2005-11-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
INDEX
Use Variance No. 15-2005 Cingular Wireless (Cont’d Pg. 35) 1.
Tax Map No. 279.00-1-50
Area Variance No. 68-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc. 2.
d/b/a Golden Corral Restaurant
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6
Sign Variance No. 70-2005 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
4.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5 and 4
Area Variance No. 80-2005 Michael Blackburn 7.
Tax Map No. 253.00-1-18
Area Variance No. 81-2005 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 14.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36
Area Variance No. 82-2005 Andrew, Jr. & Barbara Sue Darnley 32.
Tax Map No. 308.6-1-70
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 11/16/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES MC NULTY
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
USE VARIANCE NO. 15-2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS – MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
MR. ABBATE-Now Staff has made a suggestion that this Board do a motion to deny without
prejudice. Before doing that, I would like to hear from the Board on this particular
recommendation that we deny without prejudice. So if any members of the Board have
anything they want to say about this, please let me know.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if all the other Board members, I didn’t receive
anything in my package relative to this, to determine how they came to that
recommendation. So I don’t even know what the heck they’re talking about. So if maybe
Staff can enlighten us on that situation, how they came to that conclusion, and then I’d be
able to talk intelligently about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, let’s give Staff an opportunity to digest that question. Do we
have any other questions concerning this, so that Staff may be prepared to answer them?
Anybody have any other questions? Okay. Staff, would you please comment.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have the actual letter that the Zoning Administrator, I believe, sent
to the applicant for Cingular Wireless, but I believe that we asked for an update or status of
the project within a certain amount of time, which has since lapsed. So they’re aware of the
fact that because they didn’t present any new information, that they would have this result.
MR. BRYANT-Has that time, in fact, lapsed? I mean, what dates are we talking about, and
secondly, is there anybody from Cingular Wireless here?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I think the 16 of February 2005, as I best can recollect, was when they
th
initially came before us.
MR. BRYANT-Don’t they have a year to respond?
MR. ABBATE-Well, your question is valid. Staff, this is my concern. If we were to deny
without prejudice, without the applicant being here, would we, in fact, be denying him or her
their right to be heard? And I truly don’t know. How do we protect the rights of the
individual on this?
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MRS. BARDEN-I think with a letter indicating that they, you know, what the status of the
project was, you were giving them that option.
MR. BRYANT-Where is the letter, though? I don’t have a copy of that letter. Did you get a
copy of the letter?
MR. STONE-I did not.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Did anybody receive a copy of the letter?
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. URRICO-No, and I don’t even know what we’re talking about.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. This is from memory, guys. It seems to me that back in February of
2005 Cingular came before this Board and they wanted to put up a tower, a wireless type
system, and we were very concerned about that, and we raised a number of issue, and because
of the fact that we were concerned, and I don’t recall who the Chairman was at the time, we
decided, the Board decided, to refer it to the Planning Board for a site plan review, etc., etc.,
and that ended it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, it was probably Jaime because February I wasn’t here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. So that was the last of it, unless somebody else can enlighten
me about anything else. I don’t have a problem, but, Staff, this is what I feel. It seems to me
that if I were to deny this without prejudice, I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable with that. I
would prefer to let this die a natural death, if you will. If that doesn’t make sense, tell me.
Deny without prejudice is like an oxymoron, something like that, but I need some guidance
here, guys.
MRS. BARDEN-Would you just give me a minute.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. That’s not a problem. While you’re doing that, I’ll go on to the next
one, and get that out of the way.
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. ZONING HC-INT LOCATION QUAKER
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
PARKING SPACES AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM WETLANDS.
CROSS REF. SPR 57-2005 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-Basically what happened is this. The Planning Board heard this last night,
and based upon the information that the Planning Board had, they were concerned with
traffic, and the Planning Board tabled the Golden Corral pending a survey on traffic impact
on the area. Is that correct, Staff?
MR. STONE-There’s a motion. There’s a resolution.
MRS. BARDEN-In the resolution. So I’m merely suggesting, this evening that we table the
Golden Corral.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING,
INC. d/b/a THE GOLDEN CORRAL, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until that time that they have completed the process with the Planning Board, SEQRA
Review and the traffic study, and then they can return at that time.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment?
