2005-10-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 68-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc. 1.
d/b/a Golden Corral Restaurant
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6
Area Variance No. 66-2005 Clute Enterprises 1.
Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21
Area Variance No. 74-2005 James & Nancy White 7.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-7
Area Variance No. 77-2005 Patrick Burke 22.
Tax Map No. 289.12-1-9.1
Area Variance No. 78-2005 Nicholas F. Daigle 30.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34 and 33
Area Variance No. 72-2005 Jason E. Maynard 34.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-82 and 72
Area Variance No. 79-2005 GGV Inc. d/b/a The Cherry Tomato 39.
Tax Map No. 279.00-1-62
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 10/19/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
CHARLES MC NULTY
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING &
LODGING, INC. D/B/A GOLDEN CORRAL RESTAURANT AGENT(S): JONATHAN C.
LAPPER, B P S R CHRIS ROUND, CHAZEN CO. OWNER(S): RICHARD & MONIQUE
CUNNINGHAM ZONING HC-INT LOCATION QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING SPACES AND SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT FROM WETLANDS. CROSS REF. SPR (# NOT ASSIGNED) WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-040; 179-4-030
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary and Board members, I would like to introduce resolution to
accept the Planning Board as the Lead Agency to conduct the SEQRA for Area Variance No.
68-2005.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY TO CONDUCT THE
SEQRA FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2005 NORTHEAST DINING& LODGING, INC.
D/B/A GOLDEN CORRAL RESTAURANT, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven to zero to approve the resolution. The resolution is passed.
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; LARRY CLUTE,
PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously addressed this at another meeting.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2005, Clute Enterprises, Meeting Date: October 19,
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-I see the petitioner and his representative are at the table. Would you be kind
enough to speak into the microphone, and for the record please identify yourself, and your
place of residence.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Clute Enterprises. With
me is Larry Clute of Clute Enterprises. I reside in Queensbury, NY. This was before you
back last month, we looked at it with a shortened Board, and we had some comments from
the neighbors. Since then Mr. Clute has gone to some of the neighbors and talked to them,
and if you can look at your maps, we’ll go through a couple of scenarios quickly. We had
looked at Lots One and Two being on the interior of Bennett Road, and as Staff has stated,
that all the lots are fairly consistent with the size that we’re proposing. The lot on the east
side of Eldridge Road is basically pre-existing, even though it’s land hooked, tax map wise, to
the parcel on the interior. There was some concern with that lot on the easterly side with
people to the north at the end of Hummingbird Lane. As you can see, that particular lot is
heavily wooded. If you are familiar with the building that Mr. Clute built on the corner of
Aviation and Potter Road, where the trailer used to be, he put the house up there, I believe
it’s a yellow colored home right there on the corner. That’s exactly what he’s proposing on
that lot. He is looking to keep what would be considered affordable housing, and in order to
keep it affordable and consistent with the neighborhood, we need to try to obtain the three
lots. So for that purpose we would put the house and the development on that lot to the
extreme southerly end, and leaving a 50 foot buffer of no cutting along the northerly end of
that lot. As you can see from the picture from Staff, that is fairly heavily wooded and would
remain heavily wooded for 50 feet from the north line southerly. He talked to Mr. Hess and I
believe it’s Mr. Pepe that reside to the east side. They have no problems. There’s some
heavily, larger deciduous trees along that easterly line, and we would retain a 10 foot no cut
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
line along the east line of that property. That’s what we have to offer from the last meeting,
and we’d open it up to any questions the Board may have.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do any of the Board members have any questions,
please?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t here at the last meeting, so I just want to ask a
simple question. That’s actually pointed out in the Staff notes. I understand Lot Number
Three you have certain constraints, and I like the idea of the wooded area and so forth and so
on, but Lot Number One and Two, why aren’t we just keeping that one lot?
MR. STEVES-To stay consistent with the lots in the neighborhood. I believe the Staff has
stated that I believe the average, what we were asking for at .36 acres, that would be
consistent with the neighborhood, and with the purchase price of the parcel, in order to keep
consistent with the type of homes and it being affordable market for him to construct, we
need to get three lots.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying it’s an economic thing? I mean, the consistency issue
doesn’t really wash because I can’t second guess the Town Board when they decide, or the
Planning Department when they decide this is going to be a one acre zone, this is going to be
a five acre zone. Obviously, at one point they decided that all these parcels, this whole area is
going to be one acre, and maybe that’s the way, the direction they wanted to go in.
MR. STEVES-We’re not saying consistency with the zone that is there. We’re saying
consistency with the lots that exist in that area.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that.
MR. STEVES-And that’s one of the criteria we’re supposed to try to meet.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. My point is that we should be thinking in terms of consistency with
the zone, rather than necessarily.
MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree, but in certain circumstances, for example, the Hidden Hills
subdivision that was developed as SR-15, and then the entire area was re-zoned one acre, and
then the last re-zoning they made every lot noncompliant, so they went back and re-zoned it
as 20,000 square feet. What was already created here before the last re-zoning was basically
third acre lots.
MR. STONE-Mr. Steves, I also share Mr. Bryant’s concern. SFR-1A, as you well know, is
our most restricted zone. You’ve got to give me a more compelling reason to allow as much
variance as you’re requesting. You say economics, but I don’t see any compelling reason,
other than that the applicant would like to have three lots where he’s technically allowed one
lot, since they’ve enjoined, I don’t know who joined these three lots as one piece of property,
but, nevertheless, they are, supposedly, one piece of property.
MR. STEVES-They’re two parcels, at this point, combined as one. Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I meant, and if you take the one combined parcel and when it
was combined, it met the zoning for the area, SFR-1. I just haven’t seen a compelling reason,
and therefore I would like your comment, beside economics, where we’ve got this very
restrictive one acre zoning, whether or not you can make an argument that the other lots are
that way. I need more of an argument.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Mr. Clute would like to talk, but I’ll bring up one point, is that if you
sell that as a one acre lot in that zone, and you go through that subdivision or you go through
the homes in that area, and you look at what one acre lots and the homes that are being built
on typical one acre lots in Queensbury, I don’t think that market exists in that subdivision, or
in that area. I think the market that exists there are third acre lots. As the Staff has gone
through and said that the average lot size on Eldridge Road is .37 and we’re asking for .36,
and I don’t think, economically, what he would pay for a one acre lot, he would be able to put
a home on there that would sell in that area.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. STONE-I also heard some number about half acre that was also in the, I don’t have it in
front of me, some mention of some of the lots around there being even larger than a third of
an acre.
MR. STEVES-They range from .18 to .56.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? Let me interject this, that
there’s an interesting note in Staff comments, and it states that the applicant indicates that a
feasible alternative to the variances requested would be to create two lots. How would you
address that?
MR. STEVES-Well, the reason for that is, stating the obvious, that the lot is broken by a
Town road which is owned by the Town, and it is not a road by use, so therefore the lot is
separated by an ownership and by the County standards we could just go up and ask for a
separate tax parcel id number on the lot to the east, because it pre-exists with a separate
ownership being Eldridge Road.
MR. STONE-Okay, and what you’re saying, that the east side lot was created prior to the one
acre zoning and therefore it’s buildable.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-And therefore you could say, well, the second lot, which is a fairly large piece of
property, could be a lot.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-With less relief granted to build on.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That’s what we’re saying in that application, but being on the west side and
looking at the area, or the size of the lots that surround that, it would be, the average of those
two roads would be basically half the size of the parcel that we have.
MR. STONE-Okay, but it seems to me that there’s a re-zoning involved here, and that’s
something that I think we have to think, I have to think long and hard about.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? If there are no other
questions, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 66-2005, and
would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and
for the record identify yourself and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, Mr. Clute, you wish to make a statement.
MR. CLUTE-Yes. Exactly. I can understand the zoning, the one acre zoning, but I guess the
whole point of, or what I would gather the whole point of coming in and talking is to look for
compromise or understanding. I’ve gone and talked to numerous neighbors, not the ones, not
all are directly effected. I talked to the two people on the small lot on the east side of
Eldridge, directly behind them, and trying to address the concerns of possibly encroaching on
their privacy, so to speak. They were fine with it. To the west of Bennett Road, they would
actually look forward to the development, because I guess kids, there’s like a little party spot
to the east there, and then on the west side of that large lot, there’s a shack which keeps
getting broken into. There’s a building, a pre-existing building of sorts that keeps being
broken into, too, but also the lot, as Matt has brought up, the neighborhood is pre-existing,
cut up roughly third of an acre. So in order to try to fit in, not only value wise, economics,
but just sheer size, just sheer size of it. So the types of homes that would go on in there would
demand lesser size land.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Clute, I don’t question your integrity, but you opened the door. You
indicated that you had spoken to several neighbors.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have anything in the record to indicate that those neighbors do not
object. Perhaps you have some documentation.
MR. CLUTE-No, there was only two, this was a previous meeting, I wasn’t there. There were
two complaining, and I don’t know if they were owners of one lot or two lots, I didn’t know if
they were family members, but they were on Hummingbird Lane, and once that was brought
to my attention, I wasn’t at the first meeting. Once Matt brought that to my attention, we’re
going to be 50 plus, easy. I think we’re going to be closer to 75 uncut, and that’s on the
narrow lot. That’s on the most easterly lot. So, there’s going to be so much buffer that
really, I don’t want to say that it overrides their complaint, but it sure kind of, it kind of,
there’s a huge buffer. So, I mean, it should minimize their complaint.
MR. ABBATE-Explain to me what you mean that it overrides their complaint.
MR. CLUTE-No, that’s what I said. I said that it doesn’t override their complaint.
MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t override their complaint.
MR. CLUTE-Right. As normal, when you move into a neighborhood, not everybody is
always favorable to development, especially pre-existing neighborhoods, but that buffer, as I
said, I’m not going to be encroaching, really, on Hummingbird Lane. The encroachment, or
the closest point of the development would be Mr. Hess and Mr. Pepe, which is on Queen
Diana. On Hummingbird they’re not even going to see the new house. It’s so dense.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. What, specifically, were their complaints?
MR. CLUTE-The buffer, that they were going to lose the density, the woods that they’d been
so accustomed to looking out and seeing.
MR. ABBATE-And are they going to lose the buffer?
MR. CLUTE-No.
MR. ABBATE-They are not. For the record, they are not.
MR. CLUTE-No, you’re going to be minimal 50, but I tend to think it’s going to be closer to
75. The type of home that I’m talking about is the one on Aviation and Potter, very small,
two bedroom ranch, quite comfortable. It’ll fit well on that lot, extremely well, and again,
we’re going to stay to the most southerly point as possible, that property line, because it’s not
only, looking at two dimensionally you can’t really tell, but the road kind of dives a little bit
toward the bend. So to stay away from that dive, stay closer up to the flat lands, we’re going
to create such a buffer that it should minimize that exposure, I guess.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you for your statements.
MR. BRYANT-Just one other comment, relative to my question. You mention Aviation
Road and Potter. I pass that house every day. I live in that area, and it’s a massive
improvement. I don’t think the issue really is Lot Number Three. I mean, in my mind, I
don’t know about the other Board members, my issue is with Lot Number One and Two,
because when you talk about consistency, the lots that are directly north of that, one is 1.8
acres and one is 1.5 acres. So to keep it 1.3 acres, I don’t think it’s totally inconsistent.
MR. URRICO-One and Two combined would be .72.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’re even smaller than the other two.
MR. CLUTE-If you look at the larger lot to the north of that lot, it’s actually two structures
on that. Those two structures were pre-existing. They’re actually two trailers on one lot. So
in all fairness, I think it’s two lots, even though it’s one. You’ve got two complete homes on
that lot, that were pre-existing, even prior to the one acre. They’re older trailers, and there’s
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
two residences on that lot. So in reality, I think it’s half density, even though it’s not tax
wise, I think they were grandfathered to be allowed to have the two residences, because
they’ve always had it that way, but in reality it’s not a one acre lot. It’s two residences on a
one acre lot.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? Okay. Then I’ll go back to
the public hearing. I indicated the public hearing is open, and those wishing to be heard,
please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself
and your place of residence. Do we have anyone, this evening, who wish to comment on Area
Variance No. 66-2005? If so, would you raise your hand, please. I see no hands raised. Then
I am going to assume that no one in the public this evening wishes to comment on Area
Variance No. 66-2005. I would now ask members of the Board to offer their commentary on
Area Variance No. 66-2005, and if I may, I’d like to start with Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-I do have a question for Mr. Clute. Do you own this property now?
MR. CLUTE-No, I’m in contract. That’s kind of the dilemma, too. So it is kind of an
economic issue. The price, as I’m sure you’re well aware, the pricing of all real estate is really
going through the roof . So it’s making it really, really difficult. I started off as affordable
housing. That doesn’t exist anymore. So now I fight tooth and nail to even get with
moderate priced homes, and so it’s very, very difficult, and so I don’t want to say, this is
what I’ve been doing my entire career is I take, I step into existing neighborhoods and I do
the best I can to obtain a certain level, or a certain price, and a quality home, and the key is
trying to fit in to what’s in place. What already pre-exists is what we’re really offering, but
the price of the lot, without being able to do this, is extreme.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. Well, while I like the idea of a one acre lot, and I
understand the zoning, but, you know, driving around those streets, the lot sizes are a lot
smaller, and I really would not have any problem with the three lots. I think it would fit in
better with the neighborhood, and, economics aside, I don’t think you’d be able to sell it to
somebody, that type of house on a half acre, or three quarters of an acre, when you had
smaller houses all around. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Joyce. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ve had reactions, as I’ve listened to this last time and this time,
both ways. On the one hand, a good share of the lots that are on each side and to the south of
the ones that are involved now, admittedly, are smaller lots, and if you look just at those, you
are left wondering why they zoned this area one acre. On the other hand, as was pointed out
this evening, there are two lots to the north that are still undeveloped, that are, depending on
which map you look at, somewhere in the neighborhood of two acres or slightly more than
two acres each. The lot that we’re going to be left with in the middle, if it’s not split, is going
to be under an acre to start with, and if it’s split, it’s going to be very small. I’ll agree that it
may be a little difficult right now for a builder to build a very expensive house on that center
island lot, and sell it in this neighborhood, but I think the potential is there, with those other
two lots existing to the north of it. So, given the zoning, as it is, and the fact that there is an
opportunity for somebody to build two more, a bit more expensive houses at the north end of
that development, it ends up just striking me as a little bit unreasonable to split that center
island lot. So, as far as the proposal for three lots, I’m going to be opposed. If it were a
proposal for two lots, one on the center island and one a separate piece that’s on the other side
of the road, then I’d be inclined to approve.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Joyce. I think it’s important for us to look
at these retro areas that have had the one acre zoning placed on them, and it really doesn’t
follow through that we try to change them over to one acre zoning at this point in time. I
think it would be inconsistent on our part to go with only one house down there in that whole
area, and I think that the request, as has been suggested, splitting the lot on the end of the
road there, where it loops around, does make sense to split it into two lots. I mean, if you had
one big house there, sure, somebody could build in there, but I think it is important for us to
also consider the reasonableness of housing in the community, and as Mr. Clute mentioned,
reasonable housing isn’t really available. So, I mean, this is about as close as you can get, as
far as getting the price down. So I think that, you know, we owe it to the community, too,
you know, we can’t all expect that everybody’s going to live on a one acre lot, because for the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
most part they don’t exist in most of the Town. So, I would have no problem with all three
lots there.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. McNulty. It’s a very interesting
situation, and I’m also looking at the application as filled out by Mr. Clute and Mr. Steves,
whoever filled this thing out. Are there feasible alternatives, and it says two lots. That’s our
job is to look for feasible alternatives, and I think this is a very feasible alternative.
