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathleen Salvador. It’s not that I’m in favor
or not in favor of this. I just have a couple of questions that are unclear to me. When Mr.
Underwood read the size of the lot, I thought he said 2001, was it 20,001?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s 20,001. Yes, I’m sorry about that.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and Mr. Hatin says that the septic system is sizeable for a five
bedroom house, but he doesn’t say what it is, and I’m just curious as to what that might be,
what type of system it is, and what is the gallonage and all of it. Is it a septic system? The
size of it.
MR. ABBATE-I will confess, I do not have the answer for you, but I promise I will get the
answer. However, let me move over to Staff and perhaps Staff can help answer the question.
MRS. BARDEN-I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, Cathleen, but I think it’s a 1250 gallon
septic tank. It’s a conventional system.
MRS. FULLER-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-And from memory here, I think Dave Hatin looked at the file and deemed
that there was a longer leach field that was put in, so the as built turned out to be longer than
was initially applied for, and, on that, thought that, and I’m sure some other things as well,
thought that it would be able to accommodate.
MRS. SALVADOR-Do you know what the size of the leach field is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a 1250 gallon tank with five, 50 foot long trenches, five of them.
MRS. BARDEN-Two-hundred and fifty feet of leach field.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. It was just that it was unclear as to what it was, and that’s
why I say, I’m not opposed to it or anything. I was just trying to clarify what was available
on the site.
MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s a new system, too.
MRS. SALVADOR-And I’m not sure, 971 Bay Road, I’m not sure where that is.
MR. ABBATE-I think it’s just past us somewhere. Is that right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a mile north of us here.
MRS. SALVADOR-It’s right down here.
MR. RIGBY-On the left hand side, yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you very much. That’s all I have for questions.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you for your questions. Your questions help us raise other issues.
MRS. SALVADOR-I was uncertain.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Please?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador. I’m very concerned about this septic system. As you
know, there have been a number of fairly new, recently designed septic systems in this area
that have failed, and I don’t know how you get approval to build a system larger than what
has been approved. I don’t think we’re supposed to do that. If a septic system was approved
for a three or four bedroom home, that’s all you’re supposed to build. Now, a half acre lot
with some number of 50 foot long leach field is, it just seems like there’s an awful density on
that lot. Their source of water is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a well.
MR. SALVADOR-They have a well on the site as well, and do we meet the separation
distance there? Is it on a plan before you?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It says the existing well will not be used and a proposed well will be
located 100 feet minimum from the leach system. That’s what it says on the plot.
MR. SALVADOR-So we’re drilling a new well?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It appears so.
MR. ABBATE-And what we’ll do, so we don’t speak for the applicant, I will raise that issue
when he comes before us. The question is, are they drilling a new well. That’s going to be
your question?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the Sewer and Septic Ordinance addresses the issue of separation
distances from all things like wells and side yards and buildings and septic systems and septic
tanks, excuse me. I just think there should be a plan before you that shows that what’s going
to be done will be compliant, that’s all.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, a point of order on this whole topic.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. MC NULTY-This is really a Board of Health issue.
MR. ABBATE-You took the words right out of my mouth.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. MC NULTY-And I think if we were to deny the variance based on inadequate septic, we
would be vulnerable. It’s beyond our realm.
MR. ABBATE-I agree.
MR. MC NULTY-The only impact we can consider, if it’s going to have an impact on the
nature of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, we could address it, but
otherwise, it’s beyond our jurisdiction.
MR. SALVADOR-So, Mr. Hatin’s letter, then, what you’re saying, is out of order?
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not what he’s saying. Let me say this. We have to rely on folks
who have greater expertise, certainly than I do, in the area of septic systems, sewage systems,
and I would like to think that the Director of Building and Codes, Mr. Hatin, in his letter to
us, has made us, made me, feel comfortable in that he has advised us that he has no problems
with the proposed and current Sanitary Sewage Ordinance, etc. So, based upon his expertise,
which I have to rely on, I’m going to feel very comfortable in that the folks who have applied
for this appeal will be meeting, in fact, the requirements, but anything above and beyond
that is out of our control.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. McNulty is absolutely right in his point of order. If these folks comply
with the Town’s septic and sewer ordinance, they simply don’t have to get any variance for
that. They have to get a variance for what you have jurisdiction over, but they’re unrelated,
because it’s another Board.
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’re not going to be addressing that. We’re going to be addressing his
request this evening, and in terms of enforcement, you moved into the area of enforcement,
we have no enforcement authority.
MR. SALVADOR-No, and I’m not. No. Just a point of order is what I think we’re talking
about. These people make application to expand their home. Now it’s up to the Planning
and Zoning Department to determine what variances they need in that regard. One of them
appears not to be one having to do with septic and sewer. From that letter, they don’t need a
septic system.
MR. ABBATE-We’re not addressing the septic. All we’re doing this evening is this. Mr. and
Mrs. Fuller have requested a 624 square foot garage with a second story residential addition.
That’s all we’re going to address.
MR. SALVADOR-Fine.
MR. ABBATE-Period.
MR. SALVADOR-And whether or not their septic system is compliant.
MR. ABBATE-No, you’re not going to answer your question and raise an issue at the same
time. Absolutely not.
MR. SALVADOR-I think Mr. McNulty raised it.
MR. ABBATE-No, he didn’t. What he said is absolutely correct.
MR. SALVADOR-Fine, and I agree.
MR. ABBATE-But that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the ZBA.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, again. I’m a little confused now. If the septic variance has
nothing to do with what you’re doing tonight, why was a letter from Mr. Hatin read
concerning the septic system? That should be strictly to the Town Board. Not to this Board.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. MC NULTY-It really should be, other than I suspect whatever prompted the letter
originally was possibly concerned we might digress into something else, and to some degree, as
I mentioned before, if we were to get a series of these requests in an area that had real septic
problems and it looked like the septic systems were going to be a problem, then you could say
that they’re going to affect the character of the neighborhood, and that is one of our issues.
So collectively it could be that way, but directly it isn’t. It belongs to the Board of Health.
MRS. SALVADOR-It is not.
MR. MC NULTY-And it’s their job to make sure they’re adequate.
MR. ABBATE-And let me support that. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not, did not
request this letter from Mr. Hatin.
MRS. SALVADOR-No, I would assume not. I would assume that he volunteered it.
MR. ABBATE-As a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised when I received that.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, I would assume he volunteered it.
MR. ABBATE-That I don’t know.
MRS. BARDEN-I requested the letter. I requested the letter. The addition of the bedroom,
as you know, triggers looking at the septic because they’re sized by the number of bedrooms.
MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MRS. BARDEN-So we pulled out the building permit file, which had their septic application
and their as built septic, and I asked Dave Hatin to look at it because it is designed for four
bedrooms, and they’re adding another bedroom. He looked at it and he said, I talked to the
Fullers. I looked at the file. In my opinion it’s fine for the additional bedroom, and I said, to
make things easier on the night of the meeting, why don’t you just write a letter in to that
effect.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. So that’s where it came from?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And Staff realizes we tend to digress, at times, in issues like that, so she
was getting a step ahead of us.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. and Mrs. Fuller, would you be kind enough to come to the table, please.
Did we reach that point where the Board members have any questions? Did I cover that yet?
MR. RIGBY-I have a question or two.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. RIGBY-The undeveloped space to the east of the property, is there plans for that?
What’s the intention for that space?
MRS. FULLER-I can tell you it’s a driveway. There’s land and then there’s a driveway, and
then there’s land and then there’s our neighbor.
MR. RIGBY-And the undeveloped space currently?
MR. FULLER-And I have talked to my neighbor, and he has no problem with anything we
do there on our house.
MR. RIGBY-And that undeveloped space does belong to your immediate neighbor?