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-In my view, even though you haven’t opened a public hearing, and I don’t
recall if the public hearing was even kept open after the original application. The fact
remains that this is an issue, an item that’s in our published agenda, and therefore there may
be people here that have comment relative to this, and it would only be fair that they be
heard.
MR. ABBATE-Your point is well taken, and I don’t object to that. I left the public hearing
open, by the way. So if there’s anyone in the public this evening who would like to comment
on 68-2005, please come to the table.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I did attend the Planning Board meeting last
night, and the reason for the tabling of their site plan review had to do with traffic, traffic on
Quaker Road. The relief they’re requesting here before this Board has absolutely nothing to
do with that, and I just don’t know why it’s necessary to table this.
MR. STONE-May I respond to that?
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-It’s an Unlisted SEQRA Action, and therefore since SEQRA has still not been
decided I don’t think we can touch it.
MR. ABBATE-You’re right.
MR. BRYANT-By motion we granted the Planning Board Lead Agency status on this
particular application.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And therefore we have to wait until they’ve completed their SEQRA review.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Are there any other comments regarding Area Variance No. 68-2005? If not,
then the motion, as I recall, was seven to zero to table, and I do believe we did a vote on that.
So then Area Variance No. 68-2005 will be tabled pending the result of the Planning Board
SEQRA and traffic study. Now, getting back to Cingular Wireless, Staff, please.
MRS. BARDEN-I do have, the last thing I can find is in February of this year. This Board
requested that the Planning Board act as Lead Agent for SEQRA purposes, and I think that’s
where the trail ends. So, again, I’m looking for the letter that the Zoning Administrator sent
to Cingular Wireless with a date, and I’ll find that for you, but I still believe that it’s just the
amount of time that’s lapsed, and that we did send them a letter of notification asking for the
status of the project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now I have one other question. For the sake of argument, let’s say
that we, in fact, this evening deny this without prejudice. Now Cingular then decides to come
before us. Would that be a re-hearing, or would that be a new application?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MRS. BARDEN-That would be a new application.
MR. ABBATE-Definitely a new application. I’m satisfied, if that’s what Staff says.
MRS. BARDEN-But if you would like to, if you want to keep that until the end of the
meeting, and I’ll keep searching, that’s fine, if you feel more comfortable with it.
MR. ABBATE-A Board member has a question.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m just not comfortable doing anything with this until I know what
we’re talking about. I mean, I think we need some specifics on this.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Urrico.
MR. ABBATE-Would the Board then go along with my not so sophisticated result in saying
perhaps we should let Area Variance No. 15-2005 die a natural death, and not take any
action?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, why don’t we give Staff the benefit of the doubt, give her
until the end of the meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-See if she can find the documentation, and if she can share that with us, and
then we can make a determination.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. That sounds like a fair thing to do, and I have no problems with
that at all. Okay.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
LLC SCOTT MAUPHIN, PARK MANAGER AGENT(S): LYNN SCHWARTZ, ESQ. & JOHN C.
LEMERY, ESQ. OWNER(S): HWP DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION
1221 AND 1213 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 475 SQ. FT. DOUBLE SIDED
FREESTANDING-MONUMENT SIGN; 390 SQ. FT. UPLIT WALL SIGN WESTERN
ELEVATION SIDE; 504 SQ. FT. DOWN LIT WALL SIGN SOUTHERN ELEVATION, AND 168
SQ. FT. DOWN LIT WALL SIGN SOUTH SIDE OF PORCH-LIKE ROOF. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2004-898 HOTEL/WATERPARK; BP 99-3338; BP 99-
3337 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005 LOT SIZE 6.76 ACRES, 3.9
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5 AND 4 SECTION 140-6
MR. ABBATE-There is correspondence from their attorney requesting that The Great Escape
be tabled until the first meeting in December of this year, which is next month.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I just think for the purposes of the record, the Secretary should
read this in, the last one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was received via fax and overnight mail to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, “Dear Chairman Abbate and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I am
writing subsequent to my November 4, 2005 letter to you requesting a postponement of our
application and hearing from the Zoning Board of Appeals’ November 16 meeting to
th
November 23 meeting.” And I think there’s another letter that supersedes that one, too. I
rd
don’t have a copy of that letter.
MR. STONE-That’s okay.
MR. ABBATE-That’s okay. I’m going to allow the public to.