Obviously, the one third of an acre lot on the east side, pre-existing. It’s really off the table,
as far as we’re concerned. We’re talking about a lot that is .72 acres, in an area zoned for one
acre. As has been mentioned, there are lots across the street that are large size. I think this
is, of course, a unique situation, having a cap lot, so to speak, around a “U”, but I think that
a lot, I mean, I could go with a substandard lot, of .72, and having this feasible alternative of
two lots. So, as far as the variance for three, I would have to say no. I certainly could
support two.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I do agree that this area probably should be zoned different than it is,
but it’s not. For whatever reason it’s zoned one acre, and to take a lot which is basically one
acre and divide it into three parcels seems extreme to me. I’ll grant Lot Number Three, the
Lot Number Three indicated on this map, seems reasonable to me, but I can’t see dividing the
other parcel into another two. I think there is a method to changing the zoning if it needs to
be changed. That’s not the province of this Board. So we have to deal with what we can deal
with, and in this case, I don’t think granting this variance, as submitted, is the right course. I
think the benefit can be achieved by other means. I think, as far as the undesirable change in
the neighborhood character, well, I’m not really sure how we got to this point. I don’t know
if we started out with one acre and they divided it up into substandard parcels all along, and
in doing so, created a different neighborhood than the one that was first indicated, and by
doing so, that we did change the zoning somewhere along the line, or was this zoning changed
after the houses already moved in, in which case maybe we should have looked at it
differently when the zoning was created for this area, but, again, that’s not what we do here.
So I feel that the request is extreme. I would be able to deal with maybe two lots out of this,
one being the Lot Three, and the second one being not dividing the remaining parcel, and
that’s where I stand.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with, actually, I agree with what everybody’s said so far, if that’s
possible. I want to point out something that Mr. Underwood said, relative to consistency of
the neighborhood, and as I look at it, I mentioned the two lots to the north of Lot One and
Two. One is 1.8. The other one is 1.5. The larger lot to the southwest on Bennett Road there
is .8. The lot that’s adjacent to you on the south is .63. So, I can’t see that it’s unreasonable
to keep One and Two together as your .7 acres, because that’s relatively consistent to at least
half of the lots that are adjacent to it. So, in that respect, I do agree with what Mr.
Underwood said. I, too, would be opposed to the project as is presented. I’d like to just see
two lots and we could work on that.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. I would agree that there is a feasible alternative, and
I believe I mentioned that feasible alternative, and I believe I mentioned that feasible
alternative at the opening of this particular hearing, and the feasible alternative was to have
two lots. It would appear, and before I ask for a motion, I would appear, basically, that you
may not have support for your appeal, and to provide you with every opportunity for a fair
and impartial hearing, I’m going to suggest three options. One, request this Board to table
your appeal to the next available date. Two, withdraw your appeal, no action on our part, or
request that we continue to hear your appeal. Please recognize that the choice is yours, and
only yours to decide. You have the right to reject any of the suggestions without prejudice.
For the record, do you understand what I’ve just said?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-You do, and may I please have your decision.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. CLUTE-Sir, I’d like to table it, and I’ll bring back further information, and possibly we
can have further discussion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The applicant has requested that we table this Area Variance No. 66-
2005.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2005 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Bennett & Eldridge Roads. For up to 60 days.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 66-2005 is five in favor, two against. The
motion is carried. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 66-2005 is
tabled for a period of up to 60 days. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. CLUTE-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES & NANCY WHITE OWNER(S):
JAMES & NANCY WHITE, MARY W. BROWNELL ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 52 ½
RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,450 SQ.
FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2004-918 DEMOLITION, BP
2004-108 SFD, SPR 40-2003, AV 61-2003 AV 96-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER
12, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
240.5-1-7 SECTION 179-4-070
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2005, James & Nancy White, Meeting Date: October
19, 2005 “Project Location: 52 ½ Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed
Project: The applicants have constructed a 1,450 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The
submitted as-built survey shows the front porch with stairs 43.1-feet from the shoreline.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 6.9 feet of shoreline setback relief, where the minimum is 50-feet in the
WR-1A zone, per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 96-2004: Approved 12/22/04, side setback relief and FAR relief for new SFD.
SP 40-2003: Approved 7/22/03, renovations to existing structure and second-story addition.
AV 61-2003: Approved 7/16/03, side setback relief, shoreline setback relief, FAR relief, for the
renovation to existing SFD and second-story addition.
Staff comments:
The applicants have built a 1,450 sq. ft. residence, which encroaches on the minimum
shoreline setback. The site plan (dated Nov. 2004) for redevelopment that was submitted and
approved with AV 96-2004, shows the front porch setback 50-feet from the shoreline, with the
stairs on the side of the porch. However, the submitted as-built survey of the property (dated
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
Sept. 2005), shows the stairs in front of the porch and 43.1-feet from the shoreline. Therefore,
relief is required from the shoreline setback of 6.9-feet, where 43.1-feet is the closest distance
from the front stairs to the shoreline.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: White, James & Nancy & Mary W. Brownell Owner(s):
James & Nancy White ID Number: QBY-05-AV-74 County Project#: Oct05-39 Current
Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed
a 1,450 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a porch. Relief requested from shoreline setback
requirement. Site Location: 52 ½ Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s):
240.5-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant has constructed a 1,450 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling with a porch. The porch with steps is located 43 +/- ft. from the shoreline
where 50 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the applicant received a
variance for the construction of the home where the side entry steps had to be moved to the
front of the home in December 2004. The County Planning Board recommended no county
impact with a comment in regards to the proposed septic system of holding tanks. The plan
submitted does indicate that holding tank variance was received in June of 2003. 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 10/14/05.
MR. ABBATE-The entourage of Area Variance No. 74-2005 is seated at the table. Would
you be kind enough to please speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself
and place of residence, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law
firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing the applicants, two of whom are sitting at
the table, James and Nancy White, and Jim’s sister is sitting in the second row back there.
Also with me at the table is Russ Howard from Bolster and Associates, Professional Land
Surveyors, and I would have to say in the very beginning that we’re not too happy to be
sitting here. We think it’s very unfortunate that we’re sitting here. You had this project
before you over the course of about four months, five months, or something of that nature. A
mistake was made as to the layout of the project. It was not discovered until an as built plan
was asked for, and I’m going to turn it over to Russ Howard who can talk to you about the
mistake, and then I’ll get back to you and talk to you about it, too.
RUSS HOWARD
MR. HOWARD-My name is Russ Howard. I own Bolster and Associates Land Surveyors,
and the Whites approached me and asked me to layout their new building for them up here,
and so I went and did the survey work, and when I went back to lay it out, I laid it out too
close to the lake, through a mistake of mine. So I just want to be very clear with that, and to
tell you that it wasn’t intentional by the Whites, or anything like that. They hired me in
good faith to do the work, and when I did that, I was just so concerned with the north line
that really I have no excuse for missing the shoreline, other than, you know, when we went
back and did the final survey, which you have here, when I put the offsets on, I put them on
to the part of the shore that I just thought was shoreline, and I guess I didn’t think that
under the deck would be considered shoreline. So I thought we were in good shape, but after
all measuring to the dock, it’s over the six feet. So the fault is mine for the layout. The
building was built almost exactly where I laid it out, I mean, very, very well. So I would just
have to let you know that, and to let you know that it’s not the fault of the Whites. It’s the
fault of me acting for the Whites. So I just hope you’ll keep that in mind when you’re making
your decision.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Thank you very much for your statement. Counselor?
MR. O'CONNOR-I have a copy of actually the map as it was marked up, that was given to
Mr. Howard, and he’s verified that this is the map that was given to him, and if you want to
take a look at it, you will see that on pencil, or in pencil, there’s some red markings on there,
which shows that Mr. and Mrs. White asked that the front corner of the porch be 53 feet back
from the lake, on the left hand side of the picture as you’re looking at it, and they asked that
the stairs be 53 feet back from the lake, with the intention that they would then be in
compliance with the lakeshore setback. The stairs would then be 50 feet back. This was what
was given to the surveyor for layout purposes, and the Whites put 53 feet here and 50 feet
there. That would leave them in compliance. Everybody was very concerned about the
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
sidelines, and I think that they focused on the sidelines. He got this map before the work
started. So I suspect very much the professional engineer, Mr. Howard, is falling on his sword
without any excuses, and I ask that you take that into consideration, but I also will go
through this and show you that probably, except for the unusual circumstances and maybe
the long history, you probably wouldn’t have a problem approving what we’re going to ask
you to approve. The one thing unique about the frontage of that lot is that there’s a big
difference in mean high water mark. It’s not something that’s obviously apparent. If you
look at the southerly side of the property, the setback to the front of the porch is actually 52.6
feet, and the steps, I think, fall within that. The steps, when you move over a little bit, are
like 49.4, which is about six inches, five and a quarter inches. It’s only when you go over to
the north end of the property and you look at some old surveys, and the mean high water
mark goes in, that deck is probably, it would be considered a bridge at this point, if you will,
although if you look under there, there are some rocks, but you determine mean high water
mark by an elevation, and that was the first thing, when they brought this to me a couple of
weeks ago and said, are we sure that we need the relief that we’re asking for? Are we sure
where the mean high water mark is, and I’m told that they checked it and, yes, we do need it.
Here are some pictures, which I’ll ask that you pass down the table. You have the benefit,
here, of seeing what was actually constructed. It’s a nice house. I presume most of you have
been up there and taken a look at it. It actually still is set back further than the house that
was initially on the site. If you go way back in your files, the front porch was 40 feet from the
lake, and that front porch is probably a misnomer. That’s an enclosed porch. It’s used as
living space. It was used as living space before. Before it was 40 feet, and now it’s 45.9 feet.
So there’s some improvement. It’s not the improvement that we promised you. It’s not the
improvement that we conceded, but it is some improvement. I didn’t do an overlay, if you
will, to show you the old to the new, but he does have it, I guess. Okay. If you look at the
dotted line on the map, and that may be on the map that we’re looking at.
MR. HOWARD-Yes, they may not have that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I apologize. When I got involved in this, and asked the surveyor to
check things and make sure we’re right and everything else, the one thing I saw that was
wrong. On the map that you have, it shows that the stairs go from the front, it shows that
the stairs go from the building down toward the lake. That’s not the way they were built.
I’m told that (lost word) came back in and saw the building people and they said it was okay
to build the stairs as they were built. The stairs has a little platform at the top and goes down
either the north or south side. That was one of the things I picked up on the map. So, I had
him re-do the map to show that. This is the map as it was re-done. I apologize. That’s a map
that came in to me yesterday, and the only differences on there are two things. It shows the
stairs as they are configured, where they are side loaded as opposed to front loaded. It also
shows, if you take a look at the hash mark line there, where the prior building was. So you
can see clearly, if you look at this, that this is an improvement from what was there before
this whole project began. It is more in compliance than what the prior structure was. It’s not
in total compliance, and we understand that. If you look at the photos that you have, you
will also see that the finished product does not stick out into the lake, or toward the lakeshore
further than either of the two adjoining parcels or the structures on the adjoining parcels. It
actually is still set back from those two houses. Because we went out an additional five feet,
we did not impede anybody’s view. We did not affect anybody environmentally. It’s a
mistake that happened. If you look at the test that I look at and you look at, will an
undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby
properties be created by granting this variance. I don’t think it will be. I don’t think it will
have any impact. I think the finished product is a very nice house. I don’t know. I don’t
have an alternative. This front porch probably has a cost of about $40,000. The sliding glass
doors on the front of it is a $2,000 unit. It’s got wainscoting in it, and maybe, Jim, you can,
why don’t you say, so that I’m sure that you’re not thinking it’s just a porch, and maybe it’s
not that part of an integral part of the house. Why don’t you tell us what’s there.
JIM WHITE
MR. WHITE-As you can see, it’s cedar sided. We’ve got the entryway, plus there’s six
double hung Anderson windows in there, hardwood floors, and then wainscoted ceiling and
side walls. It’s used as one of our main living spaces in the house. There’s not, it’s not a big
house to begin with, and the living area or the living room you also use as a dining area, and
this is kind of a rec room, an area that we spent a lot of time on, and we built it to the same
configuration as the prior porch, and, you know, it’s a big asset to the house, and obviously
we want to keep it.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-For the record, you’re Mr. White?
MR. WHITE-I am, I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-Just for the record, we want to get it on there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Are there feasible alternatives? As I said, I don’t know of any alternatives.
You’ve got a poured foundation cellar, and this has not been the most pleasant of projects.