MR. FULLER-Yes, it does.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions from Board members? Okay. If
that’s the case, then, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask the members of the Board this evening if they’d be kind
enough to please offer any commentary that they may have on Area Variance No. 63-2005,
and may I start with Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I’m still deciding, but I’ll talk out loud. Maybe the Board members can help me
a little bit, too, as we go on here. I like the project. I think it’s a great project. I think it’s an
improvement to the home. I think that the design you’ve laid out here is a good one and I
think it would definitely be an improvement to the neighborhood. The thing I’m wrestling
with is the amount of relief. We’re looking at 18.5 feet of relief, and that seems like quite a
bit. The other side of it is your neighbor who is affected by it hasn’t said anything about it.
There’s no positive feedback from him, but there’s also no negative feedback from him. So
I’m not really sure what the situation is there. So overall I think it’s a good project, but I
think I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say before I offer an opinion here.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, in looking over the plans, as you had mentioned, you
couldn’t put it on the other side because of the leach field, and I don’t think the relief is
extreme considering that your property line abuts on green property that could not be
developed. I mean, it’s already been developed. So I have no problem. I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in agreement. I think that the amount of relief
requested is reflective of that three acre zoning which probably was put in effect long after
those houses had been constructed in that area of the Town. In most instances, if you have
18 and a half feet of side setback relief to the line, you know, the next house is probably going
to be at least that far from the line, too, so that’s substantial. So I don’t really consider this
request to be as great as considered in totality here. So I would be in agreement that you
should do this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. It is and it isn’t fair to judge this piece of property
based on the zoning that’s in the area. As we’ve indicated, it apparently preceded the zoning
that’s there now, so applying the setbacks for a three acre zoning to a piece of property that’s
maybe half that size in some ways doesn’t make sense. So I think we have to make an
allowance there, and it’s a balancing act, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to
the neighborhood, and I think, too, while there’s no absolute guarantee that the property
owner next door won’t, some day, decide to build a house on that piece of property, even with
the applicant’s house, the probability is he won’t do that, given that he’s already developed
there. So it’s a little bit of risk taking that you have to take with this kind of gamble. So
even allowing for the fact that the variance travels with the land, not with the applicant, I
think the benefit to the applicant is going to outweigh any obvious detriment to the
neighborhood, and therefore I’ll probably be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I’ll make a comment and go back to Mr. Rigby. I
think it’s a reasonable request, and to be perfectly honest with you, as I look, I think Mr.
McNulty may have touched upon it. If I look at the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury, I think that’s important that we take a look at it. I
believe you folks are asking, perhaps, for a little bit more, but I think there are unique
circumstances which warrant that, and you are, in fact, making a number of improvements,
which I think adds to it as well, and coupled with the fact that I believe you folks are acting
in good faith, and if I were in your situation, I would probably ask for the same thing. So I
would support the application. Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-I guess I’m swayed by the opinions of the Board. What can I say? Yes, I agree.
I think it’s a good project and with no negative feedback from the neighbor, I’ll be in favor,
too.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The public hearing is now closed, and before I ask for a motion,
again, 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. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 63-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2005 JOSEPH & CATHLEEN FULLER,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
971 Bay Road. The applicant’s proposing a 624 square foot garage with a second story
residential addition. The applicant’s requesting 18.5 feet of side setback relief where the
minimum required is 30 feet in the RR-3A zone, per Section 179-4-030. In considering this
request, there’s several facts here. One’s the benefit to the applicant. Obviously this is going
to help the applicant accomplish what they want with their home. Another consideration is
whether the difficulty is self-created, and I think in considering that, we have to recognize
that this is a substandard lot that preceded the zoning in that particular area, and
consequently the setback specified for three acre lots become a little bit extreme when you’re
looking at maybe an acre and a half size lot. So it’s not really a self-created problem. It’s a
situation that existed. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I think we’ve established it will not. It has
been commented that the existing septic system has been determined to be adequate for the
proposed addition. Whether the requested variance is substantial. Again, in light of the size
of this pre-existing, nonconforming lot, I think we can say that it’s not substantial, and
whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible
for the applicant to pursue. I think the applicant has established that that’s not possible
either, since the only other possible place to put this addition is already occupied by part of
the septic system. So, given all those factors, I think the balance falls in favor of the
applicant, and I move that we approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 63-2005 is five in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 63-2005 is approved.
MR. FULLER-Thank you very much.
MRS. FULLER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN & CAROL PLUDE OWNER(S):
JOHN & CAROL PLUDE ZONING UR-10 LOCATION 86 BOULEVARD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 128 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING APARTMENT.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION
OF A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 90-581 CHANGE
IN ROOF LINE BP FOR APARTMENT DOE NOT EXIST WARREN CO. PLANNING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 304.17-1-35 SECTION 179-4-
030
JOHN & CAROL PLUDE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2005, John & Carol Plude, Meeting Date: September
21, 2005 “Project Location: 86 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: The applicants
propose a 128 sq. ft. (bathroom) addition to an existing 399 sq. ft. apartment.
Relief Required:
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
The applicant requests 7.32-feet of side setback relief from the minimum 10-feet required in
the UR-10 zone, per §179-4-030.
Relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is also required per §179-13-010, the
apartment is a preexisting nonconforming structure, a converted detached garage.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 90-581: Issued 8/30/90 for a change in the roofline of the primary dwelling.
Staff comments:
No prior approvals or permits were applied for or issued for the apartment. On the submitted
site development data page the existing setback is shown at 3.5-feet, the actual existing is
1.35-feet, the proposed 2.68-feet is correct. Thus, there is no increase in the nonconformity of
the structure with respect to the dimensional requirements.
This lot is serviced by municipal water and sewer.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
September 14, 2005 Project Name: Plude, John & Carol Owner(s): John & Carol Plude ID
Number: QBY-AV-05-64 County Project#: Sep05-31 Current Zoning: UR-10
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing the construction of a
128 sq. ft. addition to existing apartment. Relief requested from side yard setback
requirements and expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Site Location: 86
Boulevard Tax Map Number(s): 304.17-1-35 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is
proposing the construction of a 128 sq. ft. addition to an existing apartment. The addition
will be 2.68 ft. from the north side yard property line and 26 ft. from the east property line
where 10 ft. is the minimum with a sum of 30 ft. The information submitted shows the
location of the existing apartment on the lot where the addition is an extension of the
building. The applicant also indicates the addition will be used for a bathroom. Staff does
not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff
recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/17/05.
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 64-2005 please come to the table
and would you be kind enough to identify yourselves and your place of residence.
MR. PLUDE-John and Carol Plude, 86 Boulevard in Queensbury.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, before we start, Mr. and Mrs. Plude, I’d like to offer you the
option as well as I did the other folks, that there are five members here this evening. If you
are uncomfortable with only five members being here to vote on your appeal, you may
request, if you wish, to have your application moved until next meeting.
MRS. PLUDE-No, that’s fine. We’re fine with it.
MR. ABBATE-You’re comfortable with it? Thank you very much. Then tell us exactly
what you would like us to do for you.
MRS. PLUDE-Well, we decided to put a bathroom on the small apartment out back. My
brother-in-law has lived there for 32 years, and he’s getting older, and he had gotten sick last
year, and we noticed that it’s a little harder now running back and forth to use our facilities,
and we figured it’s time he had his own.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and again, as I said earlier, if at any time during our discussion, there’s
something you think that we should be made aware of, you may have forgotten, stop us, tell
us what it is, or if there’s anything this evening that we say that you don’t understand, stop
us and we’ll do everything we can to explain it to you. Okay.
MRS. PLUDE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do any members of the Board have any questions concerning Area
Variance No. 64-2005?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would only ask, when did you convert it to an apartment, the garage?
MRS. PLUDE-It always has been, ever since we bought it.
MR. PLUDE-We bought it back in ’73, and it was a mother-in-law house at the time, and it
never had a bathroom. It always had water. The old galvanized. I changed that all out, put
the copper in, changed it all around.