MR. STONE-I would keep going, Jim, only because it’s the explanation of why, I think,
deserves to be in the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think the initial reason was that Mr. Lemery’s father died.
MR. STONE-Father died.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think subsequent to that, they asked for another adjournment
until December, you know, whenever we had decided the meeting. We hadn’t set a date on
that meeting yet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think, to expand on it a little bit, I think their attorney, from the
attorney’s office, they indicated they have a desire to present a more comprehensive
application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Do we have? Yes, Mr. Salvador, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-The letter that I have before me, we respectfully request the additional
time in order to be able to comprehensively address the various issues raised by the Board at
the October 26 meeting. As you remember, there were many, many issues raised at that
th
meeting, and to be able to comprehensively address all of these, it’s necessary for them to go
to the Planning Board. The Planning Board is the Board that addresses comprehensive
issues, and there were many that came up at that time, mainly the one, that the signs for this
project have never received a site plan review, and that was a requirement of the Town Code.
So, I would just insist that somehow Staff arrange that these people be on the Planning
Board agenda for site plan review of their proposed sign, and that will take care of their own
request, but comprehensively address.
MR. ABBATE-Is that a letter addressed to you?
MR. SALVADOR-No, I got a copy of it. It’s addressed to you. November 4.
th
MR. ABBATE-Anybody have a copy of that?
MR. STONE-I didn’t bring it with me.
MR. ABBATE-It’s in the Staff notes? It could be. We may very well have a copy of that as
well. Well, your comments are noted and certainly are in the record, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Gentlemen, if we don’t approach this from a comprehensive point of view,
we’re going to have Canada Street on Route 9. That’s what’s going to happen, and it’s a
salami game we play, and it’s not supposed to be under SEQRA. We’re supposed to take the
whole ball of wax, and signs were supposed to be a part of their original site plan approval.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Anyone else wish to address this issue?
Yes, sir, please, come forward. Please state your name and where you reside.
DOUG BIRCHEE
MR. BIRCHEE-My name’s Doug Birchee , 77 Old West Mountain Road. I’m representing
the property directly across the street from the hotel, Northland Sport Outfitters.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BIRCHEE-Those are two different pieces of property. Those are zoned Residential
Commercial. There’s a residence across the street. So I just want you to take into effect
when, like Mr. Salvador states, it’s turning into a Canada Street in Lake George. There is a
residence across the street.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Appreciate that, all the input. I believe the young lady also
would like to address this, please.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Having been in the business for almost 30 years, we know how important
advertising signs are. However, they have to be correct. I cannot believe that this operation,
I should believe it, because knowing the history of this facility, The Great Escape, they
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
always come in at the last minute, but to come in at the very last minute looking for approval
for signs, and these are huge signs. These are not our 500 square foot signs. They’re like
billboards, but to come in so late to look for approval for signs, when you’re looking to open,
just months away, is unbelievable to me. It’s incomprehensible. Advertising signs are, to me,
quite important, but not that necessary. We had an incidence when we first purchased
Dunham’s Bay Lodge many years ago. Mr. George Stec, who was then a forest ranger, came
to us one winter, when we were on vacation, and if you know Dunham’s Bay Lodge, we were
very reserved. We didn’t have a lot of flashing signs and all. However, we had like 16
violations of the Park Commission Sign Ordinance. Six of those were two visa, Master Card
and American Express on the front door and the side door. At that point Mr. Stec said to us
also when we were in court that if you’re good enough, you don’t need an advertisement sign.
We never really had an advertisement sign. We had a directional sign. So I think that this
facility should be a little more upfront in what they’re doing and their sign should be
appropriate also, as John said, not another Canada Street in Queensbury.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to respond to what Mrs. Salvador said, and it’s on the record at
the last meeting, I agree with you 100%. The fact that they have lit tubes sticking out of the
side of the building is enough advertisement for that facility. There’s no mistaking what it is.
MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-The same as the marina. When you see boats and you see this building and
docks, there’s no mistaking what it is, and you don’t need gigantic neon signs. So, I agree
with you 100%, and I also agree that Planning Board really should review this prior to
coming before us, and I stated this at the last meeting.
MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Well, the other thing I would add, I agree with you, Allan. The reason that we
haven’t given approval is that we all have lots and lots of questions. Now, Mr. Salvador
makes the point that it should go to the Planning Board first. That may very well be the
case, but the point is, we sat here and we made, raised a lot of questions and we certainly are
going to raise more questions, when they come back with this more comprehensive, or most
comprehensive application, to quote them. We certainly will.
MRS. SALVADOR-May I just say one thing, too. Also, in regards to what Mr. Bryant said
about the tubes and all. I think you have to look into, and I’m not sure what the whole title
is, and I know John does, but it’s something, the Lady Bird Johnson’s sign thing that she did
many, many years ago.
MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s a national highway.
MR. STONE-You mean on interstates, yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-On interstates, yes.
MR. URRICO-The scenic highway designation.
MRS. SALVADOR-Something like that, yes, I know he has all the papers on it, and if you
look and see how close those tubes are to the Northway, I think measurements should be
taken there.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me say that this Board takes seriously comments from the public.
We take that into consideration when we make our decision. It may not be the only point
that we take into consideration, but your comments are very important to us, because after
all it is the public in the final analysis who is affected.
MRS. SALVADOR-And I think we want our highways to look nice, and all, and our
businesses along the highway to look nice, too.
MR. ABBATE-You have to trust the judgment of this Board. I can assure you we will be
addressing each of those.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. BRYANT-I want to make a recommendation to Staff that, because this is part of the
public hearing, even though it’s on the public record, that we should give the applicant the
courtesy by transmitting these comments, whether electronically, or by fax, to the applicant,
so that they know what was said here tonight, and it’s not a question of going on the website
and looking up minutes and all that stuff.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I would endorse that, Mr. Bryant. One more minute, Mr. Salvador,
and then we’re going to move on.
MR. SALVADOR-I think we have here another case of what I refer to as a project that has
been mischaracterized. It is the responsibility of the Planning Staff to determine that an
application is complete. Upon that determination, the application comes before one of these
Boards. That original site plan was not complete. It didn’t include the signs, and they didn’t
get a waiver. That’s the procedure. Now, I think it’s incumbent upon Staff to send this
project to the Planning Board. It’s not your job. They have to make a determination that
these signs need site plan approval, and that’s where they send them for that, and then you
can address the variances. Now, my wife mentioned the Lady Bird Johnson Highway
Beautification Act of 1965. That addresses distractions advertising within 660 feet of
interstate highways. That whole building is within 660 feet, and they’re supposed to get a
DOT permit. That’s what they need, and that’s where they should go first, and the tubes are
included. They are a distraction. They may have to plant screening. I don’t know, but they
need a DOT permit. All of the State highways in Warren County have been determined to be
scenic byways. There’s another set of regulations that covers that. That’s the sign on Route
9. We don’t pay any attention to these things, and that’s where these people have to go to
get their permits. It’s been misdirected, coming to you for variances for something.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your comments are duly noted. Do we have any
other comments regarding Sign Variance No. 70-2005? Okay. Now where did we leave off,
folks? Did I move, did I table? Did we reach that point yet?
MR. STONE-No, I don’t think you made the motion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Based upon the appellant’s request, to the 21 of December 2005.
st
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is seven in favor, zero against.
The motion is carried. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is
tabled until the 21 of December 2005.
st
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL BLACKBURN AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN ZONING RR-5A, LC-10A
LOCATION 2120 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION WITH EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO REMAIN ON ONE OF
THE LOTS. PROPOSED LOTS WOULD BE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH
ALL 3 HOMES SHARING ONE COMMON DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005,
BP 86-041 SFD WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 32.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.00-1-18 SECTION 179-4-090
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2005, Michael Blackburn, Meeting Date: November
16, 2005 “Project Location: 2120 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes to subdivide his 45-acre parcel into 3-residential lots, of 5.17, 5.18, and
22.10-acres, respectively. The property is split-zoned, RR-5A and LC-10A. All 3 lots will be
accessed by a shared driveway through lot 2, off of Ridge Road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from §179-4-090 (“the required frontage for one principal
building shall be 40-feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from
the lot to be built upon”).
Lots 1 and 3 both have the required frontage on a public road, however the development will
not provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon. Thus, 40-feet of relief
for lot 1 and 40-feet of relief for lot 3 is required.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 1-2005: Pending (11/22/05), preliminary and final subdivision.