We’ve had all kinds of difficulty as we’ve gone through. Half of this file or probably from this
point on, this my correspondence with attorneys who represent other people, during the
period of this construction. I know the Town was up there on at least five different occasions,
supposedly looking for things because they had complaints, none of which they found were
justified. It’s been a difficult process. If you’ll remember, this is a very narrow lot. Almost
immediately after the approvals were given, two fences were put up on each side of the back
of the, on the narrow lot. It’s just, hopefully we’re going to go forward, and that’s not
necessarily something that you need to have, but I think we’re going to hear some of it. So I
want to just tell you that it’s there. This is a poured cellar. It has a holding tank system
that’s immediately behind the existing house. You would be talking probably as much to
move this house backwards as it was to construct the house. You’d be well in excess, and I
don’t have any problem just saying in excess of $100,000 easily to try and make this house
compliant. I don’t think, given, when you balance what impact it has upon anybody, where
it doesn’t block anybody’s view, it’s better than what was there when we started this whole
project about three years ago, that it’s a hard thing saying that it should be balanced in the
favor of the applicant. Is it substantial? I don’t think it is, even percentage wise this time. I
always argue with everybody about percentage, but I think it’s not substantial also because
of the reason that I use on any other case I had. What is the impact that will be granted by
you allowing this variance? I don’t know of any particular impact, truthfully. So I don’t
think it is substantial. Will it have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, I don’t know of any. If you
recall when this was built, it was a very questionable septic system. They replaced it, at their
expense, with a holding tank that they’re willing to live with. It had no formal stormwater
management plan in place. They had one. The house is guttered, and they actually were
going to have just a sediment or detention area in that front area, and during the
construction, with the approval, the Town, they actually put in an infiltrator system in that
front yard. They haven’t tried to avoid doing what’s necessary to give the best mitigation
that they can for the project, and they really have made a good faith effort to do that. Was
the alleged difficulty self-created? It was self-created by an agent. I don’t know if anybody
here would know the difference if you hired a surveyor to go out and stake out a lot, and he
staked it out, and he told you that he had staked it out so that it would be 53 feet back from
the porch and 50 feet for the, or 53 feet for the porch and 50 feet for the steps, that you would
know the difference. I don’t know if I would. I think if I were a layman, I might know more
about it than some people, because I get involved in it, but if I measured it from the south
side of the property on 52.6 feet, or something of that nature, I don’t know if you would see
it. So I don’t know if it really falls within the category that it was self-created by the
applicant, and that’s basically it. I don’t know how else to, I don’t have something to offer to
you. I think that if we had applied for it in the first instance, you might look upon it
favorably, if we’re going back from 40 feet with the porch to 45 feet with the porch. I also
know that we improved the side setback. We took the stairs off the side and put them on the
front, on purpose, so there’d be a little bit more room there. Any questions of the applicant or
myself or Mr. Howard?
MR. STONE-Just a quick question, Mr. O’Connor. I assume the holding tank got a variance
from the Board of Health?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it did.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-This is a two stage approval process. You had gotten approval, a previous
time to the last time, which was the final approval?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. URRICO-And prior to that, the setback to the water was less, it was more than what
you got approved for. You have improved on the need for a setback, because there was no
need for a setback variance on the, what you did get approved for, but prior to that, you
would have needed one, if I remember.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Because we were building on to the building that was 40 feet from the
water, and we were changing the front of that building like we were changing this. It was
deemed that we needed a variance to maintain that 40 feet.
MR. URRICO-And that was the 40 foot at that time?
MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s the 40 foot, and that’s the building that was in existence.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-When the building came down, we lost rights to that 40 foot
grandfathering, or whatever.
MR. URRICO-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we came back in and we initially, I think when we came back in,
you’ve got the minutes in front of you, but I think initially we were talking about 40 some
feet with the stairs in the front, and then it got so it was a little bit complicated and we said,
okay, we’ll go back 50 feet for the stairs, which would have pushed the house back 53 feet,
and that’s what we attempted to do, and that’s what the Whites attempted to do when they
hired the surveyor.
MR. BRYANT-Actually you pushed the building back 11 feet, in the minutes. I think it was
11 feet total.
MR. O'CONNOR-Was there a deck on the front? I didn’t remember.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t recall, but according to the minutes, it was 11 feet. I have a question
for Mr. Howard. Are you the surveyor, because it’s signed by Russell Emmett Howard.
MR. HOWARD-Yes, that’s me.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you actually surveyed this property?
MR. HOWARD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then you were the one who staked out the building?
MR. HOWARD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I want to understand. I can understand if a contractor, you know,
staked out the building based on a pre-existing survey or something, and an error occurring,
but you having surveyed the property, how did that happen? I’m not really understanding,
you talked about the side. You were worried about the side, and that was a big concern in the
minutes, because there was some discussion about overhangs going into a neighbor’s property,
etc., etc. I’m not understanding how a surveyor could make that type of error. I’m just not
understanding it.
MR. HOWARD-Well, I was initially most concerned with the north line out there, and I was
just so focused on that north line, that we didn’t even locate, for our original survey work, the
deck and the shoreline. I guess I didn’t realize that it was a crucial tolerance, and I should
have.
MR. BRYANT-I want to back up there. I don’t understand. You’re a surveyor and you do
work in the Town of Queensbury, and you don’t know it’s crucial that you have a setback a
certain number of feet from the waterfront?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think he does now.
MR. HOWARD-Yes.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-He does now.
MR. HOWARD-No, not when I laid the building out. I just didn’t consider that. It’s totally
my fault for that, really.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no advantage to anybody by doing what was done.
MR. BRYANT-Absolutely. I just want to point something out, though.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t know why it happened.
MR. BRYANT-You did a very good case of laying out the cost of any kind of remedy or
whatever, but that’s really an issue between Bolster and the Whites. It’s not necessarily an
issue for this Board. So, I just want to understand in my mind how a licensed surveyor who
does work in the Town of Queensbury on a regular basis wouldn’t view that setback from the
lake as an issue. That’s all. Mr. O’Connor, just one question for you.
MR. STONE-I have a question of Mr. and Mrs. White. I don’t know when that railing was
painted, whether or not you knew that it was offending the setback, but I guess I’m offended
by the garishness of the railings, in consideration of its proximity to the lake. The house is a
beautiful house. It’s very attractive. I love the cedar siding. I love the green trim. The
white just hits me right in the eyes, and you’re asking me to be helpful, and it’s a problem for
me.
MR. WHITE-I don’t really like it, either. To be honest with you, it’s a product that my
company handles, but it doesn’t go.
MR. STONE-It’s pre-painted, in other words.
MR. WHITE-Well, it’s a composite.
MR. STONE-A composite, that’s what I meant. Okay.
MR. WHITE-But a cedar color or something of that nature.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-If that’s a consideration, he’ll change it. I mean, that’s something that’s
within our control, and I honestly am saying to you that as I sit here, I sometimes think of
compromises. Clients don’t necessarily agree with them, but I try to come up with some type
of compromise that looks for the least variance that we need. If that is a concern, you can
condition your resolution, if you want, on that being changed to a cedar look or something of
that nature. One point I’d go back to with Mr. Bryant, though. I understand what you said,
that the enormity of the total cost here is perhaps an issue between the Whites and the
surveyor, but beyond just the dollar value of something, they’ve been two, two and a half
years putting their heart and soul in this project. Obviously, they would have to go back and
try and do it over again, and I think it’s not been nice. That’s a burden that they will have to
face, or would have to face, regardless of whether or not there was somebody paying the bill.
So there is a real burden here. There is a real impact upon the applicant, aside from the
financial considerations. I mentioned the financial considerations just so you have an
understanding of it, and I probably should have emphasized more the human impact of going
through this process again. Hopefully they’ll get to a point where they’ll get along with their
neighbors. To re-open this thing again, they can get a new attorney.
MR. STONE-I just want to get on the record, because my experience on the Board, we had a
case, three or four years ago, of a piece of property on the lake that did get a variance for
being a little closer to the lake than 50 feet, as I remember. Unfortunately, the deck was the
allowed, designated area, and this Board, in its wisdom, and I just want to make sure
everybody is aware, we asked them to cut it back, part of the deck. Now I know there’s a
difficulty here. This is probably minimum width from a building code standpoint, but I just
want it on the record that we have been fairly protective of the setback from the lake. That
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
doesn’t say where I’m coming from, because I’m listening, but I just wanted everyone to,
because some of us were here at that particular point in time.
MR. ABBATE-Anyone else have any questions? I admire the integrity of the surveyor.
We’re all human. We all make human mistakes, and Counselor said it right, basically, it is a
human aspect to this thing, and in our zoning there are always two parts to zoning, the intent
and objective. I thank you for being straightforward. You didn’t attempt to use any type of
obfuscation or camouflage the facts. You said I made a mistake. That was it. It was as
simple as that, and Counselor said it right. I’m not sure I would want to be in the position of
the Whites to go through all this agony over the number of years. So I don’t envy you for
that, and I just wanted to make that statement. If we have no other questions from any
members of the Board, I’d like to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 74-2005,
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, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GABBY SHEARER
MRS. SHEARER-I’m Gabby Shearer, and I’m the person in the red house right next door to
them here, okay, 52 Russell Harris Road. I’m a little offended at Mr. O’Connor implying that
we were just complaining type neighbors. Our neighbors, the Whites, in their building, have
torn down our fence, have ripped up our sidewalk, have put a fence down the middle of our
sidewalk, and have used our property without our consent any time we weren’t there and any
time they felt justified in doing so, without any consent or talking to us concerning it at all,
and I just want to let you know that I don’t think we’re complaining against those types of
things that we’ve not been compensated for anything that they have done, and I would also
like to make a comment, since Mr. O’Connor brought it up, that their gutters drain into a
basin here in front. They don’t. They drain onto our property. All those gutters go to a spot
that’s on the very, in this picture, left hand side of that picture, all the way down at the
bottom, and I can show you that it drains right down our sidewalk.
MR. ABBATE-Please pass it on to the members of the Board.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MRS. SHEARER-This is where it is. This is all downhill.
MR. STONE-I see what you’re saying.
MRS. SHEARER-If you look at the picture, you can see there’s a stone wall there, and you
can see where they all drain to, but it’s all downhill. We’re like a foot and a half, two foot
lower than where it drains to. So it’s not going to drain uphill to this catch basin, it drains
down and down our sidewalk and into the lake.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I want to apologize to you today. I parked in your driveway and I
walked through your fence.
MRS. SHEARER-That’s okay.
MR. STONE-I just wanted to be sure it was all right.
MRS. SHEARER-That’s all I wanted to say.
MR. ABBATE-And would you like to make a statement as well?
BARBARA TANIS
MRS. TANIS-Well, my name is Barbara Tanis, well, the house is missing now, but I’m on the
north side of that house, right where you see that hedge along the edge. That’s my house.
Okay. It’s a very close quarters for all of us. It’s very difficult. Now, I wrote up what I
wanted to say, and I kept strictly to the point of what they were asking for the relief on, but I
do wish to bring in the fact that they originally got a variance, over a year ago, to make
alterations to the house that was standing there, which was fine. All of a sudden a backhoe
comes in and rips down the house next door, and I said, I’m living there. I’m a year round
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
resident, and he dug a ditch the whole length of my house for a new cellar, and they lost the
footprint that was there originally of the house, and I’m smart enough to know, if you lose
your footprint, you have to go according to present Code on anything. So anyway, the Town
found out about it. They made them fill in the big hole they had dug for this big basement
and apply for another variance. So then they applied for another variance last December to
put up a new house, and the footprint’s gone, so then they had to go back 50 feet. So that’s
where we were then. Anyway. I live at 54 Russell Harris Road, and, as I said, Cleverdale is
my principle residence and I’ve lived there for 32 years. I vote locally, and I’m a widow and
I’m almost 82 years old, I’m hoping I have another 10 years there, and I think the latest ploy
by the Whites to try to get a special consideration is their way of thumbing their nose at
authority, and I think that’s a disgrace because everything that they’ve done with a variance
has been after the fact, after something has happened, just like this time with the porch going
up. I watched the porch go up last summer, and the weeks after the Whites house was
completed, they deliberately and carefully added this porch, knowing it was illegal and
knowing they should apply for permission first, as it encroached the 50 foot mandated
setback rule. Now if I lived there and I was having a porch put on my house, I would take
my rule out and I would measure to make sure that everything is correct. I wouldn’t just
depend on the builder to throw up a porch and not know myself that the, it’s not 50 feet back,
and the Whites had plenty of time to apply for this variance before the porch was built, but
they flaunted the rules in order to push their own desires. It is evident by looking at the
porch that they finished the interior oddly. By that I mean, the three walls around the porch
have normal interior finishes. You can see that right from my porch looking into their
window. However, the house porch has exterior siding on the inside of the front of the house,
and it’s almost like they were planning ahead in case the other three walls have to come
down, that they’d only have to remove them and the house would still have its finished front.
Now if the eight foot deep porch is removed, they can still have a small deck and steps exiting
the house without encroaching on the 50 foot setback requirement. In all fairness to other
lake homeowners who have had to meet this 50 foot setback, and for future builders, I
respectfully request the Whites request for relief be denied and they adhere to the shoreline
setback. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ladies. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to be
heard in reference to Area Variance No. 74-2005?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury, in
the area of Dunham Bay. I, too, am very, very confused with this application and the relief
that’s being requested. The term shoreline is used in Staff notes, and it shows the stairs in
front of the porch being set back so many feet from the shoreline, and shoreline is spelled with
a small “S”. It should be spelled with a capital “S”. Shoreline is a term defined in our Code.
The Shoreline of Lake George has a very, very exact definition. It’s 320.2 feet above mean
sea level, and that line should be a part of the as built drawing. That line should have been a
part of the site plan. You can’t work without it. You can’t work without that line on the site
plan. Does the as built survey show the mean high water mark of Lake George, the contour
line 320.2 feet above mean sea level. This is not a very difficult thing to determine, nor to
map, especially on a narrow lot. I don’t know what Staff, I just can’t tell. I haven’t seen, but
who prepared the as built drawing?
MR. ABBATE-The surveyor, in back of you.
MR. SALVADOR-And who prepared the site plan?
MR. ABBATE-Susan, could you help us on that question? Who prepared the site plan?
MR. STONE-Well, Bolster and Associates I assume.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. It says the site plan shows the front porch set back 50 feet from the
shoreline. The shoreline is 320.2 feet above mean sea level, and that site plan should have
showed that and located that porch, and that’s what you build from, if that’s what was
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
approved, or no relief was asked for. Is the mean high water mark of Lake George shown on
there?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have it in front of me. Somebody help me out, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not on there.
MR. ABBATE-It is not.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s incomplete. The application is incomplete. The site plan was
probably incomplete.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your comments are duly noted. Do we have
anyone else in the audience this evening who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 74-
2005? If so, would you please come forward. I see no other hands. Counselor, would you and
your client please come back to the table.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, would you please read that letter into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have a letter received from the Lake George Waterkeeper. It
says, “Dear Mr. Abbate: I have reviewed the application for the variance request for the
above referenced project and would like to offer the following for the record: 1. My comment
is regarding a request to reduce the impacts this site construction activities have had to the
neighborhood. This summer I was contacted by residents regarding drainage problems along
Russell Harris Road. One of the causes of the backup and ponding of stormwater to the
north of the White property is the fact a culvert under the White’s driveway has been crushed
during construction activities and not repaired. The Zoning Board of Appeals, under § 179-
14-020, “may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage to protect
the best interests of the surrounding property”. I request the Zoning Board to review this
situation and potentially condition any variance on the replacement and improvement of the
on site drainage in attempt to improve drainage in the neighborhood. I look forward to
working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to continue to protect Lake
George. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher J. Navitsky, PE Lake
George Waterkeeper”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would now like, unless Counselor would like to
address some of the comments that were made just prior to.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would.