MR. MC NULTY-Is there a kitchen in the apartment?
MR. PLUDE-Yes, there is.
MRS. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-It looks like there’s an addition off the back of the apartment. Is there?
MR. PLUDE-Yes, in the back.
MRS. PLUDE-Yes, in the back is where we’re putting the bathroom.
MR. PLUDE-It’s 16 by 8.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. So the addition is already built?
MR. PLUDE-Yes.
MRS. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-And it’s just a matter of installing the bathroom into the addition?
MRS. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. PLUDE-Yes. Everything’s there. I’ve just got to get permission from you people to get
it done.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I noticed that basically everything has been there since March 8, 1989.
According to this survey map.
MR. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Which is quite a while ago. Any other folks on the Board have any questions
concerning Area Variance No. 64-2005? None? Okay. The public hearing is open, and any
member of the public this evening wish to be heard, come up to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised, so I’ll assume there’s no one in the public who
has any comments they wish to make. So I’ll move on and I’ll ask members to offer their
comments concerning the request by Mr. and Mrs. Plude. May I start with Mr. McNulty,
please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m probably going to do what Mr. Rigby did last time and end up
saying I’m on the fence, but let me talk for a little bit to explain where my concerns are. This
obviously is a pre-existing, nonconforming situation. If it were new, the answer would be
absolutely no because you’ve got two primary residences on one piece of property, which is a
no-no these days in Queensbury. That, plus the closeness to the lot line, leaves me with a
question, should we encourage and increase this kind of a nonconformity, and it’s a fairly
small lot you’ve got there. So on the one hand, I’m inclined to say, no, we should discourage
this and not let it go any further. On the other hand, it is a balancing act, considering the
benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the neighborhood, and even that, in my mind,
ends up being kind of a conflict because the rules say that we have to consider the benefit to
the applicant, but the variance goes with the land, so, you sell this place tomorrow. If we
grant the variance, it’s still there. It goes on and on. So then it’s not benefit to the current
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
applicant. It’s benefit to somebody else. Given all that, I can see the benefit to the applicant,
and it’s a relatively small addition and change, and it’s kind of out of sight on the back side.
So, while I think there is a little bit of a detriment to the neighborhood, it probably is not
large enough to off balance the benefit to the applicant. So I’m going to listen to what the
other Board members say, see what their reasons are. I don’t care which way they’re going to
vote, but I’d like to hear what their reasons are, because sometimes that changes, but at the
moment I am leaning slightly in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m looking at this one, I think we have to think about how long it’s
been there for, and if it’s been there since the early 70’s, as you said, you know, no one’s
complained about it. Certainly in the old days many people had little granny houses in the
back yard and especially in that part of the Town there, most of the houses are pretty small.
In this instance, too, I think that, you know, you are on a very small lot. We certainly
wouldn’t want to see more of these popping up on the radar screen, but, you know, you are
connected up to the municipal sewer system, and the water system. So I don’t think that’s of
concern on our part, either. I would think that we could be lenient on this one and overlook
the fact that it’s an extra for you guys, but it’ll be a bonus not having to run out through the
snow to hit the can first thing in the morning.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Could I just ask you how large the apartment is, the dimensions?
MR. PLUDE-He’s got that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got the plot.
MRS. PLUDE-527 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The accessory structure is 399 square feet. It’s 19 by 21.
MRS. HUNT-19 by 21.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the addition will be 8 feet by 16 feet. So 128 square feet.
MRS. HUNT-Well considering that the apartment was there, and that the addition is
probably almost minimal for a bathroom, also, while the relief sounds like a lot, 7.32 feet, on
the other side of your property line is a garage. The neighbors have a garage there.
MRS. PLUDE-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-And you’re one door away from commercial property. So I would be in favor of
it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I just have a question, too. My understanding is that the addition is already in
place. Is that correct?
MR. PLUDE-Yes.
MRS. PLUDE-Yes, it is.
MR. RIGBY-So the structure that you’re putting the bathroom into, installing the bathroom
into, is already in place. Is that correct?
MRS. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-So you’re not asking for a variance to build an addition off of the back of the
property. An addition is already there, you’re just asking for permission to make that
addition an active bathroom. Is that correct?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. PLUDE-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-Since the addition is already there and it’s already in place, I have no difficulty
with it either. Mr. Underwood made a very good point. I mean, really this structure is really
a second living structure on an existing lot. I have a little bit of difficulty with that, but it’s a
pre-existing condition. So, I’m swayed to approve it as well.
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just clarify something, Leo? Were you asking about the addition for
the bathroom, or the addition of the apartment? The addition is there, but it’s not being
converted to a bathroom.
MR. RIGBY-That was my understanding.
MRS. BARDEN-No. I think what happened was they came in for a building permit after the
fact. So that’s why they’re in front of you.
MR. RIGBY-So the addition was built without a building permit.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. So it wasn’t there. Okay. Good. I thought that you were unclear
on that.
MR. RIGBY-I was unclear on that.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s not being converted.
MR. RIGBY-I thought it was a pre-existing condition from 1989. No. Okay.
MR. PLUDE-(Last words) as of this year.
MR. RIGBY-Built without a building permit?
MR. PLUDE-Yes, sir.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Then, I’m sorry, it’s a misunderstanding on my part, and I’m glad you
clarified that, Susan, thank you. That does change my opinion. Given that, if you were to
come before the Board, I think, and ask for an addition to be built, without it being there, my
opinion, my take on it would be that I would not grant the relief needed to build that
addition, and to install a bathroom. So I’m going to come down on the negative side of that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine, and I’ll make a comment, and then I’ll give Mr. McNulty an
opportunity to take a little bit more time. When I first received this application, I shook my
head and said, there’s something wrong here, but as I went through the application, I noticed
that basically this somewhat has existed since March 8, 1989, and then I looked and I saw
that it’s not only pre-existing, but it’s nonconforming, and I took everything into
consideration, the spirit and the intent of the Zoning Ordinances, and I made a decision, and
my decision was very close. I am 51% in favor of supporting your application and 49% not in
favor, and let me explain to you why. I take into consideration what Mr. Rigby had to say.
So that bothered me somewhat that this was done without a building permit, etc., but I don’t
have any information that suggests that you attempted to do this to defy the Zoning
Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury, or be contrary, if you will. I think it’s just something
that happened, and in view of the fact that it’s pre-existing and it’s nonconforming, my
decision was close, 51% that I would support the application. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I think I’m where I was before. In some ways I’m a little more easily
where I was before since I think Mr. Rigby’s probably going to vote against this, and this is
one of those things that I periodically see something that I say, okay, I would kind of like to
have the applicant get it, but it doesn’t deserve everybody voting for it, because there needs
to be something said that we’re not endorsing this for every situation. So, I think I’m where
you are, Mr. Chairman. I’m 50 and a half or 51% in favor and 49 or 49 and a half of me says
no, but I think I’ll be voting in favor.
MRS. PLUDE-Thank you.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Brilliant minds work basically the same. All right. That’s fine. I’m going to
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I respectfully remind the
Members that we have a balancing act, five statutory criteria, and having said that, I’m
going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 64-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2005 JOHN & CAROL PLUDE,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
86 Boulevard. The applicants are proposing a 128 square foot bathroom addition to an
existing 399 square foot apartment and the relief that’s required in this instance is that the
applicant is requesting 7.32 feet of side setback relief from the minimum 10 foot required in
the UR-10 zone. That relief is less than, because the addition on the back of that building will
be actually narrower than the building itself, so it’s a little bit less than what’s pre-existing on
that building. The relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is also required per
Section 179-13-010. The apartment is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, a converted
detached garage. As explained by the applicants, that mini-granny apartment that has been
there since the early 70’s. In that instance it has not had a bathroom, but it does have water
in it, and their request seems reasonable, that a very small addition of a bathroom would
make it much more livable in there. This is not something that we normally would be
addressing in the community because second dwellings on lots are not permitted in most zones
in the community, in fact in almost all zones they’re not permitted, but in this instance
because of the record, the fact that it’s a nonconforming old use of this structure, certainly it’s
going to make it more livable. So I can live with it.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Rigby
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 64-2005 is four in favor, one against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 64-2005 is approved.