SB 1-2005: 1/18/05, sketch plan for 3-lot residential subdivision.
BP 86-041: Single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
Lot 2 is a developed lot with an existing single-family residence, the existing driveway to lot 2
is proposed to also provide access to lots 1 and 3.
No additional curb cuts are proposed off of Ridge Road. Cross easements will be required for
the driveway.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 9, 2005 Project Name: Blackburn, Michael Owner(s): J. Michael Blackburn ID
Number: QBY-AV-05-80 County Project#: Nov05-24 Current Zoning: RR-5A, LC-10A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3-lot residential
subdivision with existing single-family dwelling to remain on one of the lots. Proposed lots
would be for single-family residences with all 3 homes sharing one common driveway. Relief
requested from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: 2120 Ridge Road
Tax Map Number(s): 253.00-1-18 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 3-
lot residential subdivision with existing single-family dwelling to remain on one of the lots.
The information indicates the lots would be for two additional single family homes and one
existing single family home. The applicant proposes all 3 homes sharing one common
driveway. Relief requested from the minimum road frontage requirements. The plan shows
the location of the common drive, the site conditions, and easement noted on the plans for the
shared drive. 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 11/15/05.
MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioner or his representative is at the table. If you would be
kind enough to state your name and place of residence, please.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Michael Blackburn on this
application. I reside in Queensbury, NY.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you do have authority to authorize feasible alternatives and
conditions that may be a part of any approval?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Please proceed.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, Matt Steves representing the applicant. This is property located
on the east side of Ridge Road, Route 9L. It’s three lots that are proposed, as has been stated
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
by the Staff comments. All three lots do have the required road frontage, but in this
particular area, with Ridge Road being, I believe it’s a local arterial or collector road, they try
to encourage shared driveways, so that you don’t have too many curb cuts along Ridge Road.
We showed this plan to the Planning Board. They were in favor of keeping the one curb cut,
and not utilizing the road frontage that the other two lots do have, but accessing the two new
lots off the existing driveway, and therefore we’re in front of this Board to obtain the
variance. Remembering that the lots do have the required frontage, but they’re not utilizing
their own frontage as their access to the street. So that’s the basis for this application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so very much. Do members of the Board have any
questions concerning 80-2005?
MR. STONE-Yes, I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. STONE-It’s interesting. I, basically, I don’t think, have a real problem with this thing,
except you’ve taken a house which was in conformity, because it was sitting on 45 acres, and
it’s sitting in a 10 acre zoning area, LC-10 Acre, and now you’ve stuck that house on a five
acre lot. It’s still sitting in the 10 acre zoning. I don’t know what that means, and I don’t
think I’m worried about it, but I just think it ought to be on the record that in a sense you’ve
made this house illegal, nonconforming, let’s put it that way.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Nonconforming is more appropriate.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a better word, you’re absolutely right.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-The other question, I’ll ask you to comment on it. The other question is, I
know there’s a lot of wetlands on this property, but how many lots could you make out of
this conforming and buildable lots?
MR. STEVES-Basically, if you’re looking at the small area of wetlands in the northwest
corner, being .47 acres, the APA did flag that, but did indicate that that was isolated and
under an acre, and it really wouldn’t be jurisdictional by them, but we did not want to make
any disturbance of the natural buffer along Ridge Road. As far as the wetland in the back of
the property, we used the extreme westerly edge, because if you can see the cross hatching in
there is the easterly edge of the wetlands, it is not the entire area that is depicted. What we
did there is just say, well, you can’t get across the wetlands on the other side with the steep
slopes, so we just took everything east of that line out of the density equation, because of the
fact, even if you were to include it, how would you get to it? So the bottom line is that when
you divide the acreage out in each zone, you’re going to be allowed the three lots that we’re
proposing.
MR. STONE-Just three?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Another question, please.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, please, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Steves, you said you went before the Planning Board?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Do we have minutes on that, just out of curiosity? What their response was,
what their discussion was? It’s not part of our notes.