MR. ABBATE-You would. Would you, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I apologize to Mrs. Shearer and Mrs. Tanis if they thought that I
was trying to get into a personal back and forth with them. I did not intend that, didn’t
mean to do that. The one comment that Mrs. Shearer made was that the drainage from the
gutter on the north side of the property comes down at that corner. Jim has been there,
looked at that. He thought he put crushed stones underneath it to alleviate any problem. I’d
just ask we can put an extension on the drain leader and bring it underneath the porch or the
enclosed porch, and take it a little bit further away from the Shearer property, and we have
no problem saying that is something that we would do as a condition, if that’s something that
the Board has a concern with. As to the comment by Mrs. Tanis that this was something that
was done in a staged process intentionally by Mr. and Mrs. White, I can tell you it was not.
The enclosed porch was shown on the original plans. The enclosed porch has been part of
every discussion that we’ve had here. It’s an integral part of their home. It’s part of the
living space. I mean, this is a very small house. It’s 1440 feet. The construction was such
that the poured basement was not underneath the porch. They did the poured foundation
under the house principle, and that had to be in place, the house had to be up before they
could attach the porch to it. The porch itself is on columns, sonitube type columns. I think
you can see that from the pictures. There never was an intention not to build the structure,
with that porch on there. The first notice that the Whites had that there was not a
compliance with the front setback was when the as built plan was prepared by the surveyor,
and that was the first time that they had any knowledge of that. As to what Mr. Salvador
has said, I worked hard in the last few days to try and see whether or not the mean high water
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
mark, which is how I think we define shoreline, in our Ordinance, was further out than it is.
It isn’t. This is marked, it doesn’t say mean high water mark on this map, but where we show
shoreline, that is the mean high water mark. On the north corner, it comes back in quite a
bit. It follows the bottom of that deck, as the deck is attached to the boathouse, right around
it, and as the retaining wall goes out on the southerly end of the property, that’s where it is.
That’s where the pin is. We made our measurements from the mean high water mark. We
can put a notation on here, if that’s an issue of clarification of where the mean high water
mark is.
MR. STONE-I have a question. I’m looking at the minutes from when the variance was
granted, and under Staff input, Staff comments, it says “The proposed setback for the south
side is for the majority of the dwelling. However, the small deck above the stairs on the south
side is proposed to be two feet above the stairs on the south side is proposed to be 2 feet 5
inches from the property line.” In other words, steps were going to be on the south side of
the house, not in the front.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, before we got done with the meeting, we agreed to move the steps
toward the front of the house, to make it more compatible to Mrs. Tanis’ property.
MR. STONE-As long as it could be at 50 feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve tried to make it better.
MR. URRICO-When was the error discovered? When was it discovered that there was a
mistake?
MR. HOWARD-When I was asked to go out and do the updated survey. I had discovered it.
MR. URRICO-Which was when, what date?
MR. HOWARD-Which was 9/1/05. I mean, it would be very hard for the Whites to measure
that because of the grade going down, and it’s, you know, it’s not something that would be
easy to measure with just a tape, because of the way it goes downhill and then goes down a
heck of a retaining wall there. It’s something that it’s relatively easily measured by a
surveyor, but it would be very difficult to measure that by someone with just a tape to try to
go down over that bank and make an accurate measurement on that.
MR. BRYANT-And, just to take it one step further, because of something that the neighbors
said, so you did the as built survey and you discovered the error, and that’s how this
application came about, or did you submit it to the Town and then the Town said, now wait a
minute, we have a problem here. How did we get here?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mrs. White brought it in to the Town and talked to Craig Brown
and said, what do we need to do.
NANCY WHITE
MRS. WHITE-My name is Nancy White. I live at 52 and a half Russell Harris Road. I
thought, because of the original site plan, it said shoreline on the bottom. I thought when I
got the, when I picked up the as done survey, and I talked with Dave Bolster, Russ was not in
the office, we had originally paid for the plotting. We paid for him to come back to be on the
safe side, instead of putting it back the 52 and a half feet, we put the building back 53, just to
have that extra six inches, and so we paid for that. So then it was the final as done. So Mr.
Bolster was in the office, and I paid him, and he gave me three copies, because he knew I had
to give one to Craig Brown, and I was looking and I just said, just for the heck of it, you
know, I wanted to look and see what I had gotten, and I was having a heart attack thinking
it was six inches shy on the southern end. I always just assumed because there is no water
under the deck, you know, approaching the south part of the boathouse, I don’t even consider
that any water line, and so I just assumed that that was the shoreline that we were supposed
to have had it set at. So I said to Dave Bolster, I said, wait a minute, Dave, this is six inches
shy, and he said, what do you mean, and so we were looking at it and he said, well, the survey
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
was done in wintery conditions, and whatever, and so then I said to him, you know, I don’t
know if that’s going to make a difference. It has to be exactly from the porch 50 feet. So I
started to have a heart attack about that, and everything else had checked out. We had had
Joel Clugstone come and inspect the camp, but he said you have to have the stamped survey.
So I said everything should be fine. We had it plotted. We had it re-inspected, and, you
know, we paid $1600 for the total thing. So I thought everything would be fine. So here I’m
thinking, I’m going to bring this to Craig Brown, and I’m going to have to sit and go, oh my
God, six inches, and then I dropped it off on a Friday. Dave Hatin said I would be told
probably by the end of the day or by Monday morning, you know, when Craig had looked at
it and checked whatever the Zoning Board had said at the December meeting, that if
everything checked out okay, we could get our Certificate of Occupancy. So I was worried
about the six inches, and Dave Hatin said, well Craig would have to look at it, and whatever.
So I didn’t hear anything on a Monday. I call on a Tuesday morning and Craig said well
initially looking at it, you know, he thought that it was off, but he’d have to go through the
records. So I said okay, so I’m going, well, it’s six inches. Then Craig called me back and
said, no, your mean high water mark is on the northern side, and I said, well, how can that be.
On our site plan it’s saying shoreline and it doesn’t have shoreline to the north part. It only
had it to the southern part, but anyway, I don’t know if I went on and on too much, but
that’s how it came to be, and Craig said to me, you know, no, we’re not talking six inches, and
so then that’s why I’m the one who put those three maps together, when I found out, I talked
to Craig on a Tuesday, which was the 13. The deadline for this next meeting was September
th
14, and so I got our old survey from the original surveyor, from the previous owner. He had
th
also surveyed it in 2000 before we bought the camp. He surveyed it in 2001, when we were
talking about possibly doing the planning stages of doing any building, and he was not
available to do this. After the December meeting, he was not available to do what the Zoning
Board had asked last year. So I had, you know, the different surveys. On one survey it
shows, in 2001 it shows the mean high water mark at the northern part, and then in 2002, or
2003, it says mean high water mark on the survey at the southern end. So I just always
assumed that that was the, where the mean high water mark was, but that’s how it came to
be. That’s when we noticed it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. White is referring to the fact that if you looked at the map, the south
side of that enclosed porch is 52.6 feet, and she thought she had a .6 problem, because she was
focused on the fact that the enclosed porch, 52.6, the enclosed porch was supposed to be back
53 to allow for those steps that she knew was three feet, and that’s where she said she almost
had a heart attack, but I still go back to, and I appreciate very much Russ’s candor in saying
that he was given a map by the applicant saying please put my house 53 feet back, and make
sure that my front steps are 50 feet back, and that didn’t happen, and I’ll go back and not to
repeat every argument. I don’t think there’s any impact, if, as Mr. Stone says, he thinks it
could be less noticeable by changing the white rails to a cedar, that’s fine. The applicant is
willing to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? I’m going to
respectfully request that the members offer their comments on Area Variance No. 74-2005,
and I would like to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern
ourselves with evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the
evidence relied upon should specifically be stated. Of course this is necessary for an intelligent
judicial review. Additionally, I respectfully remind the members that any position you take
must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws, and not simply on subjective
preferences or not liking a project. Having said that, may I please turn to Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. One of the questions that we have to look at is whether or not the
requested variance is significant, and I think, in terms of total distance, it probably is not, but
also we do have to remember that we are dealing a shoreline setback, which I think makes it a
little more important than if it were simply a side line setback from another piece of property.
I think, as far as kind of getting away from the criteria for a minute, but the whole question
of how it happened and what not, I think we’ve had a pretty good explanation tonight of the
fact that this was a mistake. It wasn’t deliberate. It’s just one of those things that happens,
and I think, beyond that, it probably does not have a significant impact on the
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As far as I can tell looking at the
site, it’s not going to block anybody’s line of sight or vision or anything of that sort, and I
think it really come down to the question of the balance of the benefit to the applicants
versus detriment to the community and the neighborhood, and as I’ve said, I really don’t see
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
an awful lot of detriment to the neighborhood, in terms of this reconstruction. If it were a
brand new project, we obviously would have told the applicants no, be 50 feet away from the
shoreline, but it’s something that’s happened. The alternative is going to be very expensive
for the applicant, and therefore there’s an obvious benefit to the applicant to not having to
correct this and cut it back to the 50 foot shoreline, and I think in this case, although it would
be nicer to have this 50 feet from the shore, I think when we follow our rules that we’re
supposed to follow in doing the balancing test, the balance has got to come down in favor of
the applicant. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. May I please turn to Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I don’t quite agree with Mr. McNulty. I’m not sure where I am, to
be very frank. Certainly in the balancing test that we’re supposed to consider, normally we
put aside, or we seem to ignore self-created. It’s a very difficult definition to come up with
and say, what is self-created. This is definitely self-created. I’m concerned, that is this how
an applicant gets what they wanted in the first place. Now, I’m not accusing anybody of
that, but we see many opportunities, many times, when people have come before us and say,
well, we built it and now let us keep it, and I’m very concerned about that. I don’t like being
put in the position of deciding after the fact. I don’t think the Board has, over the years, not
consistently everybody, but we certainly have expressed umbrage, if you will, at people
coming in with something already built. Now, this is a little different, having said that, and
we have Mr. Howard here who says to us, mea culpa, I made a mistake. I didn’t understand
exactly all of the ins and outs of this thing. That’s a pun on the shoreline. I don’t mean it
that way, but obviously this is a little different situation. Here we have a professional with
nothing to gain by putting this in the wrong place. There’s no question about that. So it is a
little different situation. I appreciate Mr. O’Connor and Mr. White’s willingness to fix the
drainage, so that Mrs. Shearer is not impacted as much as she believes she is. I know we had
long discussions on this thing. I mean, this was not a simple matter in the first place, and we
listened to Mrs. Tanis and we listened to the Shearers and every other neighbor, I think, on
Russell Harris Road. There were a lot of comments made. I agree with Mr. McNulty that
certainly it’s a benefit to the applicant if we grant this. I would have suggested to Mr.
O’Connor that he stop using the word “porch”, because I think that didn’t help the situation.
This is a part of the house as I understand it. It’s not a porch that we think about. I guess,
reluctantly, and I have to admit, this is a case where I came in prepared to say no, but I
think, because of all the things that I have heard, certainly from Mr. Howard and others, that
I will reluctantly say yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. Well, I’m kind of conflicted. One of the things that bothers
me, and I wasn’t at this meeting, that one of the conditions of the Area Variance No. 96-2004
was that roofs eaves be guttered and drain directly towards the retention basins, which
obviously, according to the Shearers, has not been done, and that kind of bothers me, that the
last variance they got they did not comply with all of the conditions, and I really don’t know,
at this point, how I will vote.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, somewhat, with Mr. McNulty and Mr.
Stone, but preparing for tonight, besides visiting the site, and it is a beautiful home, I went
over the minutes from the original variance, the 2004 variance, and I noted how you went
through great deal and compromise in pushing the house back and we talked about the
gutters. We talked about the overhang, the possibility that the overhang was actually on
somebody else’s property and what have you, and so I came tonight, as Mr. Stone did, with a
negative view of the thing. I can’t say that my attitude has really changed because frankly,
when you weigh the balance of the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the
community, this project has always had a negative input from all the neighbors, from Day
One, and we heard the same negative input again tonight. When you talk about the benefit
to the applicant in saving the cost of reconstructing that back, I believe, personally, that’s a
civil issue between the contractor, the surveyor and the owner. When you talk about the,
who’s responsible for it, or was it self-created, yes, Bolster is an agent of the owner, and
therefore it was self-created. So I don’t know that it’s really, we get these issues all the time
where a contractor makes an error. Usually it’s not in a survey condition. Usually it’s a
contractor who never took a survey in the first place, but we get these all the time, and it
really is a question between the contractor and the owner of the property, and not for this
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
Board to issue variances because a contractor has made a mistake. That’s not the first
solution. So I don’t know what the other solution would be. I can’t even begin to fathom
what a solution would be. So, frankly, I’m still on the negative side.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s been a long and difficult process. I guess it has been the project
from Hell for you people, too. In general I think that, you know, when we first came up here
and looked at these adjoining parcels here, this is probably just the beginning of our
headaches because I’m sure when the next one is proposed to be redone we’re going to be up
against the same thing, and I think that part of what we’re up against here is the close
tolerances based upon the very small lot size that we have. It doesn’t really reflect one acre
zoning, so I don’t know why we even have one acre zoning, it’s so ridiculous on a .14 acre lot
here, but in this instance, I think that we have to look at the improvements on the site. It
hasn’t been easy for the neighbors with all the construction, the digging up and all that, but
that’s part of what happens when you build a new house. There’s no getting around that. I
think it has been improved, due to the fact that there’s a holding tank, when what was there
before was purely inadequate, but I think in this instance here, measuring is an exact science,
and it just goes to prove that even the experts aren’t perfect. So I don’t really think it’s any
big reflection that this is going to have an impact on Lake George. I mean, you’re nearing 50
feet back from the lake. There are certainly instances on the adjoining parcels where things
are much closer. There’s a boathouse sitting in the lake down in front. So I can’t really
imagine why we would be concerned with this set of stairs. That stairs aren’t going to have
an impact on the lake or the neighborhood, as far as I’m concerned, and I think in this
instance here we can grant this relief as requested. Compared to the grand sum and total of
all the other things that we had to deal with on this lot, this is minor, and I think that in this
instance we can give them the relief as requested.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I think we all agree this has been very difficult, and the difficulty from the
very beginning has been the size of the lot and how every proportion, every inch is magnified
because of that, which makes care in putting this plan together all the more important. So I
think everybody’s made that statement to Mr. Howard. I think he understands that, but I
also think there was an obligation from the homeowners to consider the neighbors, and one of
my concerns from the very beginning, that the neighbors be considered, and I even made a
point in the notes to say that and it’s troubling to me to see that it didn’t happen again, in
putting this house together, that we’re still dealing with the water issues that are bothersome
to me. That being said, had this been presented to us from the very beginning as 44 feet, I
think I probably would not have had a problem with it. I would have been more concerned
with the side, which is what we all focused on at the time, and using the test, in consideration
of that, I think if the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant, to
borrow a phrase from a former Board member, who used draconian at times like this, I think
that to change that measurement right now would be draconian. Has a change in the
neighborhood character been affected? I don’t think that staircase has changed the character
of the neighborhood. I think we’ve dealt with the issue of a new home. I think the new home
has improved the neighborhood. We know it was tight, and the tightness is due to the lot
size. The request is not substantial. It’s six feet over fifty. That’s not substantial to me, and
whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, well the request itself
is not going to have that effect, but I do agree there’s a problem there that needs to be
rectified as far as the water situation, and then this situation is self-created. We all agree with
that. So what I’m proposing is that I would be in favor of it with two conditions, one that
water be set away from the Shearer property, in some respect, so that they won’t have to deal
with that anymore, and the second one, as Mr. Stone pointed out, that something be done to
the stairs to make it more appealing and fit in with the rest of the house.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, may I please return to you.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would approve the variance, but I would certainly like to see that the
conditions on the variance in 2004 were included, and I’d go along with Mr. Urrico with the
color of the stairs, but I would certainly like to see that this drainage is contained in retention
basins, and not allowed to run on other properties.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment about this whole aspect of conditions
relative to this?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-If you wish.