MRS. PLUDE-Thank you very much.
MR. PLUDE-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome, guys.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2005 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICIA A. JONES OWNER(S):
PATRICIA A. JONES ZONING UR-10 LOCATION 17 COLUMBIA AVENUE (CORNER OF
MALLORY & COLUMBIA) APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1232 SQ. FT. SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING WITH FRONT DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 97-472 DEMOLITION OF OLD HOUSE BP
2005-011 C/O FOR SFD PENDING WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.31
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-1 SECTION 179-4-030
PATRICIA JONES, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2005, Patricia A. Jones, Meeting Date: September
21, 2005 “Project Location: 17 Columbia Avenue Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant has constructed a 1,232 sq. ft. dwelling with front deck. The as-built residence
encroaches on both front setbacks (Columbia St. and Mallory Ave).
Relief Required:
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
The applicant requests 16.5-feet of front setback relief (Columbia) from the minimum 30-feet
required in the UR-10 zone. And, front setback relief of 4.5-feet from Mallory Ave. is also
required. Relief sought is per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2005-11: Issued 1/25/05 for a single-family dwelling.
BP 97-472: Issued 8/21/97 for demolition of old house.
Staff comments:
The plan that was submitted for the building permit (2005-11) showed the lot lines extending
to the edge of the road, at Columbia St. and Mallory Ave. The final as-built survey shows the
actual lot lines, indicating that the property is setback from both roads. The residence was
built per the plans, but the lot lines were not accurate, resulting in a nonconforming structure
with respect to front setback requirements.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 65-2005 come up to the
table, speak into the microphone, and please, for the record, identify yourself and your place
of residence.
MS. JONES-Patricia Jones, 17 Columbia Avenue.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Ms. Jones, tell us what you’d like to do.
MS. JONES-Well, when we had the final survey done, we realized that, or we were told by
the Codes inspector that there wasn’t enough footage from the property line. The survey says
it’s 19 and a half feet from the house, but with a six foot porch, or a deck, it’s actually 13 and
a half feet from Columbia Avenue. Mallory side there’s four and a half feet that we’re lacking,
and I’d like a variance for the existing structure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, again, anything you want to add while we’re going through this,
just stop us and add, and if you have any questions, you don’t understand something we’re
saying, or the procedure, stop us and ask us, we’ll be happy to explain it to you. Do any of
the members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance 65-2005? No? Okay.
The public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 65-2005, and those wishing to be heard,
would you please identify yourselves, raise your hands and then I can acknowledge you and
you can come to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I don’t see anyone who wishes to comment. If that’s the case, then, I’m going
to move on. I’m going to ask members to offer their commentaries on Area Variance No. 65-
2005. May I please start with Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. It seems as if this was an innocent error, and while the setback
sounds considerable, the house does fit in with the others in the neighborhood, and I was just
wondering where your plan, what plan you used with the lot lines. The one that was in error.
MS. JONES-The plot plan that was submitted by the contractor.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I was just curious.
MS. JONES-It’s on the back here, and the line shows it going to the road, and he’s written 36
feet from the road to the house. He didn’t realize there was 15 feet from the road to the
property line.
MRS. HUNT-As I said, it was an honest mistake, error. I have no problem with this
variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I’d just like to start out by saying the house fits the character of the
neighborhood. I mean, it’s a beautiful home. I think you did a very nice job developing it. If
the variance were brought before the Board here and asked for a variance, I think what I
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
probably would have suggested, looking at it this way, is that the house be moved back. It’s
obviously a situation that we can’t remedy right now. You’ve got a condition where you’re
asking for a variance now after the fact, because you do have significant space in the back.
Looking through the neighborhood, as I went out to the site, and looking at your home and
looking at the line that some of the other homes are on, I think your house is right in
character with the rest of the neighborhood. So I think I’d be in favor of the variance
request.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think I can kind of just echo what’s been said. Obviously it was a
typical and honest mistake. The only way to avoid it would have been to have a survey done
before building started, and for some builders (lost words), but at the same time I can see
where the mistake was made. That, plus the fact that the house is in a logical place. If you
were to look at the neighborhood and say, where should you place the house, it’s where it is.
It’s lined up with the other homes and it has a typical setback for what exists. That,
combined with the case of balancing detriment to the neighborhood, and I don’t think there
really is at this point, with the benefit to the applicant, obviously there’s a tremendous
benefit to the applicant, that she doesn’t have to have the house jacked up and moved back
to make it compliant. So, in this case, I think there’s a big benefit to the applicant, very little
detriment to the neighborhood. So I’ll definitely be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would echo most of the other comments I’ve heard here, too. I think
in this instance, most people assume that they own out to the edge of the road, otherwise they
wouldn’t mow it on a regular basis. It’s a mistake that crops up from time to time in the
community, and in this instance I would agree with everybody else’s comments, that it fits in
with the neighborhood. It’s set back a reasonable amount from the road. It’s not like it’s
right on the road, and plus it gives you a bigger back yard which everybody enjoys. So I
would be in agreement that we should approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with the other Board members. We don’t have
anything in the record from your neighbors who are jumping up and down saying they don’t
want this. There was no adverse public opinion concerning your application, and I agree with
the other members. We’re only human, and an honest mistake was made, and I think this
Board recognizes that, and I think that we’re doing the right thing. I don’t have any
problems with that, at all. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and the Board knows by now that we have
five statutory criteria and we have a balancing benefit. So, having said that, I’m going to ask
if there’s a motion for Area Variance No. 65-2005.
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2005 PATRICIA A. JONES, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
17 Columbia Avenue (corner of Mallory & Columbia). The applicant has constructed a 1232
square foot dwelling with front deck. The as built residence encroaches on both front
setbacks, Columbia Street and Mallory Avenue. The applicant requests 16.5 feet of front
setback relief, Columbia, from the minimum 30 feet required in the UR-10 zone, and front
setback relief of 4.5 feet from Mallory Avenue is also required. Relief sought is per Section
179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant could not be achieved by any other feasible means.
They would have to, as we said, move the house. It’s a lovely home and it fits in with the
neighborhood. So it will not have an undesirable change in the neighborhood or nearby
properties. While it’s substantial, it was the result of a mistake, and so it was not self-created,
and I don’t think there’ll be any adverse physical or environmental effects. So I ask that we
approve Area Variance No. 65-2005.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 65-2005 is five in favor, zero against, and if
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 65-2005 is approved.
MS. JONES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CLUTE ENTERPRISES
AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): H. HOEGER ZONING SFR-1A
LOCATION BENNETT & ELDRIDGE RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS OF RESULTING LOTS OF 0.31 AC., 0.36 AC. & 0.36 ACRES
RESPECTIVELY. CROSS REF. SUB 17-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
1.03 AC. TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-21 SECTION 179-4-030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2005, Clute Enterprises, Meeting Date: September
21, 2005 “Project Location: Bennett & Eldridge Roads Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximate 1-acre land-hooked parcel into 3
residential lots. The subdivision would result in lots sized; .36-acre (lot 1), .36-acre (lot 2), .31-
acre (lot 3).
Relief Required:
.64 acre (27,742 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 1.
.64 acre (27,848 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 2.
.69 acre (30,261 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 3.
6.92-feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot 1 (lot width
shown as 143.08-feet).
6.92-feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot 2 (lot width
shown as 143.08-feet).