MR. STEVES-I’d just bring up one thing. It went in front of the Board. We’re actually in
front of the Planning Board next week for the Subdivision itself, for Preliminary and Final.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. BRYANT-This has nothing to do with this application. It has to do with the thing that
I’ve been harping on for the last couple of years, and the fact is when an application, when an
applicant goes before another Board in the Town, relative to a project, that we should have
all the documentation relative to that project, so that we know what these guys are saying in
the other Board and can use that information in our own judgment.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-That’s all. I mean, if they’re in favor of it, you say they’re in favor. I’d like
to see it in black and white, in the form of minutes. That’s all.
MR. URRICO-I have a question, and I’m not saying that I’m against the application, but
the second, Lot Two, as Mr. Stone pointed out, because it’s an existing, why don’t we need a
variance for that?
MR. STEVES-It’s a split zone lot as far as the entire lot, you have to meet the required
setbacks for the structure in each of those zones, and then if you divide out the total density
by the two zones, and the number of lots, does not mean that you cannot have lots smaller
than that in the zone. I think the minimum lot size in that zone is actually one acre. It’s just
that you have a density requirement of 10 acres total.
MR. URRICO-So it’s RR-5A and there’s LC-10A.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. URRICO-And that wood frame house is in the LC-10A part.
MR. STEVES-Correct, but your minimum lot size in those zones I do believe are one acre.
MR. ABBATE-And you, of course, are aware of the fact that there will be no additional curb
cuts off of Ridge Road?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And also cross easements will be required for the driveway?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Good. I just want it to be on the record.
MR. STEVES-And just one other statement. We understand what’s in front of you.
Obviously, we presented it to the Planning Board. It’s a little bit of a Catch-22 in the fact
that in the Planning Department and in the Subdivision Regs they try to address encourage,
on arterial and collector roads, double the lot width or shared driveways. So, in this instance,
we have both, but they still tried to limit the amount of curb cuts on high speed roads, or
heavily traveled roads. So therefore any time you reduce the curb cuts and do not utilize
your actual physical frontage, you’re forced to come in front of this Board for a variance.
MR. BRYANT-Is it safe, Mr. Steves, to assume that in the future there’d be no further
subdivision of any of these lots?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and you don’t object to that being one of the conditions?
MR. STEVES-No, I do not object.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. RIGBY-Are there any fire or safety issues relating to the length of driveway going over
to Lot Three? What’s the length of that driveway?
MR. STEVES-The total length of the driveway is approximately 700 feet, about 500 feet
from the split. It’s flat. There’s no grade issues. The existing driveway is of ample width. I
can gladly pass it on to one of the fire departments, but they’ve had no problem with it.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments?
MR. STONE-I just have one comment, just to make sure the record is straight, and I’m sure I
know where it came from. In Staff notes it said 45 acres. I think it’s 32.45 acres and I think
the 32 got dropped somewhere. Computer glitches. If you look at the agenda, it says 32.45.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. You’re absolutely correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, 32.45.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s for the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Stone. If there are
no other questions or comments from the Board, I’m going to open up the public hearing for
Area Variance No. 80-2005, 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 any public input? Yes, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury on Alexy
Lane. Again, I believe some of this project has been mischaracterized. Mr. Stone mentioned
the fact that you’re creating a substandard lot. For that you need a variance. Wouldn’t a
better approach to this project be to get a zoning change in that area that doesn’t conform to
the requirements? Why not get the land that they’re having trouble with, this LC-10, get
that re-zoned, and then they don’t need a variance for the substandard lot. The other thing
is, with this shared driveway, I believe it’s required that they have some kind of a
homeowners agreement in place. This is more than a deed encumbrance. This is a document
that would be on file with the Attorney General’s Office, and there is provision for this sort of
thing. They refer to it as a diminimus interest. It’s not a full blown HOA where you have a
lot of other concerns, but specifically towards the shared driveways. That should be done,
and there is procedure for it. It’s much shorter and quicker and it should be done. That
protects all of the buyers. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other public comments? Mr.