MR. BRYANT-I can appreciate what Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Stone are saying about conditions,
but we’ve had this discussion before, in these meetings, where these conditions are very
difficult to enforce, and now obviously they’ve got a variance. They built a building. They
didn’t comply with the original conditions, and they wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for their
own discovery of error and yet Staff has not enforced the conditions that were originally
proposed. The drainage was not enforced. Okay. Obviously there’s still a problem. So the
question is, here we are, giving them relief again, for an error, and we’re imposing conditions
which will never be enforced because that’s the MO.
MR. STONE-Let me just comment on that if I may. Obviously, the as built survey is a
requirement for new construction, and it was, in fact, followed. I mean, that’s how the Town
learned. The conditions of the water, we’re going to say that it better be fixed, I believe, and
the other willingness to somehow mitigate the bright white of the thing, which is an impact
on the lake, visual wise, and it’s going to be taken care of.
MR. BRYANT-My point is, though, it was not enforced initially, and we stand the risk of
conditions that are, again, not going to be enforced.
MR. ABBATE-I can address both issues of Mr. Stone and Mr. Bryant. When we reach that
point, I will assure the both of you that as a matter of record, I will take care of that this
evening, in a statement, in terms of enforcing conditions.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s up to me now. It’s true. There would be nothing to be gained for
the surveyor to do this intentionally. Absolutely nothing, and it’s also true that the Whites
have gone through a tremendous amount of stress and what have you, but it’s also true that
the burden of responsibility falls strictly on the shoulders of the applicant to ensure that he,
as well as his agents, comply with the rules and regulations. It’s also true that there is
concern by the neighbors on either side concerning I believe it was water conditions. It’s also
true that the Lake George Waterkeeper has registered certain concerns as well, and it is also
true that each of the members this evening have stated something not only worthwhile, but
as a matter of fact. I would support the application, providing that when a motion is made,
that we include in that motion at least three of the conditions that Mr. Urrico, which included
Mrs. Hunt as well as Mr. Bryant as well, and what I will do, whoever moves a motion, I will
make it quite clear, if in fact this is approved, that this will serve notice to both not only the
Code Enforcement Officer, but the Building personnel, etc. So it will be a matter of fact, a
matter of record, and I will also ensure, in the event this is approved, that on the record
Counsel, as well has his clients, acknowledge these conditions and acknowledge the fact they
intend to rectify these problems, such as the drainage and what have you. So, having said
that, I would like to ask for a motion, and before I do, again, I would like to 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 there are State Statutes that spell out five
statutory criteria that we must carefully consider in deciding whether to grant an Area
Variance. Having said that, I am calling for a motion for Area Variance No. 74-2005. Is
there a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2005 JAMES & NANCY WHITE,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
52 ½ Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale. The applicant has constructed a 1,450 square foot
single family dwelling. The submitted as-built survey shows the front porch with stairs 43.1
feet from the shoreline. Because of this the applicant is requesting 6.9 feet of shoreline
setback relief where the minimum is 50 feet in the WR-1A zone per Section 179-4-030. In
considering this application against the five criteria which we’re asked to measure this
against, the Board is considering whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible
to the applicant. A feasible means might be to take down the porch, which in my estimation
would be a draconian measure. Whether the change is going to result in a change to the
character of the neighborhood or nearby properties. I don’t believe that this particular porch,
that the offending porch, is going to change the character of the neighborhood. Whether the
request is substantial, 6.9 feet, to me, is not considered substantial. The request itself does
not appear that it will have physical or environmental affects, but I’ll address that in a
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
minute, and definitely the alleged difficulty is self-created. As part of this application, there
are two conditions we’d like to attach to it, one being that water that is falling from the roofs
of the structure be directed away from the neighbors property. It seems to be gathering
directly in her driveway, or her property. There should be a foot gutter going under the house
with a minimum of four foot under the house. Also address the drainage problem mentioned
by the Lake George Water Keeper. The second condition that the offending color of the rail
on the stairs of the porch be changed to match the house. I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 74-2005.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MRS. SHEARER-It’s two drainages. The one that the Waterkeeper was talking about is on
the back of the property next to the road. What I’m talking about is the front of the
property next to the lake. It’s two different drainages.
MR. STONE-Okay, and the one that we’ve been talking about is the one on the lakeside, I
believe.
MRS. SHEARER-The one I was talking about is on the lakeside. The one that the
Waterkeeper was talking about is on the roadside. It’s on the other side of the property. One
is towards the front here, the other one is back on the road.
MR. STONE-It’s never been mentioned.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I think maybe that’s where I got it from, from the Waterkeeper.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a crushed culvert pipe, supposedly.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I would like to address that condition, that we address both of the
drainage problems, as well as the fact that Mr. Urrico has also conditioned it on changing the
color of the porch. I am closing the public hearing right now.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, the two of you refer to the color of the porch, and I think
really what it is, is the color of the rail on the stairs.
MR. STONE-The rail on the stairs.
MR. ABBATE-Let’s be specific. It’s the coloring of the rail, it’s the white railing that will be
changed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we also be specific as to what would be satisfactory? The house is
guttered, which I think was the condition that we had before. We were not aware,
necessarily, that it was ponding or going to her property at the foot of the gutters. We
thought it was coming into the filtration, would leach into the filtration area that we have
there. My suggestion would be that we will put a foot gutter on the bottom of it which will
bring it underneath the front portion of the house for at least four feet into that.
MR. STONE-That sounds reasonable to me. They are responsible for their stormwater, and
you’re saying they’ll direct it toward the center of their lot.
MR. URRICO-I’m okay with that. I just don’t know how that affects the other condition we
were talking about.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other condition that I was not aware of, if it was a condition of
the prior approval, it still stands, because the only thing that we’re doing with regard to the
prior approval is changing the front setback. Maybe you’re not aware of the fact that the
Whites have not resided on this property. They do not have a Certificate of Occupancy and
this has been ongoing, but I think we will not get a Certificate of Occupancy, Mr. Bryant,
until we show the Board or show the enforcement staff that we have complied with the
conditions. I would have that, just suggest that that condition as to the back drainage stand
as it was in the prior. I haven’t looked at his letter to see exactly what he’s talking about.
My understanding that there is the possibility of crushed drainage pipes along that private
road that’s in the back. Apparently there is some type of underground drainage system that
runs through that whole neighborhood. The thought process was that the construction be
completed and then on our lot it would be looked at, and any pipes that are crushed that are
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
on our lot would be repaired. We would no longer have need for heavy construction
equipment on it. I don’t know if that’s going to solve that problem or not. Independent of
us, the Town Highway Department’s been up there, a long time back, looking at that thing,
but I have no problem if the Waterkeeper’s letter says that we would take care of any crushed
pipes in that drainage system that are on our lot. We’ll take care of those.
MR. ABBATE-So you have no problems with the concerns outlined by the Waterkeeper, and
you also have suggested that what you will do is have a foot gutter going under the house
with a minimum four foot under the house. Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s one condition. That’s two condition.
MRS. HUNT-Excuse me. The condition in the other variance was to have retention basins.
MR. ABBATE-Now, let’s address the retention basin as a third condition.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We went to the Town Building Department and asked if we could
put in infiltration and as I understand it, the capacity of the infiltration is better than the
capacity of the retention, and they approved it.
MR. HOWARD-They’ve got some pictures if you’d like to see it.
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. HOWARD-It’s the whole length of the property, and it’s for about four feet in depth
with crushed stone and a silt.
MR. ABBATE-Photographic documentation is not necessary. Counselor has stated on the
record that’ll be taken care of. I trust that it will be taken care of.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. HOWARD-I would agree with those conditions.
MR. ABBATE-You do agree.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 74-2005 is six in favor, one against. If there’s
no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 74-2005 is approved with conditions. Now,
I remind the appellant that this approval is with conditions, and bring to your attention your
agreement to accept the conditions as stated in the record, as a condition of approval. You
have stated that the principal has granted you authority, Counsel, to accept conditions for
approval. Final approval plans in compliance with this variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, are
dependent upon receipt. This statement serves as notice to both the Code Enforcement
Officer and building permit personnel that approval is contingent upon conditions, and these
conditions are outlined in the minutes of this meeting. For the record, does the appellant
understand these conditions?
MR. WHITE-I do.
MR. ABBATE-He acknowledges he does. I request Staff to bring these conditions to the
attention of the Code Enforcement Officer and building permit personnel as well. Would you
do that, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Members of the Board.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK BURKE OWNER(S):
ALBERT & ELEANOR OUDEKERK ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 936 BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
REQUIRED DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING
ARTERIAL ROADS. CROSS REF. SUB./PRELIM & FINAL FOR OCT. 2005 BP 93-440
DEMO OF BARN, BP 94-183 PORCH WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005 LOT
SIZE 5.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-9.1 SECTION 179-19-020
PATRICK BURKE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2005, Patrick Burke, Meeting Date: October 19, 2005
“Project Location: 936 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
subdivide a 5.35-acre parcel into five lots. The parcel is zoned SR-1A and the entire parcel
fronts two roads, Bay Road and Berry Drive. The subdivision would result in lots sized; 1.03-
acre (lot 1), 1.02-acre (lot 2), 1.30-acre (lot 3), 1.0-acre each, lots 4 and 5.
Relief Required:
For lot 3, 150-feet of relief from the lot width requirement is required, where double the
minimum lot width for the zone (SR-1A) is required for lots fronting on arterial roads per
§179-19-020.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 13-2005: Sketch plan, 7/27/05.
Staff comments:
This is a proposal for a 5-lot subdivision; one residence is currently on the project site,
resulting in 4 new house sites. As proposed, lots 1 and 2 will share one common driveway off
of Bay Road, the existing house site (lot 3) will have a new driveway off of Bay, and lots 4
and 5 will have individual driveways off of Berry Drive. The project, as proposed, will result
in one additional driveway off of Bay Road.
Because the proposal is for lots 1 and 2 to share a common driveway, relief is not required for
these two lots, “except that this requirement shall not apply under circumstances where
adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established and the width of each lot
meets the required width of the zone and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a
single common driveway”.
Finally, Berry Drive is a local road with no restrictions of access to abutting residences.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: Burke, Patrick Owner(s): Albert & Eleanor Oudekerk ID
Number: QBY-AV-05-77 County Project#: Oct05-26 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing a 5-lot subdivision. Relief
requested from the required double lot width for residential lots abutting arterial roads. Site
Location: 936 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 289.12-1-9.1 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision where double the lot width is required. The SR-1A
zone on Bay Road requires 300 ft. lot width where the applicant proposes lot #4 at 190 +/- ft.,
lot #3 is to be 150 +/- ft., lot #2 is to be 91 +/- ft., and lot #1 is to be 39 +/- ft. The plans
indicate each of the lots is at least one acre in size with proposed house location, septic and
well locations. 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 10/14/05.
MR. ABBATE-You are the petitioner of Area Variance No. 77-2005?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BURKE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and for the
record identify yourself and your place of residence.
MR. BURKE-My name’s Patrick Burke, residence 115 Mountain View Lane. I am going to
be, coming into this week or the beginning of next week, closing on this piece of property as
ownership. This piece of property has been in my wife’s family for five generations. So we
really don’t want to do anything here, is what we are looking to do. Just leave this alone. I
do understand that we need to get this variance approved under any stipulations that we’ve
got to run into here. What I would like to do is to, obviously, leave this alone. Lots One and
Two meet the zoning requirements, as drawn here and approved, I believe, by Craig Brown,
who was not in the office today to give me a letter that he had drawn up stating that Lots
One and Two meet all the zoning setbacks and codes. Lot Three meets them. Lot Four and
Lot Five meets them on their own, other than the driveway situation. What we have with
Lot Three is that, I do understand you need double the lot width for the driveway. What I
would like to do is instead of adjoining, one of the conditions, I’m sorry, as far as feasible
alternatives to this would be to adjoin lots four and three with common driveway. However,
I could still have a driveway over on Berry Drive on the corner lot there. I would not like to
move the driveway, because it’s going to be a significant cost factor to move the driveway,
not to mention taking down landmarks of these nice maple trees sitting right out front, in
order to split the lot, or the driveway on the lot line, which is typical, such as lots one and two
have. There will still be one driveway coming off of Bay Road onto this property, regardless
of meeting the requirements or not.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now any time during this hearing that you feel you want to offer
something else, just raise your hand. No problem.
MR. BURKE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Or if you have any questions concerning any of our activities, just stop us and
ask us.
MR. BURKE-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Before we start, I have a question for Staff. I’d like you to explain to me, you
have in quotations, “except that this requirement shall not apply under circumstances where
adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established, and the width of each lot
meets the required width of the zone, and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a
single common driveway”.