All relief per §179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None
Staff comments:
The zoning in this area requires a minimum lot size of 1-acre. This request is to create lots of
.31, .36, and .36-acres, respectively. Lots on Eldridge Road range from .18-acres to .56-acres,
with the average lot size being .37-acres. Similarly, lots on Bennett Road range from .32-
acres to 2-acres, with the average lot size at .50-acre. Few lots in this neighborhood have the
required 1-acre minimum. While the granting of these variances would be consistent with the
character of the neighborhood, substantial relief is required relative to the ordinance. The
applicant indicates that a feasible alternative to the variances requested would be to create 2
lots. The lots are proposed to be serviced by municipal water and individual on-site septic
systems.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see we have someone here this evening. Would you be kind enough
to speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself.
MR. STEVES-Certainly. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Clute Enterprises on this
application.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now I’m going to offer you the same option, Mr. Steves. We have five
members here this evening, rather than seven. If you are uncomfortable with only five
members here, we can move your application to next week. If you are comfortable, we’ll
continue.
MR. STEVES-We’ll continue.
MR. ABBATE-We’ll continue. Okay. No problem. Now you are representing the Clute
Enterprises.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-And you, in fact, have authority to authorize any kind of feasible alternatives
and conditions that might be part of any kind of approval?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Clute will try to make it. He had a prior meeting. He’s hoping to show
up, but we honestly didn’t anticipate it being on at 8:30.
MR. ABBATE-Every time we’re getting better and better at this kind of thing.
MR. STEVES-I’ll go through the application, real quick, unless you have anything.
MR. ABBATE-Well, why don’t you do this. Why don’t you just explain to the Board, it’s
been read into the record what you’re requesting, and if you feel you want to add anything
else, please do, and if not, I’ll just go to the Board and ask if they have any questions
concerning your application. It’s up to you.
MR. STEVES-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Do you want me to do it that way?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Members of the Board, do you have any questions concerning
66-2005?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the comment, looking on the lots, the two lot side, I
don’t really think I have a problem with the ones over on Bennett Road, and the Eldridge
Road one, that lot is pretty narrow, but, you know, as was mentioned in the explanation, it’s
not out of character with the neighborhood. I mean, certainly there’s lots that are narrower
than that. There’s a few that are wider than. So, that would be the only comments I would
make.
MR. STEVES-The one thing, also to expand on that slightly, is that the one you’re looking at
on the east side of Eldridge Road is land hooked to the other parcels, but it really is it’s own,
not building lot, but it’s its own parcel, because of the division of the Town road. Eldridge, I
believe, is the person that subdivided this back 30 years ago, and then, you know, obviously
the name Eldridge Road. That was a piece that was left there, and there’s a few pieces that
you can see Davenport, just to the south of that, is a parcel of about the same depth.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. MC NULTY-Just a point to clarify, I guess. As I understand it, Mr. Clute apparently
has a contract to purchase this land, but he does not currently own it?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So he’s got an option?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and I know it doesn’t weigh into this Board.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-I was just about to address that issue, but go ahead.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Well, who owns it or who the purchaser is. Obviously, he is going to be
purchasing this property, most likely regardless of the outcome, but obviously it’s three, it’s a
better scenario for a builder than it is as two. Plus, on the other end of the parcel or other end
of the road, I should say, there was an owner that was out of town that wanted to come in
with basically like a joint application who has almost an identical scenario at the other end of
the road and wants to do the exact same thing, except that I told him that three days after
the submission deadline he can’t ask me to submit for this month.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Any other questions from members of the Board? If not,
I’m going to open the public hearing, and those wishing to be heard, would you please raise
your hand so I can acknowledge you? Anyone from the public wish to come up? When you
come up to the table, would you be kind enough to identify yourself and your place of
residence, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BILL EICHLER
MR. EICHLER-Yes. My name is Bill Eichler. I live at 9 Hummingbird Lane, which is just
the other side of that development. Actually it would be, well, within 100 yards of my house.
I spoke to most all of the neighbors that were home the other night on Hummingbird, and I
have all of their signatures here, that they are definitely against subdividing that parcel into
three sections.
MR. ABBATE-What I would suggest, and certainly only you can make that decision, but
what I would suggest, sir, is that perhaps you ask that those names be read into the record,
who object to this application.
MR. EICHLER-I can do that.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t believe, Mr. Secretary, we have anything in writing concerning that,
do we?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we do.
MR. EICHLER-No, because this was the first thing that I’ve got, via the mail, and I got it
yesterday.
MR. ABBATE-Well, feel free.
MR. EICHLER-You can have this, if you would so like.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to introduce that into the record?
MR. EICHLER-Definitely so, sir.
MR. ABBATE-All right, then, would you hand it to Mr. Secretary, please, and he will read
that into the record. Then give him an opportunity to read it, and then we’ll proceed. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“We, the undersigned residents of Hummingbird Lane, Queensbury,
New York, adamantly oppose the variance application by Clute Enterprises to build three
houses on one acre of land on the corner of Eldridge and Bennett Roads.” And it’s signed by
Andrea Eichler, William Eichler, William Dorman, Larry LaFountain, Shirley LaFountain,
Florence Loperfido, Benny Loperfido, Lisa Lehmann and Jack Irion and Kathleen Irion,
and those are all on Hummingbird Lane.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Now if you’d like to continue, please.
MR. EICHLER-We just have, in my opinion, does the Town of Queensbury really want to
set the precedent of doing third acre lots when we have such a high density of traffic on Upper
Aviation Road already? Will the area sustain three more septic systems in a one acre parcel?
Those are major concerns.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-And we will be addressing those questions this evening as part of our
statutory requirements, and what have you. Is there anything else you’d like to add at this
time?
MR. EICHLER-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-All right, then, thank you very much. We appreciate your input.
MR. EICHLER-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Are there any other folks in the audience who would like to speak? Would
you come up to the table please, identify yourself, tell us where you reside.
MIKE SILVIA
MR. SILVIA-Good evening. My name’s Mike Silvia. I live at 6 Hummingbird Lane. I’m a
neighbor of Mr. Eichler’s, and I would have signed the petition, had I been home. My
comments, at this point, are two. I concur with Mr. Eichler in that I did receive two notices
with regards to this hearing. Both referenced the same issue, if you will, same parcel, same
tax id number, same content. One listed the meeting as this evening. It was dated the 14 of
th
September. The second listed the meeting as next Tuesday, dated the 20 of September. I
th
have both copies in my truck if you would like to see them. My concerns mirror those of Mr.
Eichler. The old tax maps call it 1.15 acres. The listing that I received was 1.03 acres, but it’s
my understanding that these are two parcels of land, split by Eldridge Road. Is that correct?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s correct.
MR. SILVIA-Now is the subdivision going to be on the major chunk of land, or is there one
planned for the little tiny piece on the?
MR. UNDERWOOD-One house on the one side, two on the other side.
MR. SILVIA-Two on the other.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s actually one parcel, on the tax map.
MR. SILVIA-It is one parcel with the arrow, but it is divided.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it’s not divided according to the tax map. It’s physically divided by
the road.
MR. SILVIA-That’s my reference.
MR. MC NULTY-As far as tax map goes, it’s one parcel.
MR. SILVIA-I looked at it.
MR. MC NULTY-Legally, it’s one parcel.
MR. SILVIA-I just want to say that I think the third acre lots is not a road that we want to
begin to go down. I live on .41 acres, according to the Town, and I believe that .41 was due to
the fact that when the development was put in, the last house was a bit mis-surveyed and
everybody’s lot was kind of skewed, but I believe my development, the intention was for half
acre lots, and I think that’s the stand that I would like to see the Town take. I think it’s
pushing the envelope a little bit, and I would hope that the concerns of the neighborhood and
things like septic and traffic and all those other concerns would be taken into account, but
having that little piece is a little piece for a house and a yard. It’s awful narrow. It would be
very difficult to put a shed back there or anything else. It’s pretty small. That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just clarify? I just want to clarify something for the audience
member. That you had two notifications probably both of you. One for the variance tonight
and the other for the subdivision, and that will now be in October. So you’ll be notified again
on that one.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. SILVIA-I’m a designer, and, just as an aside, you might want to look into a different
look or presentation for the two different meetings. They are nearly identical, and it’s
confusing to those of us who don’t do this all the time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I do believe we had a member of the public
who also wanted to comment back there.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador. Mr. McNulty said there’s just one tax parcel involved
here?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Where’s the road?