Steves, would you like to come before the Board and address these issues, respond.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter to read in.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was received tonight. “To the Members of the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury RE: The application of Michael Blackburn – Area
Variance No. 80-2005 The Dunham’s Bay Fish and Game Club, Inc. welcomes the
opportunity to comment on the application of Michael Blackburn for an area variance. It is
our understanding that he proposes a three lot residential subdivision with an existing single
family dwelling to remain on one of the lots. The proposed lots are anticipated to be for single
family residences with all three homes sharing one common driveway. The Dunham’s Bay
Fish and Game Club is a membership corporation which was incorporated with the New York
State Department of State on December 12, 1955. It occupies the property directly adjacent
to Mr. Blackburn’s proposed subdivision. We would like to be on record as emphatically
SUPPORTING the application of Mr. Blackburn. He has been a good neighbor and the Club
is very of his right to use his property for residential purposes. The Club feels that the relief
requested from the minimum road frontage requirements will not be a detriment to us and a
benefit to the applicant will far outweigh any disadvantages to the surrounding area.
Hopefully, this Board will approve Mr. Blackburn’s application. The Club has one request if
such approval is forthcoming. The Club requests that the approval be conditioned upon
actual notification in a manner to be determined by the Board, of the existence of the Fish
and Game Club as an adjoining neighbor. This request is premised upon our desire to be good
neighbors as well as to alleviate any questions for potential purchasers of our existence and
multiple activities conducted at our site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Mr.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
Blackburn’s application. If the Board has any questions, we will be happy to endeavor to
answer them.” And that was received from Bill Buckwald, the President.
MR. STONE-Is this like buying land at the end of a runway and saying stop the planes? It’s
a very good thought on your part.
MR. BRYANT-Who signed that letter?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Bill Buckwald.
BILL BUCKWALD
MR. BUCKWALD-Bill Buckwald.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Steves, please.
MR. STEVES-As far as what is in front of you obviously is we’re asking to allow the three
lots to share a driveway. Whether or not one lot being created is substandard, if that is the
case and we modify that to be the larger lot, it’s still going to have the same frontage that
they currently have in front of you. So we’re still asking for the three lots to share a
driveway. I do not believe that is the case, though. I can guarantee you that’s not the case.
You are allowed to have the density divided out by each of the zones and then it gives you
the allowable building site, which is the three. As far as the common driveway, you can do up
to three lots in New York State without a CPS7 for a common driveway. When you go to
four, you are required to go to a Homeowners Association, as Mr. Salvador did state, and the
simplified version of that is the CPS7 for maintenance of the road or driveway. You can go
up to three lots in New York State and not need a Homeowners Association. You can do a
Homeowners Association for less, but you do not need to.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask Staff a question, relative to this issue? Who’s right here, Mr. Steves
or Mr. Salvador?
MRS. BARDEN-I have no idea. I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-For the record, state the question, please, the specific question regarding the
subject. What is the question? Mr. Salvador, did you want to state the question?
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to comment on Mr. Steves’ comment.
MR. ABBATE-Well, for the record, I want to know, specifically, what the question is.
Somebody surely should state the question. What is the question?
MR. BRYANT-What question are you asking for?
MR. ABBATE-Well, you asked the question, is Mr. Steves or Mr. Salvador correct.
MR. BRYANT-The question relative to creation of a nonconforming lot. Now, I understand
what Mr. Steves is saying, and I understand what Mr. Salvador is saying, and the question is,
to Staff, precisely, is Lot Number Two a nonconforming lot because the house sits on a lot
that’s only 5.18 acres, and it’s actually in an LC-10A zone. That’s the question specifically.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s what I was looking for. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, Mr. Bryant. I thought you were asking a question on whether or
not they needed a Homeowners agreement on the shared driveway.
MR. ABBATE-That’s why I wanted clarification. Now we have the question stated for the
record.
MRS. BARDEN-I believe that Mr. Steves is correct. I mean, the Zoning Administrator did
look at this and deemed that a variance was needed for the shared driveway. The density
calculation is on your site plan, Drawing S-1, and that uses the entire acreage of the whole lot
split between the 10 acre minimum and the five acre minimum. It subtracts out the amount
of roadway and the wetland area to come up with this total of three lots. So I believe,
because it’s part of a subdivision, the calculation is fine.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, let me ask you a question. If this was an existing subdivision,
and Mr. Steves was before us to build this woodframe house, in the LC-10 section there, just
as it exists, would he need a variance?
MRS. BARDEN-If it wasn’t part of a subdivision, if it was on its own?
MR. BRYANT-If this was already, this subdivision was already a fait accompli, these lots
were empty, and he came before us and he was going to build this house, in that particular
area, would a variance be required?