MRS. BARDEN-I was just trying to explain why lots one and two don’t need relief, because
they have the shared driveway. I was just trying to explain that lots one and two don’t need
relief because they meet the minimum lot width requirement for the zone, and that lot three
is the only one that does, because it’s, I think it meets the minimum lot width for the zone,
but the requirement is that residential lots abutting arterial roads need to have double the lot
width, or a shared drive.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
MR. BRYANT-So, let me ask Staff a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. BRYANT-So, are you saying, then, if lot three and four had a shared drive, that they
wouldn’t need a relief?
MRS. BARDEN-If lots three and four.
MR. BRYANT-Had a shared drive, instead of having individual lot driveway for three and
then one on Berry Road for four.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, see, Berry Drive is not an arterial.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-No, no. I’m asking about lot three. Lot three, if your logic is correct, then lot
three and four, if they had a shared drive, we don’t have to be here tonight.
MRS. BARDEN-If lots three and four had a shared drive off of Berry Drive.
MR. BRYANT-No, off of Bay Road.
MRS. BARDEN-Off of Bay Road.
MR. BRYANT-In other words, instead of, this is a new driveway anyway.
MRS. BARDEN-No. You’re not.
MR. BURKE-The driveway that’s on the plan is an existing driveway.
MR. BRYANT-No, that’s not the current driveway. The current driveway is being
abandoned.
MR. BURKE-No.
MR. STONE-No, no, that’s a different. That’s the second driveway, Al.
MR. BURKE-That’s a horseshoe driveway that goes around the house on the one lot. It does
come out a little bit onto lot one.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying that big driveway right there that’s shown very visible,
that’s the existing driveway?
MR. BURKE-Yes. There’s actually two driveways there right now. It’s paved on the left
hand side of the upper half. As it gets to the back of the house, it stops getting paved and
turns to gravel, comes back out on Bay Road.
MR. STONE-And you’re saying that one leg of the “U” is going to be abandoned?
MR. BURKE-Yes.
MR. STONE-So you’re going to go with the existing paved driveway on lot three?
MR. BURKE-Well, I don’t see the need that I need to have that. I mean, I could.
MR. STONE-No, no. You’re going with the one to the north.
MR. BURKE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Down to the house.
MR. BURKE-Yes. I’d like to leave that, instead of moving it, as sharing a driveway. I’m
still going to have one driveway on Bay Road, additional to lots one and two. It’s already
existing. If I move it over to 20, well, 66 feet, it’s going to be closer to the intersection of
Berry Drive. Worse off is that case, I would think, not to mention destruction, hazardous to
my guys working in the road, or, you know, Highway Department having to deal with
cutting in off of the Main Road, curb cutting or whatever you want to call it. If I did move
the driveway to that lot line, I could still, according to lot frontage, have another driveway
over on Bay Road as well. I’m not asking for that. I’d like to just leave the driveway coming
off of Bay Road for lot four, not mess around with lot three’s driveway.
MR. STONE-Susan, what we’re talking about is, let’s call it the existing homestead that’s in
the middle of this whole thing. The Code would say that has to be twice the width that
they’re proposing.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the driveway is the existing driveway. It’s still going to come out on
Bay Road with the same width and everything else. So the only relief we’re talking about,
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
forgetting all the other four lots, is, can this lot be made at the width that the applicant
wants.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. Because this is a subdivision, this comes into play.
MR. STONE-I understand, it comes into play. That I understand.
MR. ABBATE-You’re correct, Mr. Stone.
MRS. BARDEN-However, like what Al said, we wouldn’t be here tonight if there was one
driveway accessing lots one, two, and three.
MR. STONE-One, two and three.
MR. ABBATE-Right. He would not require a variance if that were to occur.
MR. BURKE-I’d actually still require a variance because I was sent the letter from the Town
stating that three lots sharing one driveway would still need a variance because.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have that letter with you?
MR. BURKE-You know what, I do have that letter, because someone’s property’s got to get
crossed to get to the third house.
MR. STONE-But it seems to me that I would regard it as a very technical thing. The lot, the
current Oudekerk house is accessed by a driveway, forget what’s to the north and to the
south. There’s one driveway coming off of Bay Road. I understand the Subdivision
Regulations, but that’s what we’re talking about. Can that lot be made one of the five, at the
width that they want. Rather than the double width.
MR. ABBATE-I believe that’s the issue.
MRS. BARDEN-Let me just say one thing, though. That, again, each lot is supposed to have
300 feet, to have a residential lot abutting on Bay Road. Because it’s an arterial road, the
idea is that you don’t have people pulling off of an arterial road every 50 feet. If you look at
the driveway to be abandoned, it’s directly across from a driveway, Maid Marion Way.
MR. STONE-Maid Marion Way.
MRS. BARDEN-So if that’s to be gone, then you have one, two, three driveways off of Bay
Road within, I don’t know how many feet, 300 feet.
MR. STONE-Where’s the third?
MRS. BARDEN-Across the street.
MR. STONE-On the other side.
MRS. BARDEN-You see it. It’s lined up with the driveway to be abandoned now. It’s right
on your map.
MR. STONE-I see that.
MR. ABBATE-So two is on one side of the street, and the third is across the street.
MR. BURKE-Yes.
MR. STONE-I don’t understand how that, I mean, it comes into play in terms of the overall
scheme of the world, but not in terms of the applicant.
MRS. BARDEN-I understand the overall scheme of the world you have three curb cuts on an
arterial road, and residential lots, three accesses off an arterial road.
MR. STONE-Where right now you have three.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MRS. BARDEN-Yes and no. Two of those go to the same house, go to the same lot.
MR. STONE-But they’re curb cuts.
MRS. BARDEN-And one of them is directly across from one on the other side.
MR. STONE-Yes, and they’re going to abandon that. All right.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now that we’ve got that cleared up and everybody understands
that, would you like to contribute something else?
MR. BURKE-This is that letter that says that I’m.
MR. ABBATE-Well, read it into the record.
MR. BURKE-All right. Sure. Dated August 18, last Planning meeting. It says “Dear Mr.
th
Burke: I am writing to let you know that you will require a variance approval if you chose to
propose a subdivision whereby a shared driveway is utilized by lots one, two and three, as
recently suggested by the Planning Board during their July 27, 2005 meeting. The reason for
this is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance Section 179-4-090, Frontage on Public Streets, states
‘every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved
to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury’. Lot One, as shown, would be the only lot
without direct frontage onto Bay Road.”
MR. ABBATE-Who is that signed by?
MR. BURKE-This is signed by Marilyn Ryba.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, why don’t we have a copy of that for our records? Out of curiosity?
Could we have that to put it in the record?
MR. BURKE-Sure.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have it either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on the record, you’re all set.
MR. ABBATE-It’s on the record. Hang on to it, then. They’re satisfied.
MR. BRYANT-He brings up a point. Lot One doesn’t have any frontage on Bay Road at all.
It’s got 30 feet frontage.
MR. URRICO-The regulation only says all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial
road. So I don’t think lot one is in consideration here.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it has no frontage at all.
MR. URRICO-It doesn’t have to. I mean, it’s not fronting on it. Therefore, it’s not part of
this discussion.
MR. BRYANT-It has no road frontage at all.
MR. STONE-Well, according to this diagram, the survey, it does.
MR. BRYANT-It’s got 30 feet.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Thirty-nine feet.
MR. STONE-Because it’s got that long.
MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s got exactly the required 40 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. Forty feet.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BURKE-21.48 and 18.53, I think, total, there’s pins out there.
MR. STONE-Yes. Exactly 40 feet.
MR. BRYANT-That’s all lot one?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BURKE-That’s the lot one frontage, just to share the driveway, to get in there.
MR. STONE-Mr. Burke, you made some comment, and I didn’t quite understand you. You
want to subdivide it, but you don’t want to do anything after you subdivide it?
MR. BURKE-No, no, no. I don’t want to do anything with the driveway.
MR. STONE-Okay. I thought you were subdividing it just for the purpose of subdividing it.
MR. BURKE-No, no.
MR. STONE-You’d like to sell these lots?
MR. BURKE-Eventually, but just as more of a.
MR. STONE-Yes. I assumed that, but I don’t want to do anything is what you said.
MR. BURKE-Right. I don’t want to do anything to the driveway.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-All right. We’ll continue here. Do any Board members have any other
questions for Mr. Burke? Any concerns?
MR. URRICO-What is the road frontage for parcel two?
MR. BURKE-For parcel two would be the.
MR. URRICO-91.61?
MRS. HUNT-Plus the 81.
MR. BURKE-81.74. The total minimum is 150 foot to share a driveway with two lots. That
whole section right there, with Lots One and Two, meets everything, even according to Craig
Brown, which I talked to yesterday. He has drafted a letter stating so. He hasn’t gotten it to
me yet, but he has no problem stating that, if you care to ask him or whatever. The only
concern is just instead of moving the driveway from lot three, that lot line, just to leave it
where it’s at, I don’t intend to put another driveway, nor after I get the approval on the
Planning Board, nor could I put a driveway in on Bay Road afterwards anyway, because I do
not meet that, unless I go for another variance, which I don’t need to. I can access it from
Berry Drive, without another zoning variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-You’re proposing one driveway to cover lots one and two?
MR. BURKE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-There’s an existing driveway on three.
MR. BURKE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-So there’s two driveways already on Bay Road.
MR. BURKE-Correct.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. STONE-Now, you said something about accessing lot three through lot four also?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s way on the other side.
MR. STONE-I know it is, but I thought he said something.
MR. BURKE-If I had to move this existing driveway to the lot line.
MR. STONE-If you had to move it.
MR. BURKE-Then I could still put a driveway off of Berry Drive, which is common around
to do a loop around from road to road on corner lots. I don’t see the need for that in this.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I do.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. URRICO-So the minimum requirement for this, for road frontage is 300 feet. So none of
these lots have that.
MR. ABBATE-Correct.
MRS. BARDEN-Unless they have a shared driveway.
MR. URRICO-Unless they have a shared driveway.
MR. BURKE-Which lots one and two have a shared driveway.
MR. STONE-These are legal, according to everything. This is the one that’s got to be double
in size.
MR. URRICO-Right, but the regulation as I’m reading it doesn’t say anything about
whether there’s a driveway, if there’s a shared driveway, but it’s saying it’s fronting. The
regulation says all residential lots fronting. So we’re saying that the two on Berry Drive are
not fronting on Bay Road.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. BRYANT-They’re fronting Berry Drive.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BURKE-I mean, I could have it front the other way, but then we wouldn’t be going this
avenue.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. URRICO-And you say that you’re retaining ownership of this, but there may be, down
the road, there might be some?
MR. BURKE-Well, my aunt and uncle own it right now, the Oudekerks, my wife’s aunt and
uncle, rather. I’m just waiting for closing next week to purchase the property. They’re
moving.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you a question. You’re currently not the owner of this property?
MR. BURKE-Correct. I’m agent.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have authority to authorize any kind of feasible alternatives or
conditions?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BURKE-According to their signature on the back. Being that they signed the back of
this application.
MR. ABBATE-They have designated you as the agent?
MR. BURKE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. That’s fair enough. That’s all I wanted to make sure. Do we
have any other questions? If not, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 77-2005, 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 we have anyone in the public this evening who would like to comment on Area Variance
No. 77-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to assume there’s no public input. I’m
going to now ask the Board members to offer their comments on this particular variance, and
may I please start with Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that there’s an existing driveway,
although I think eventually you’re going to have to do work on it anyway. When you look at
that, it’s really the lighter of the two driveways.
MR. BURKE-Actually the darker of the two is the existing driveway.
MR. BRYANT-This is the existing driveway that you claim is going to remain, and this is the
one you’re going to abandon?
MR. BURKE-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So I think you’re going to have to do work, regardless. I think there is
a feasible alternative than just to make this thing comply, and that is to share the driveway
with lot number four, and I don’t understand why we’re not doing that. So I’d be opposed to
the project.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. May I please turn to Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I basically have to echo what Mr. Bryant has said in this case. I
can understand the desire to not move the driveway, if it can be avoided, but I think, as Mr.
Bryant has pointed out, sooner or later, it’s going to have to have some repair work done on
it. The double lot width requirement is there for a reason, and it’s because if you’re on an
arterial road, that there’s going to be a lot more traffic. I know, at the time I was up there
visiting the site, there was a lot of traffic on that road, and I think in this case it behooves us
to adhere to the rule and attempt to reduce the amount of impact that extra driveways are
going to have, and I think a shared driveway is the proper route in this case. So I’m also
going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please?
MR. STONE-I have to admit, I don’t understand my two fellow Board members. This
property has been there for 375 years. I don’t know how long, it’s been there a long time.
That one driveway has served this piece of property forever and ever. The fact that we’re
going to build two lots to the north on Berry Lane have almost no impact at all on this,
except it is a subdivision, and has to be considered. The driveway that’s there has, as I say,
has been there forever. I go by it, unfortunately, one, two or three times a day, and it has
never been a problem. I’ve never seen a car come out of the driveway, much less go in the
driveway, any time I’ve gone by. I recognize the limitations of our Code. I understand the
arterial, but we’ve had two driveways on this stretch of road which is about 450 feet, or
something like that. We’re going to have two. I think, to me, this is a slam dunk. I think the
benefit to the applicant, to be able to subdivide this property, which I’d prefer that he didn’t
do, only because I would love to see it stay the way it is, but again, that’s progress, but I have
no problem with this application at all.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Underwood, please.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Mr. Stone and his description of what’s
here. The original circular drive was probably back in the days when it was a farm and nice
to drive a tractor around and not have to back it up. With the abandonment of that and the
increase in the distance between the proposed driveway to the north there, I don’t think that
it’s a big problem. I think that the main concern on arterial highways is when you just have
a tiny driveway and people are apt to back out of their driveway, and that’s not going to be
the instance in here because both of those houses you’re going to pull into them and be
coming out head forward. So you’re not going to be creating problems on that main arterial
highway, and again, too, I don’t think lot four and lot five have anything to do with it
whatsoever.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with my last two Board members who spoke. I think
when you really look at it, you’re talking about adding one driveway to this property, and
that driveway is going to be somewhere in the area of 260 feet away from the other driveway,
which I think is sort of what they had in mind when they changed the Code to make it double
the lot width. In effect, these driveways are going to be more than doubled, almost 80% of
that double lot width apart. So I think that’s sufficient, in my estimation, I think it’s
something that I would approve.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with the last three speakers. We have two
driveways now, and we will have two driveways later, and they will be further apart. So I
don’t have any problem. I think that double the width, again, was to make sure that you
didn’t have one piece of property after another with driveways, and I have no problem with
this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. I, too, have no problems with the application. I
think it’s a reasonable application. Sure, there may possibly be, and I use the word possibly,
a feasible alternative, but I think the application stands on its own as originally submitted,
and in view of that, I would support the application. I’m going to close the public hearing at
the present time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion. Is there a motion for Area Variance No.