MR. MC NULTY-Right where it’s shown. The road goes across the parcel.
MR. SALVADOR-So the reason that there’s only one tax parcel is because of a land hook?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-What’s the justification for the land hook?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. It apparently was pre-existing. It may have been one parcel
before the road was put in. I’m not sure what the history is, but on the tax maps it’s shown
as one tax map number, and the land hook takes it across the road. So when they subdivide,
they’re looking to subdivide one tax parcel into three parcels.
MR. SALVADOR-If that was all in one ownership at one time, when that road got cut in
there, that was a subdivision. The road is a lot in a subdivision, and that lot separates those
two parcels. You can’t land hook it.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it is land hooked.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know. I think you’ve got a, my concern is that that land hook is
improper.
MR. ABBATE-Your comments are noted, Mr. Salvador, thank you very much. Do we have
any other comments this evening? Okay. If we don’t have any other comments this evening,
then I’m going to ask members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 66-2005. Mr.
Rigby, would you mind going first, please.
MR. RIGBY-I think there may be a misunderstanding between what the neighbors may
think is going on and what has actually been proposed here. I’d like to see the applicant take
some additional time to explain to the neighbors what the project may involve. It sounds to
me, by the petition, that people think that there’s three houses going on a one acre lot that’s
being split into thirds, as opposed to the design that we see here in front of us. I don’t know
that the neighbors have seen that. So I think there’s probably some room for discussion here,
and I think maybe the applicant would like to have some discussion with the neighbors who
have petitioned against this to bring everybody up to speed on what the real design of this is.
So I guess maybe my suggestion would be to table this until some discussion’s been had with
the neighbors.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point, Mr. Rigby. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-I mean, aren’t we talking about three one third acres?
MR. STEVES-We’re taking, realistically, in reality, we have a third acre lot divided with a
road, and then a .72 acre lot, and we’re really subdividing that .72 acre lot into two lots of .36
or 16,000 square feet.
MR. RIGBY-Right, but see I think what the problem is the notification that was sent out to
the neighbors, the neighbors understand this to be something different than the way it’s
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
actually being laid out to us. I don’t know that they’ve seen this, and that they fully
understand what’s being proposed.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think what Mr. Rigby’s suggesting is that perhaps there should have
been a different type of description of the proposed project than what was actually sent out.
MR. RIGBY-That’s a question for Mr. Eichler, is it?
MR. EICHLER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Let me continue on. Let’s go to Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we need to be careful on this one here, because I think we
need to look at the existing zoning that’s present there. It is a balancing act in some respects.
We have one acre zoning there, and I think that, you know, the explanation that, you know,
we have lots that are being proposed here that basically mimic the size of the lots that are
there. I can buy the argument on the two lots that are .36 acres, but the one on the other side
of Eldridge, to me, seems a bit of a stretch trying to put three in there. I think certainly when
you come in for a zoning request, our requests ought to identify what’s presently in there,
with the balancing test on there, and I think that, you know, this one here, I might buy two
lots on there, but I think it would be a hard sell for me to go for all three of those lots, as I
originally said.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Several thoughts here. I guess first off, on the issue that I brought
up before, that the applicant doesn’t currently own this, that he’s applying for, I bring that
up mainly in the context of weighing the benefit to the applicant. The applicant isn’t under
as much hardship, since he has the option of not purchasing this land, as he would be if he
already owned it and had to either try to sell it or build something on it, and that was my
main point of bringing that up. Second, a public hearing is not a vote. It’s there to help us
gather information, and what I’m hearing from the neighbors, regardless of what they saw as
a design here, is they’re concerned about traffic, and they’re also wondering about septic load,
and I think those are two valid questions, and really how the 1.6 or 1.06 acres are divided,
whether there’s a street between them or what not, doesn’t affect those questions. So those
certainly are two concerns we need to consider. Also, looking at this, the zoning says one acre.
I think a builder probably, in that particular neighborhood, would be hard pressed to build an
appropriate house on a one acre lot and then sell it. It would be priced way beyond what the
neighborhood would support for housing prices. So this is a consideration, too, and I’m going
to come down on the edge. I’m not sure. I’ll agree with Mr. Underwood. I think, A, it’s
probably appropriate to issue a variance for the small lot that’s on the far side of Eldridge
Road. That’s an existing, in effect, lot, even though it’s part of the whole tax parcel. There’s
no real practical way you’re going to change the size or the shape of that lot to make it bigger.
So then the question just becomes whether you allow two lots or one lot on the part that’s in
the center peninsula there, and I’m kind of torn. On the one hand, I think even putting one
house on that, it’s going to be a little bit difficult to make an economic build there and sell the
house. On the other hand, splitting it in two is kind of making it crowded. So I guess that’s
where I’m at. I’m kind of on the fence on the thing.
MR. STEVES-Can I get one clarification?
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. STEVES-And I don’t want to belabor this any longer, but I believe Mr. Underwood,
unless I’m mistaken, the way I understood it, was he didn’t have a problem splitting the
larger portion into two, but had a concern with the small lot that pre-exists on the east side
being the building lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going the other way.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. STEVES-Okay, but you thought you concurred with him, and I just wanted to relay
that. I think there was an opposite on that one, and I also do want to make the point as well,
that as far as the septic and the traffic, that kind of information, this has been submitted to
C.T. Male, and before it goes in front of the Planning Board, there’s going to be some perc
tests and stuff done for that purpose, and typically I’ve seen that under the review of the
Planning Board, and I’m not taking anything away from this Board. I’m just letting you
know that, typically, we go through that process with the soils and the drainage and the
septic at the Planning Board. What we’re looking for this Board and even if a variance was
granted does not mean we’re going to have three lots. We still have to go through the
Planning Board process and prove that the three lots are therefore buildable with septic and
stormwater. We’re looking for this Board whether or not third acre lots are in character with
the neighborhood, and then therefore then the configuration of those lots, are they therefore
buildable. So we do respect the Board’s opinion. That’s what we’re here for. Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. There are a number of concerns. Certainly, we don’t base
our decision solely on the concerns of neighbors. However, neighbors certainly have a right to
express their points of view, particularly when they perceive, whether it’s real or not,
nonetheless, if there’s a perception that a particular project may have an adverse effect on
their property. That plays a role into overall decision, but it’s not the only role that it plays.
Additionally, other things have come up this evening, such as traffic concerns. Staff notes, as
an example, have stated, and we don’t base our decision on Staff notes. We only base our
decision on what we base it upon. They state that while granting of these variances would be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood, substantial relief is required relative to the
Ordinance. That plays a part in our decision as well, and Staff also stated, wisely, that the
applicant indicates that a feasible alternative to their variance requested would be to create
two lots. So that’s another consideration, and one of the Board members this evening, I think
it might have been Mr. Rigby, has suggested perhaps we should table. That plays a role into
our decision. Additionally, another Board member, I think it was Mr. McNulty, has stated,
quite correctly, that the property owner is, I believe, a Mr. Hoeger?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-And currently the Clute Enterprises are not the owners of the property, and I
will throw in, though again it’s only a part of our decision, that, in fact, that there is a burden
of responsibility that falls directly on the shoulders of a potential purchaser of a piece of
property, to determine what they may or may not do. So we have so many variables here this
evening that I am almost tempted to say that perhaps the most appropriate thing would be
to table, and/or to suggest that perhaps two lots be created. So there’s so many variables and
so many concerns this evening, that at this particular point, for myself, and I’ll get back to
Mr. McNulty, quite frankly, I’m on the fence on this thing, and I really have to be convinced,
and I’m not at this particular time. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I end up, I think, the same place, and it sounds to me like a good
share of us are in the same position. As you said, you know, listening to the neighbors, I
think what we have to take out from the neighbors objecting to this is just basically the two
questions that they brought up of can septic take care of itself on those pieces of property and
will it increase the traffic a lot, but beyond that, is the question of conforming to existing
zoning versus what exists there. I don’t know. It will hold up the developer and the whole
purchase process, but I’m kind of inclined to agree that maybe we should send the applicant
to say, can you come up with some suggested alternative. If we were to agree to two pieces,
or two building lots, rather than three, then the question becomes, where are you going to put
the two? Are you going to put one house on the piece that’s on the peninsula and another one
on that small piece, or are you going to split the land that’s on the peninsula and dedicate the
other small piece forever wild? There’s a couple or three variances that could happen there,
and I think it goes back to the economics for the builder, too, of whether he feels he can do
that or not, and perhaps he needs some time to figure that out. He may decide that that’s not
economical for him.
MR. STEVES-I think I discussed that with my client, but that’s why, in the application, we
said two lots. I mean, we understand. I think it’s still feasible, but I would like to have the
opportunity, since he is not available tonight, he probably won’t show up here until 10:00
after everybody’s gone, is to be able to discuss that further.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. STEVES-So I know where we’re going, and I respect that. Just a couple of points we
can bring out to the Board, too. As you can see, on the overhead, on the northerly end of all
three of these lots, proposed lots, northerly end of the existing lot on both sides of the road, is
fairly wooded, and we’re proposing to face the house respectively on Bennett and Eldridge
Road and pull the house to the south end where you can see there’s already some clearing
that is there. Maybe to pull the house a little bit closer to the south side, rotate the septic,
and leave a 40 or 50 foot buffer of trees along the back road there, and I don’t know, at that
point, when it wraps around the north end, if it’s Bennett or Eldridge. That’s why I didn’t
label it as such, but, you know, what I’m saying is to leave some buffering there, and the
same on the lot that pre-exists, in my eyes, on the east side of the road. So maybe there is
some buffering we can do there, and at the same time, we’re moving forward with the perc
tests and topography for the subdivision application, at the request of the C.T. Male comment
letter we just got in. Typically we like to come and get some idea from this Board before we
go to that expense, but my client has already said go ahead and move forward with that. So
tabling this to another meeting, I don’t have a problem with, but there’s only one thing that I
want to remind the Board. If we do come in to even a two lot scenario, and just something
for you to think of, too, that lot to the east kind of becomes problematic because if you tell
the owner, okay, or the purchaser, that it’s going to be a forever wild, there’s nobody in this
Town that’s going to take it as a forever wild piece. I don’t think the Conservancy group that
is in place in Queensbury is going to be actively looking for a piece like that. What it would
end up effectively becoming is a tax parcel that gets for taxes and then one of the neighboring
parcels would buy it. So I think a better solution to that would be to say if, when we get to
that point, I don’t want to make that a condition now, is that that one be looked at maybe
being merged in with a lot, of a parcel that already borders that parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Your points are well made. I respect what you have to say. I respect what
the neighbors have to say, and I think it would be wise to honor your request, and I’m
assuming it is a request, for tabling?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-So what I’m going to do, then, based upon the request from the applicant for
a tabling, I’m going to move for a motion that we table Area Variance No. 66-2005. Now,
before I continue, table until when?
MR. STEVES-Whenever you’re available, because of the fact that I can have that
information and a revised plan back to you very quickly, within a week. The problem is, is
that no matter what we do, we cannot move forward to the Planning Board until after we
have gone through this Board.
MR. ABBATE-I understand that. Okay. So I’m going to suggest that the Staff note this,
please, and we will be more than happy to work in the spirit of cooperation with Staff, as well
as the applicant.
MRS. BARDEN-My suggestion would be to just table it to the first meeting in October.
That way they can turn around and go to the Planning Board.
MR. STEVES-Correct, and that would be fine for us.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems with that at all.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2005 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Bennett & Eldridge Roads. Based upon the recommendation of the applicant this be tabled
until October 19, that is the first meeting in October.
th
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. The vote to table Area Variance No. 66-2005 is five in
favor, zero against. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 66-2005 is
tabled until October 19, 2005.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the recommendation that the neighbors get a copy of
that GIS map that shows the lot in comparison to the other ones. Because that is going to
give them a better idea of what you’re proposing there, too.
MR. STEVES-We can get the addresses from the Staff, and I can gladly send them some
stuff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. SILVIA-Could I make another comment?
MR. ABBATE-If you come up to the microphone you may.
MR. SILVIA-I don’t want my comments to be misconstrued, and it’s important to me to let
the gentleman here know that, I’m not opposed to the development of that parcel, on the
interior of the roads, Eldridge and Bennett. I think two lots in there are commensurate, in
size, with the majority of the other houses in there. Having lived there for a long time and
been a lifelong resident of the Town, I think that’s pretty good, and if, indeed, there are some
houses that go up in this Town that people of less than affluent means can afford, I think
that’s great. My objection is that the variance, in my eyes, is substantial, and I, as a resident
of the Town of Queensbury, since I was born, essentially, it concerns me when we have one
acre zoning, and now we have, in the case of the small one, .31 acres, less than a third of an
acre, lot sizes, and that’s a dangerous precedent in my mind. The other thing that would be
of concern to me is that we, as a Town, cannot find some method through which some of this
green space can be conserved for no particular reason. Now, I’m aware of the Land
Conservancy. I have toured Mr. Van Dusen’s property, and I think that it’s great. The fact
that this is .31 acres, sure, it doesn’t represent a whole lot, in terms of utility or acreage or
anything, you know what, it’s just trees. It’s just a buffer between one neighborhood and
another, but having lived there and being a resident of that neighborhood, to me, and to my
neighbors, that has great value, and if there is a way that the Board, the Town, the builders
can come together and say, hey, you know, what, let’s compromise, but this piece over here,
we’re going to let it be, and, gee, it might not contribute to the scads of money that the Town
has in the bank right now, but it would serve as a place that changes smog to oxygen and lets
a dog go to the bathroom every now and again, and the birds and the squirrels and everybody
else, and that’s a valid concern. I mean, the places in the Town for animals of all kinds,
felines, canines. There’s nowhere to go anymore, and that’s a whole other issue, but I just
want to make sure that it’s known that I don’t have a problem with him dividing that tongue
of land. My problem is the precedent that it would set, and if it came out that, hey, you know
what, we subdivided 1.03 acres into two lots, yes, granted it’s actually .35 and .37, and the
other one is kind of green, I can swallow that, but going from one acre zoning, people move
into areas, they look at things like that, and that’s important, you know, gee, hey, look, it’s
one acre zoning. I can buy this house and I’m not going to have six neighbors. Well, guess
what, maybe you will, maybe you won’t. Things like buffer zones and so forth that the
gentleman mentioned, they don’t hold a lot of value to us in the neighborhood because there’s
no law that says a homeowner can’t come in and cut all the trees down on this property and
so it’s a great idea, but there’s no teeth to it. So I would say position your houses how it
works best for you and the people that are going to buy them, but that was my concern. I
have no doubt that the land will perc test fine. It’s sandy soil. It’s a U-shaped road. The
traffic will come in and out onto Aviation Road, and certainly two houses are not an Indian
Ridge. They’re not some of the developments going in along Potter Road and so forth, but it
is a substantial distance between one acres and .33 acres, and given the character of the
neighborhood and the existing lots, I think it’s okay, but the green space is a concern to me,
and I just wanted it to be understood that my concern was the distance we’re going from one
to .3, and not necessarily the traffic and the other things, and that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-And before you go, I want to let you know how moved I am by your remarks,
and so I would like to give credit to the individual. So if you would identify yourself.