77-2005?
MR. STONE-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2005 PATRICK BURKE, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
936 Bay Road. The applicant has proposed to subdivide a 5.3 acre parcel into five
approximately one acre lots. The parcel is currently zoned SR-1A, and the entire parcel
fronts two roads, Bay Road and Berry Drive. As I said, there would be five lots, all of which
exceed one acre in size. The applicant needs relief for Lot Three, specifically 150 foot of relief
from the lot width requirement that is required, which is double the minimum lot width for
the zone, for a lot fronting an arterial road per Section 179-19-020. In considering this Area
Variance, we are asked to consider the following: Whether the benefit can be achieved by
other means feasible to the applicant. It could in some way, but the most important thing is
that the property currently has two driveways on Bay Road. When all is said and done,
when Lots One and Two have a shared driveway, and the existing middle lot, the lot with the
existing home on it has one driveway, there will still be two driveways. That Lots Four and
Five, which front on Berry Drive, do not really come into consideration, except that it is a
subdivision. This certainly will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood because of
the reasons I stated. There will be two driveways now. There were two driveways. The
request substantial only in the fact that it is 150 foot of relief because the lot is currently 150
foot, and the Code says, on an arterial, it has to be 300, and because of my previous
comments, I don’t think that that really is substantial. The request will not have adverse
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
physical or environmental affects because the driveway that currently exists is large enough
with sufficient turning room at the east end to allow access and egress going forward rather
than having to back out onto Bay Road. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, I don’t
think it’s an important consideration. Therefore, I move that we approve Area Variance No.
77-2005.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 77-2005 is five in favor, two against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 77-2005 is approved.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to Mr. McNulty and Mr. Bryant. In my zeal
for approving this thing, I criticized them, and I should not have done so.
MR. ABBATE-That is correct, and it was inappropriate on your part.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s okay. We’ll get even.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fine, Mr. McNulty and Mr. Bryant.
MR. STONE-But I publicly said I was wrong. I agree.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE
OWNER(S): NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE ZONING CI-1A LOCATION 15-19 BOULEVARD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF FOUIR EXISTING BUILDINGS TOTALING 7,580
SQ. FT. AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 8,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF. SPR FOR OCTOBER 2005, AV 43-2004 APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED, SPR
WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRES 0.36 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 303.20-2-34 AND 33 SECTION 179-4-030
NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2005, Nicholas F. Daigle, Meeting Date: October 19,
2005 “Project Location: 15-19 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes demolition of 4-buildings on-site, totaling 7,380 sq. ft., and replacing with one
building at 8,000 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 4-feet of rear setback relief for the new building, where 30-feet is the
minimum required.
19% of permeability relief is also sought, allowing for 11% of permeable surface, where 30% is
the minimum required.
All relief requested is per § 179-4-030 for the CI-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 43-2004: Approved 5/26/04, similar project and relief requested as this one, see resolution.
Staff comments:
This is a very similar project to the one identified above, the variance granted was not acted
upon in a timely manner, and thus, expired on 9/14/05.
The only difference is that the original request was for construction of a 7,500 sq. ft. building,
this application is for an 8,000 sq. ft. structure. This changes the proposed permeability of
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
the site, from 12.2% to 11%. The site development data (total sq. ft.) is not calculated
correctly, and the proposed land usage block on site plan S2 adds up to 104% of site, with
92% of site hard surface area and building footprint and 12% being plantings and lawn.
Using the breakdown of these calculations, the hard surface areas equal 35,700, together with
the building footprint 15,800, totals 51,500 sq. ft. of impermeable area (divided by parcel
area), totals 89%.
Still, the site will gain 11% of permeable area where none is there now, specifically the site
plan shows seeded lawn area and planting beds.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: Daigle, Nicholas F. Owner(s): Nicholas F. Daigle ID
Number: QBY-05-AV-78 County Project#: Oct05-29 Current Zoning: CI-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing demolition of four existing buildings
totaling 7,580 sq. ft. and construction of a new 8,000 sq. ft. storage building. Relief requested
from rear yard setback and permeability requirements. Site Location: 15-19 Boulevard Tax
Map Number(s): 303.20-2-34 and 33 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to
remove two existing structures from the property and to construct an 8,000 sq. ft. one story
distribution center. The new building is to be located 24 ft. from the rear property line where
30 ft. is required. In addition the site is 100% non-permeable where the applicant proposes
12.2% and 30% is required. The information submitted shows an office building and a
warehouse buildings to remain, parking layout, lighting, existing and new green areas. In
addition, the information submitted indicates the applicant’s variance has expired so this
application is submitted. The County Planning Board recommended no county impact in
May of 2004. 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 10/14/05.
MR. BRYANT-Before you read this, Mr. Chairman, I have a question about this, primarily
for Staff. This was a variance that was approved last year and it expired and now we’re re-
hearing it, and my question is, why, in our package, weren’t the minutes from that approval
supplied?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the difference was that they’re requesting 500 more square feet
of building. It’s a minor change from what we approved.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but see this has been my argument for a while now. A lot
of these that we re-hear and never provide the minutes. I didn’t get them.
MR. STONE-But they are here.
MR. URRICO-They’re in the package.
MR. STONE-They’re in the package.
MR. BRYANT-Not in my package. I went through it three times.
MRS. BARDEN-I was really trying to be conscientious for your benefit.
MR. BRYANT-I went through it three times, I don’t have it in my packet.
MR. STONE-It’s under Staff comments. It’s part of, it’s attributed to.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not in my package, I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-We have a gentleman at the table. Can I assume that you’re the petitioner?
MR. DAIGLE-Yes, you can.
MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough, please to speak into the microphone and for the
record identify yourself and your place of residence.
MR. DAIGLE-My name is Nick Daigle. My residence is 11 Sugar Pine Road.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now would you just explain to us why you feel we should approve
your request for an Area Variance.
MR. DAIGLE-Well, I feel that we’ve actually taken a look at the site and realized that we
could actually improve on the relief that we needed by turning the building, even though
we’re increasing the size of the building, we’re actually asking for less relief than previously
approved.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and any time during the hearing, if you wish to add anything else, just
let us know and we’ll be more than happy to listen to it. Do any of the Board members have
any questions?
MR. STONE-Yes. I just want to make sure that Mr. Daigle understands that if we grant this
variance, you are obligated to keep that green space.
MR. DAIGLE-Yes, I do understand that.
MR. STONE-And maintained and attractive looking and all that good stuff.
MR. DAIGLE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to include it as a condition, when we get to it, that you maintain
that. Okay. Yes, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I just have a question, since I wasn’t privy to the minutes before the
meeting, was permeability an issue last time?
MR. DAIGLE-I’m not certain that it was. It was discussed.
MR. BRYANT-You were at 12. something percent the last time.
MR. STONE-It will be increased to 12.
MRS. HUNT-It was increased.
MR. MC NULTY-It was increased from zero to 12, the proposal. As I remember, that was
the consideration we had, that while it wasn’t coming close to meeting what the actual
requirement was, it was a dramatic improvement, versus the current condition.
MR. BRYANT-And at the last meeting when you got your approval, I had asked you a
question about what determined the size of the building and how you came to that, and your
response was that you had a tenant and he expressed a certain interest in that size building,
whatever. My question is, why are we changing the size of the building now?
MR. DAIGLE-We’re dealing with the same tenant once again. It’s Fastenall Incorporated.
They actually have not committed, at this point, to rent the space yet, but before I can
commit to them, I need to have the approval, and they’re telling me that they’d like to have
an 8,000 square foot building to grow into.
MR. BRYANT-So it’s the same tenant, basically.
MR. DAIGLE-It’s the same tenant.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board for Mr. Daigle? If there are
no other questions, then I’ll open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 78-2005. Do
we have any public input? Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to comment
on Area Variance No. 78-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no one is interested in making public comments. Now I’m going to ask
the Board members to offer their commentary on Area Variance No. 78-2005, and may I start
with Mrs. Hunt, please.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MRS. HUNT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I made the motion the last time to approve,
and I really have not changed my opinion. The 500 square feet additional building is
insignificant, really, and the permeability he needs now 19% of relief instead of 17.8, which I
don’t think is significant either, and I like the idea that there will be some permeability, that
there will be some plantings of grass, and so I would again approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with Joyce. I think that when you look at the
improvements in the physical state of the site, a single building’s going to be much better, in
the fact that you are going to have permeability established on site. The additional request
for the two percent isn’t going to trip any big, grand change in my opinion from what it was
the last time. So, I’d be in agreement.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. I think it’s, you know, it’s essentially the same
application. The figures are slightly different, but the net result is the same. It’s a dramatic
improvement over what currently exists and what results is going to be fitting with the
neighborhood and consistent with it. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I agree, also. I’m just a little bit concerned because last year we did this
thing, and you got an approval and you had a tenant and we still haven’t committed. Tell
him to sign on the dotted line and get it over with.
MR. DAIGLE-I’m trying.
MR. BRYANT-Start building that building. Let’s get it over with. I’m in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree with what everybody else said. It is also interesting that the
only offended party in this thing would be the property owner to the south, I mean, because
that’s where the set back is being reduced, and I didn’t hear anybody talking about it. So I’m
certainly in favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of the application as presented.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I’m going to close the public hearing now.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion.
MR. STONE-You’ve got to tell us how you’re going to vote.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to support the application. It makes sense, and my fellow Board
members said it right, and I agree with them. Having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion
for Area Variance No. 78-2005. Is there a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion.
MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead, read it, Joyce.
MR. ABBATE-Did you check that for a SEQRA, did we have anything on there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It was whatever we had before. I mean, I think we can.
MR. ABBATE-We can just go on what we had before, then?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I believe someone was making a motion. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2005 NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
15-19 Boulevard. The applicant proposes to combine two pre-existing, nonconforming parcels
into one new, conforming parcel, and proposes to construct a new, 8,000 square foot pre-
engineered warehouse to replace four buildings and other associated site improvements. The
applicant requests four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement and
19% relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement as per Section 179-4-030 for the
CI-1A zone. I think the benefit to the applicant could not be achieved by any other means
except by the way he has proposed it. I see it not as an undesirable change but as actually a
positive change to the neighborhood and nearby properties. The request is not substantial.
In fact, the permeability will increase to 11%. I do not think it will have any adverse affects,
either physical or environmental, and whether it’s self-created, that’s probably true, but as I
said, I think it’s an improvement, and therefore I request that we pass Area Variance No. 78-
2005.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 78-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 78-2005 is approved.
MR. DAIGLE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JASON E. MAYNARD AGENT(S): BILL
DEAN, CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION CO. OWNER(S): JASON E. MAYNARD ZONING WR-
1A LOCATION 226 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING
BOATHOUSE, REPAIR EXISTING DOCK, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW RETAINING WALL.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP
92-589 SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN CO. PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.40 ACRES; 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
226.19-1-82 AND 72 SECTION 179-4-030
BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2005, Jason E. Maynard, Meeting Date: October 19,
2005 “Project Location: 226 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes to replace the existing boathouse, repair the existing dock, and
construct a new retaining wall.
Relief Required:
10.77-feet of relief from the side yard setback for the dock, resulting in the North-side of the
dock being 9.23-feet from the property line, relief sought is per § 179-5-050.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 53-2005: Pending; construction of boathouse, patio, and retaining wall.
Staff comments:
The existing dock is proposed to be repaired and resurfaced with no change to size, location or
configuration; and will not encroach further into the side setback. The boathouse is proposed
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
to be removed entirely and rebuilt with no change to the original size or location and only a
slight increase in height, of six-inches (11.7-feet to 12.1-feet).”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: Maynard, Jason E. Owner(s): Jason E. Maynard ID
Number: QBY-05-AV-72 County Project#: Oct05-37 Current Zoning: WR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to replace existing
boathouse, repair existing dock, and construct a new retaining wall. Relief requested from
side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 226 Lake Parkway Tax Map Number(s):
226.19-1-82 and 72 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing to replace
existing boathouse, repair existing dock, and construct a new retaining wall. The boathouse
is proposed to be 9.23 ft. from the side property line where 20 ft. is required. The information
submitted shows the location of the boathouse, elevations of the boathouse, and the property
layout. The information also indicates addition applications have been submitted to Lake
George Park Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. 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 10/14/05.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, did you comment on the Unlisted on the previous one?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he did.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an Unlisted Action.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it was a new application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All there was was a Short Form in there.
MR. STONE-Yes. It’s the Short Form, but we have to vote on it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We can come back and do it as housekeeping.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we do it the very last thing. Okay. Thanks. We have a
gentleman at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the
record please identify yourself and place of residence.
MR. DEAN-My name is Bill Dean. I reside in Fort Ann. I’m acting as the agent for Jason
Maynard.
MR. ABBATE-He has designated you in writing, and you have the authority to approve
feasible alternatives and conditions as may be appropriate?
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Please proceed.
MR. DEAN-Well, it’s pretty much as stated here. The only alternative would really create a
great increase in cost for my client. No matter which way we did it, there would be additional
cost to him to do it a different way than what we were planning right here. Other than that,
there would be some environmental issues, if it were required to be moved over to meet the 20
foot setback that is required in that area.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add at this time?
MR. DEAN-No, thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You certainly may add anything you wish at any time during this
hearing.
MR. DEAN-Yes.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Do any members of the Board have any questions of Mr. Dean?
MR. STONE-Mr. Dean, is the crib going to stay?
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-You’re just resurfacing. That’s what it says, but I.
MR. DEAN-Minor repairs to the crib.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for Mr. Dean?
MR. BRYANT-There’s really not going to be any change in the existing structure as far as
the setbacks go?
MR. DEAN-None whatsoever.
MR. STONE-But are we reconstructing the stairs?
MR. DEAN-Everything goes back exactly as it is right now.
MR. STONE-Are we reconstructing the stairs?
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Are you taking them out?
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-I would like Staff to comment on land bridges, if Staff can, because I don’t
understand it either, and there’s definitely a land bridge to that dock currently. The other
thing I noticed today when I was on the property is it appears to be a fence, and it’s not a
stormwater fence, a fence between the old house and the shoreline, and I don’t know the
status of fences. I’ve never seen one like that before, and I have to admit, I did not notice
whether it was stockade or whether there was space between it, but if it’s a stockade fence,
that is the front yard, as far as the Town goes, the lake is front yard, and we’re not supposed
to have fences there.