MR. SILVIA-My name is Mike Silvia.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Mike Silvia made the comments. Thank you, Mr. Silvia. I appreciate that.
MR. SILVIA-You’re welcome.
MR. STEVES-And real quick, I understand. We’ll work on that, and we’ll be back. I just
wanted to make a comment regarding, not this application, but another one. Just food for
thought for this Board and Staff. In working in a lot of municipalities in the North Country
over the last 25 years, and having what happened in the previous application, with the
setback from a road, because of the fact that a lot of layman obviously think that they own,
as we have discussed over the years, to the edge of the pavement, not knowing that every
municipality has a right of way that’s most of the time in the North Country 50 feet wide. A
lot of municipalities, and you can go through and look around for neighboring ones, have
implemented the front setback, like Queensbury, of 50 feet or 30 feet, but also give
everybody, the layman when they come in, a distance from the centerline of the road. So that
typically a 50 foot wide right of way as a road is typical. I say not always true, but typical.
About 90% in Queensbury, whether it be a road by use or dedication, is that, say if you have
a 30 foot setback, you tell the client when he comes in for building permit, make sure you’re
55 feet back from the center of the road, okay, and those two numbers help with that
immensely.
MR. ABBATE-That is an outstanding recommendation, and I’m going to suggest that Staff
take that into consideration. We don’t do it because we’re a quasi-judicial Board. We make
our decision based upon the information that’s in the packet, but that’s an outstanding idea
for Staff to bring to the attention of these folks who come in, what you just stated. Thank
you very much for that.
MR. STEVES-You’re welcome.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other comments that wish to be made? I have a resolution.
Let me get the resolution over with, and then if anybody in the audience has anything to say,
we can address it. The resolution I’d like to make, and this is based upon Staff’s request, by
the way, is that we state the meetings for November and December of this year.
MOTION THAT WE WILL BE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16 AND NOVEMBER 23,
THRD
2005, AND ALSO ON DECEMBER 21, AND DECEMBER 28, 2005, Introduced by Charles
TH
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five to zero to have meetings scheduled on November 16 and 23
thrd
and December 21 and 28. Anyone else have anything they wish to raise? Any issues? Mr.
stth
Salvador, you wish to be heard.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I asked to speak to the Board tonight with regard to my Area Variance
No. 3-2005. If you recall in February of this year, my variance application was tabled for up
to 90 days, so that the application can be deemed complete by Staff, to the point where it can
be reviewed by this panel. I have not been successful, as of this date, in spite of repeated
extensions of the 90 day period granted, to get Staff’s concurrence that my application is
complete. To that end, I wrote a letter to Mr. Brown, in anticipation of this meeting, and I’d
like to read it to you. It’s one page. I don’t think you’re aware of it. You haven’t received it.
MR. ABBATE-Does it pertain to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Does it pertain to an area of
our jurisdiction? If it does, we’d be happy to hear it, if it doesn’t, we would be unhappy to
hear it.
MR. SALVADOR-It pertains to Area Variance No. 3-2005.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s our area of jurisdiction.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I wrote this letter to Mr. Brown. Please refer to AV 3-2005. You
may recall that the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled in your favor at its February 16, 2005
meeting that the application was indeed incomplete because there is a question concerning
100 feet boundary relief, which is still to be answered. Also, that the support of the Zoning
Administrator’s determination of whether this facility, or this structure, needed certified
sewage disposal is not appealable to this Board. It’s appealable to another Board, the Board
of Health. In that regard, I have absolutely no way to get to the Board of Health. That’s an
incorrect determination that you folks made that that I can appeal to the Town Board of
Health. You are the only appeals board in this Town. You must hear all appeals, but you
have refused to hear it in this regard. I continue. You may recall our meeting subsequent to
February 16, wherein the Town Fire Marshal agreed that a seasonal use, hunting and fishing
cabin, without sleeping quarters, need not be constructed and equipped in accordance with
those sections of Town Code Chapter 88, Fire Prevention and Building Construction. There
was a great concern on the part of the County that these access and emergency and all this
sort of thing would be provided for for this construction, and the Fire Marshal, who is sort of
a companion with the Building Code Enforcement Officer in this enforcement area,
determined that because there were no sleeping quarters planned in this facility, that it didn’t
have to conform to the Fire Prevention and Building Construction Code. I continue. The
requirement that we equip this less than 120 square foot hunting and fishing cabin with a
certified sewage disposal system, precludes our ever being able to use this land to what we
believe is its highest and best use, that is, if by the phrase, certified sewage disposal system,
we are to understand that a system designed according to Town Code Chapter 136 is the
requirement. Perhaps the most expeditious way to further this project is for us to stipulate
that the use of the proposed cabin be limited to the time when the surface waters of the
surrounding area are frozen sufficient to support foot traffic and that all users of the cabin be
licensed to at least fish through the ice and if necessary licensed to hunt and/or trap if the
activity is permissible when conditions exist as described above. In short, we will be then
seeking the Town’s permission to build an ice fishing shanty on tax parcel TP 252-1-91,
located at 2015 State Route 9L. I received the reply from Mr. Brown. He reiterates my
proposal. He states that facts, and he makes some findings. However, the construction and
occupancy of an ice fishing shanty does not require a building permit or other discretionary
review by the Town of Queensbury. I believe that the placement and use of an ice fishing
shanty is subject to property owner permission, and/or requirements of the DEC, and in some
instances individual counties as well. For purposes of this determination, an ice fishing
shanty is considered to be a portable structure, able to be moved onto and off the ice, and to
be used exclusively as an accessory structure for ice fishing. With that statement, I wrote
back to Mr. Brown. Thank you for your timely response to my letter of September 13.
th
Addressing your response somewhat in the order of presentation, I wish to clarify my
understanding of the conclusions to be extrapolated your comments. Not only do I propose
constructing the less than 120 square foot hunting and fishing cabin on tax parcel 252-1-91,
and to utilize the same on the property, but to also freely move the structure to other
permissible locations, if, in fact, the hunting and fishing conditions warrant. In all cases, the
less than 120 square foot hunting and fishing cabin will only be used when the surface waters
are frozen, as previously proposed. Also, this cabin can best be considered only a temporary
structure, when located at 2015 State Route 9L, or elsewhere. If you agree that such a
temporary structure, with no sleeping quarters, used only for purposes of fishing through the
frozen waters over our lands, or even State land, does not require a Queensbury Town issued
building permit. Also, you conclude that any other discretionary review by the Town of
Queensbury is unwarranted. Please confirm your concurrence with our understanding that a
less than 120 square foot ice fishing shanty does not require a building permit or other
discretionary review from the Town of Queensbury. We concur that such a determination
does not relieve us of the responsibility to obtain all other applicable construction and use
permits. I have not received an answer from Mr. Brown to that letter, but that’s our position
as we sit here. We’re willing to stipulate to that very limited use of the only right that we
have to build on that land. The Zoning Ordinance allows this type of structure on the land,
as a principal structure, and yet it doesn’t seem to be able to be permitted. Now the only
thing I was seeking from this Board were setback requirements, not a Use Variance. I need
an Area Variance. It’s a small piece of land. The reason for the less than 120 square foot was
to preclude the need of a building permit. They allow accessory structures, up to 120 square
feet. Otherwise I could have built this 500 square feet without site plan review. If I went
over 500 square feet, I would need site plan review. So, my time is up with regard to the last
extension you gave me. My time is up here tonight.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-I think you’ll find this a very generous Board, and I bring to Staff’s attention
Mr. Salvador’s comments this evening.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ve been moving around in the last few days and really haven’t been at
the phone. He may have been trying to contact me. I just haven’t heard from him.
MR. ABBATE-This meeting is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
34