MR. DEAN-It would not remain.
MR. STONE-Good. Do you so stipulate?
MR. DEAN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Susan, I’m not putting you on the spot, because I don’t know the answer, and
we’ve talked about it a long time, on a number of things. We had it with Hoffman recently,
and I don’t think it’s ever become very clear.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, I guess I would suggest, it’s not really relative to the relief that’s
required. Mr. Maynard still has to appear before the Planning Board for site plan review, all
of the hard surfaces within 50 feet, including the boathouse, but I would say that I can bring
it to the attention of Craig Brown and if it’s an interpretation of the Zoning Administrator on
the land bridge aspect, then we can have that ready for the Planning Board to consider next
week.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. I mean, you guys read the minutes. We know that.
MR. DEAN-May I ask a question in regards to that?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. DEAN-Just so I’m enlightened. What are we talking about a land bridge? So I would
be informed to be able to represent Mr. Maynard at that meeting about a land bridge.
MR. STONE-Land bridge is going from the upper surface to the top of the dock.
MR. DEAN-What is the issue with it?
MR. STONE-By some standards they’re not allowed, and I’m not sure what they are.
MR. DEAN-I guess that was my next question. How do you?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m not sure it was a Town restriction. Maybe Lake George Park
Commission.
MR. STONE-It may be the Park Commission.
MR. MC NULTY-I think it was Park Commission that at least for a time didn’t like them.
I’m not sure if they’ve got a prohibition against them or if they just discouraged them.
MR. STONE-I agree, Chuck.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really see, on this site, any other way possible that you could do
it logically.
MR. STONE-I thought about that too, Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, there’s no other way to get there. You go down and come back
up and go down and come back up.
MR. STONE-Do you have a permit from the Park Commission?
MR. DEAN-To do this whole thing.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. DEAN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Any other comments for Mr. Dean? If not, I’m going
to open up the public hearing. Is there any one in the public who would like to comment on
Area Variance No. 72-2005? Would you raise your hand.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. So I’m going to go on, and I’m going to ask members to
please, members of the Board, to please offer their comments, and may I start please with Mr.
Stone, please.
MR. STONE-We have seen these kind of situations many times. There are a lot of docks,
particularly on Cleverdale, which are a foot and a half from the line, if not over the line.
Would I prefer it to be in the middle of the property? Yes, but I certainly understand Mr.
Maynard’s position. I mean, the dock that is there now matched the house that was, and I
have to admit, it went, I didn’t even know it had gone, and I’m five houses away, but
obviously Mr. Maynard probably has a desire to make them both look similar, and I can
understand that, because that’s what the other property was, and it was very attractive from
that standpoint. The relief is minimal in the sense that it was there before. It’s going to be
there when you fix it, and we’ve had a lot of properties like that. So I certainly would vote to
approve.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I too, am in favor of it. As far as the setbacks go, you’re not going to increase
that distance. It’s all basically status quo, and I’m for the status quo. So I would approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico, please.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of the project as presented.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I would approve it, too. I think it would be an improvement on
the lake.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement, too.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Ditto.
MR. ABBATE-And I get a chance to vote here, too. Ditto, ditto.
MR. STONE-The only comment I’ll make, in talking to some of the workers there, most guys
have never had the opportunity to get inside in the winter when they build over the winter,
and with that garage, they were telling me they can’t wait to use it as a warming hut or
something. So it will be interesting.
MR. DEAN-To be seen.
MR. STONE-To be seen.
MR. ABBATE-At this point, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 72-2005. Is there a
motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2005 JASON E. MAYNARD, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
226 Lake Parkway. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing boathouse, repair the
existing dock and construct a new retaining wall, and he is requesting 10.77 feet of relief from
the side yard setback relief for the dock, resulting in the north side of the dock being 9.23 feet
from the property line. Again, the existing dock is proposed to be repaired and resurfaced
with no change to the size, location or configuration, and it will not encroach further into the
side setback. The boathouse is proposed to be removed entirely and rebuilt with no change to
the original height and location, and only a slight increase in height of six inches. It’s going
to go from 11.7 feet to 12.1 feet. As previously mentioned, this is a pre-existing condition on
the site and we don’t really feel that it’s going to have any detriment to the neighborhood or
the environment by allowing this project to continue. With the condition that the applicant
remove the fence along the shoreline.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I have a question of Mr. Dean.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. STONE-I gather, looking at the old map, since the other house encroached within 50
feet, your building permit has you back 52 feet?
MR. DEAN-Fifty-two point something.
MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t realize that they encroached as much as they did. I also would
like to make sure you agree that fence would go. I just would like that.
MR. DEAN-Yes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to include that as a condition.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 72-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 72-2005 is approved, with a
condition, and that condition is that you remove the fence. Do you agree to that condition,
for the record?
MR. DEAN-Yes, sir, I do.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The appellant has agreed that, as part of the condition of approval, he
will, in fact, remove the fence.
MR. STONE-The fence along the shoreline.
MR. ABBATE-A fence along the shoreline.
MR. DEAN-The fence is attached to the retaining wall?
MR. STONE-No, it just seems to be sitting there, what I saw today. Susan, did you go down
when you were there?
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t recall a fence.
MR. DEAN-There’s one attached to the top of the existing retaining wall which is being
removed and replaced with other retaining wall.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Why are we even talking about a fence that’s not even attached to the dock
or the deck?
MR. STONE-Because it offends me.
MR. BRYANT-It might offend you. Then go through Code. It has nothing to do with this.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, we don’t get into a debate. If a member of this Board has a
concern about something, he or she has every right to express that concern, whether we agree
with that or not.
MR. STONE-I didn’t make it a condition. I said, I asked him if that.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t agree to that condition, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then, would you like to revise your vote?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I vote no, with that condition.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Because it’s not relevant.
MR. ABBATE-Fine. That’s quite all right. You have a right to your opinion. Then I’m
going to modify the vote to show that the vote for Area Variance No. 72-2005 is six in favor,
and one against. Now, again, if there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 72-
2005 is approved with conditions, and the appellant understand the conditions.
MR. DEAN-Yes, sir, I do.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Before we continue here, let me go back to Area
Variance No. 78-2005, Nicholas F. Daigle. Mr. Secretary, I understand that there is a Short
Environmental Assessment Form?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, there was.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay.
MOTION THAT THERE IS A SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED
BY THE APPLICANT INDICATING THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE FROM
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE
RESPONSES. AS SUCH, I MOVE THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven to zero to approve the Short Environmental Assessment
Form. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2005 SEQRA TYPE II GGV INC, d/b/a THE CHERRY TOMATO
AGENT(S): THOMAS MC NALLY OWNER(S): GGV INC. d/b/a THE CHERRY TOMATO
ZONING NC-1A LOCATION 668 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR FOR OCTOBER 2003; BP 2005-377 SEPTIC ALT., BP
2005-224 COM’L ALT., BP 94-085 DECK, BP 91-277 ALT. TO BLDG. WARREN CO.
PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 1.98
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-62 SECTION 179-4-060
TOM MC NALLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2005, GGV Inc., d/b/a The Cherry Tomato, Meeting
Date: October 19, 2005 “Project Location: 668 State Route 149 Description of Proposed
Project:
The applicant proposes a 600 sq. ft. addition to the existing restaurant.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 14-feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum setback for the travel
corridor overlay district, per §179-4-060.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 60-2005: Pending, 10/25/05.
BP 2005-377: Issued 7/5/05 for septic alteration.
BP 2005-224: Issued 5/3/05 for commercial, interior alterations.
Staff comments:
The applicants propose a 600 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the existing restaurant. This
addition will be 61-feet from the edge of the road ROW, where a minimum of 75-feet is
required.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
Because this is an expansion of an existing building, it does not appear to be feasible to locate
the addition further from the 75-foot setback line. This speaks to the feasible alternatives, as
well as to demonstrated hardship.
The application is subject to site plan review for expansions to the site, including the
proposed addition and a parking area expansion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: GGV, Inc. d/b/a The Cherry Tomato Owner(s): GGV,
Inc. d/b/a The Cherry Tomato ID Number: QBY-05-AV-79 County Project#: Oct05-30
Current Zoning: NC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes
construction of a 600 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the existing restaurant. Relief requested
from travel corridor overlay setback requirements. Site Location: 668 State Route 149 Tax
Map Number(s): 279.00-1-62 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 600 sq.
ft. addition to an existing restaurant. The addition is located 61 ft. from the front yard
setback that requires 50 ft. and the addition is located 61 ft. from the travel Corridor overlay
that requires a 75 ft. setback. The existing building is located in a non-conforming location.
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 10/14/05.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We do have some gentlemen at the table. Would you be kind enough
to speak into the microphone and for the record please identify yourselves and your place of
residence.
MILON VESIC
MR. VESIC-Milon Vesic, 8 Olden Court.
MR. MC NALLY-Tom McNally, 177 Broad Street, Albany.
JOSEPH GLEASON
MR. GLEASON-Joseph Gleason, 20 Sweet Road, Stillwater.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please proceed.
MR. GLEASON-We opened this restaurant after it had been vacant for about seven years.
The business we’ve offered is a fairly gourmet restaurant, at medium prices. It’s been very
successful. We’d like to expand our kitchen, and also accommodate 16 more seats for
restaurant customers. There’s no other way we could expand except as the applicant shows.
So we’re at your mercy, pretty much.
MR. ABBATE-I would prefer you use different terminology, but I guess you are, but
anyway. Is there anything else you’d like to add at this time? If not, if you come up with
something during the course of this hearing that you feel is pertinent to your case, please feel
free to bring it to our attention, and if you have any questions concerning our procedure,
don’t hesitate to ask a question. Okay. Do members of the Board have any questions
concerning Area Variance No. 79-2005, otherwise known as The Cherry Tomato?
MR. BRYANT-I just have one question. I just want to verify that you couldn’t put the
addition anywhere and still be within that 75 foot setback, could you?
MR. GLEASON-No.
MR. STONE-The whole building is.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know. The whole building is.
MR. STONE-The drainage is going to be back toward the pond?
MR. GLEASON-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s all, it’s going there now and it’s going to continue to go there.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. GLEASON-Yes. There is a topography survey that we had. It all goes back toward the
pond.
MR. ABBATE-And while he’s checking that out, are you the owner of the establishment?
MR. GLEASON-Myself and my son-in-law.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-And as you said, you’ve been very successful.
MR. GLEASON-Thank you.
MR. STONE-I’ve never seen so much traffic.
MR. ABBATE-Does someone have a question? Okay. If there are no questions from
members of the Board, then I’d like to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 79-
2005. Do we have anyone in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No.
79-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-No? I see none. Okay. If that’s the case, then I’m going to ask members of
the Board for their comments, and may I start with Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Thank you for starting with me. I think this building is a welcome addition to
the neighborhood. I think when we talk about undesirable changes to the neighborhood, I
think this is the exact opposite. It has given life to a location that was dead, and in doing so I
think we’ve created a nice atmosphere as well. I don’t think the benefit can be achieved by
any other means feasible by the applicant. Considering that part of the location is already in
the right of way, this addition is about as far away from the right of way as possibly can be.
Rather than an undesirable change, as I said earlier, this is going to be a positive change. I
think the request is not even substantial in that respect. I don’t see any adverse
environmental or physical effects, and the difficulty may be considered self-created, but it’s
also created by the community that’s made this place a popular place to go. So I’d be in
favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I would agree with Mr. Urrico on all points.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can basically echo what’s been said. It sounds like a logical,
reasonable proposal and doesn’t look like there’s any real practical alternative. So I’d be in
favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-The only thing I wish you hadn’t said was that it’s been seven years, because I
go by there every day, and it doesn’t seem like it’s been empty for seven years, but I’m sure it
has. I agree with everybody else. I think it’s a very positive change for the community, for
the neighborhood. It’s given life to a corner that has sorely needed it for many years, and I
think you’re going to find that it will be greatly appreciated by those people who just pass
through, which is obviously one of your goals, and I think it’s a great addition.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with everybody else, too. I think that the original
building being constructed, Bayberry and its predecessors, never considered it was going to be
that busy a road, and that’s why it was built that close to the road, but in this instance, it’s
not going to make any difference. It’s away from the road and it’s going to help your
business. So that’s a positive.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-I agree. I’d be in favor of the project for all the reasons previously stated.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion.
MR. URRICO-You forgot yourself.
MR. ABBATE-I agree with all my fellow Board members, truly, and I particularly agree
with what Mr. Urrico said. I think he said it quite eloquently, initially, and I would certainly
support your application. Now, I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 79-2005.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have a Short Environmental Assessment Form.
MS. GAGLIARDI-This is a Type II Action, I think.
MR. MC NULTY-You don’t need one when it’s a Type II.
MR. STONE-No, it’s Type II.
MR. ABBATE-We don’t need one. Correct. So, again, is there a motion for Area Variance
No. 79-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2005 GGV, INC. D/B/A CHERRY
TOMATO, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
668 State Route 149. The applicant is proposing a 600 square foot addition to the existing
restaurant. In doing so, the applicant has made a request of 14 feet of relief from the 75 foot
minimum setback for the Travel Corridor Overlay per 179-4-060. The applicant has indicated
that the project does not look like it’s going to be able to be achieved in any way feasible
other than the way that’s been submitted to us, being that the building is already abutting
the right of way, part of the building is already in the right of way and this addition is about
as far away from the right of way as can possibly be put in there. There won’t be an
undesirable change to the neighborhood. As indicated earlier, this is actually a positive
change for the neighborhood. It’s put new life in an area which didn’t have any existing
business before, or at least for the last seven or eight years. The request is not substantial.
There are no adverse physical or environmental affects, and the alleged difficulty is not self-
created. It’s a creation of a business doing well. I move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 79-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 79-2005 is approved. I have one
statement to make. Just one comment. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall, in the granting
of both Use Variances and Area Variances, have the authority to impose such reasonable
conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of the
property. Section New York State Town Law 267B(4).
MR. BRYANT-Now that you’ve said it, I want to apologize to Mr. Stone for getting all
upset, but, frankly, if I were the applicant, I would have not accepted those conditions.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-Because it’s one thing to have a condition that’s relative to the project. This
fence could have been pre-zoned, and because it offends you really is not germane.
MR. STONE-No. I don’t think it’s legal, Al, to be very serious about it.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/05)
MR. BRYANT-How do you know it wasn’t put in in the 60’s? I mean, I could show you
stockade fences on the front lawn all over Town.
MR. STONE-I know. We have lots of those.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
47