MRS. BARDEN-I think the density is the density, and it’s pretty constant, whether or not
this house is here now or not. You’re talking about the density of the 32.45 acre lot.
MR. BRYANT-Of that particular lot, yes.
MRS. BARDEN-And the amount of development rights, subtracting out the roads, again,
and the wetlands, gives you three development rights, three lots, and you can really, I think,
put them anywhere you wish.
MR. STEVES-As long as they meet the setbacks of that zone, correct.
MR. ABBATE-And do we have any other questions from any of the Board members
concerning this?
MRS. HUNT-Am I to assume, then, once this subdivision is approved, for three building lots,
that they’re approved, and that’s it, it doesn’t matter if one doesn’t meet the 10 acre?
MRS. BARDEN-You’re done.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s why I asked the question, how many lots could you get on here, and
three lots in this thing certainly meets the density requirements of this total piece of property.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions, members of the Board?
Okay. I’m going to now move to the Board members themselves and ask if they have any
particular comments and perhaps their positions on what they have heard this evening. May
I start with Mr. Underwood first, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, when we’re considering such a large parcel, three lots on
substantial parcel seems pretty minimal to me, and I think that they’re relatively large
parcels. I mean, five acres is pretty extraordinary anywhere in Town, for the smaller ones,
and one lot will be 22 acres in totality. I think that we should encourage this, not only
because it’s an arterial highway, but the consolidation of the driveways is important to
preserve the rural nature of the area out there, and instead of putting in roadways to access or
more driveways, which breaks it up even more. So it does preserve the habitat out there
along with it. So I would be in favor of the project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-I think the variance that we’re looking at is just for the single access to the
roadway for the three lots, and looking at that, I think that’s the way it should be. It’s a
positive for Ridge Road and it’s a positive for the area. So I’d be in favor of it as well.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I concur with what I’ve heard. I think this is, in a sense, a minimal thing. I
think we have a large lot. We’re putting three houses on it, which is well within the zoning
requirements, the density requirements. I would encourage us to be sure that when we do the
motion, that the conditions that we all have talked about be incorporated, and certainly Mr.
Steves has indicated a willingness to do that, and that makes it very easy for me.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think that the
three building lots are minimal on this size piece of property, and I do like the idea of the one
curb cut keeping the rural character of the area. I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with everybody else. I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m in agreement with everyone else, but I think that the relief that they’re
requesting relates to two lots, not just the potential for one lot relief. The access through two
lots. I’m not too sure about that issue that we were talking about, not that it really makes
any difference to my decision, but I’m not too sure that either you, Mr. Steves, or Mrs.
Barden are correct on that assessment, because I think if this subdivision already existed, the
placement of that house, I think Mr. Stone is correct, that becomes a nonconforming
structure, because it’s an acre that requires 10 acres, but it doesn’t really affect my judgment
at this point. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I, too, have listened to my fellow Board
members, listened to what the public had to say, and I am basically in favor of the
application as well. However, I should also note that whoever makes the motion, whatever
the motion may be, particularly if it’s an approval, that it be conditioned upon Mr. Stone’s
recommendation. I see a hand up. Yes, Mr. Salvador? You have 60 seconds.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ll take less than that.
MR. ABBATE-And no more.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Steves is correct. However, it should be appreciated that the road
itself is a lot. The road is going to, different people are going to have an interest in real
property in that road, and that is a lot in this subdivision. All of the land within the
perimeter of this parcel is going to be subdivided, and has to be identified in a deed, and the
road is part of it. So that’s the fourth lot, and that’s why it requires the Attorney General’s.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you for your comments, Mr. Salvador. The public hearing is now
closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, but before I ask for a motion, again, I’m
going 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 State statutes spell out
five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an area
variance. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 80-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2005 MICHAEL BLACKBURN,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
2120 Ridge Road. The applicant is proposing to subdivide his 45 acre parcel into three
residential lots, and those lots will be 5.17, 5.18, and 22.10 acres respectively. It’s partially
Rural Residential Five Acre and Land Conservation Ten Acre. All three lots, as we have
agreed to, as the Board has mentioned, will be accessed by a single shared driveway through
Lot Two, which already contains a single dwelling at this time. In recognition of this, both
Lots One and Three have the required frontage on a public road, but we recognize that on
arterial highways, that the Planning Board also concurs that consolidation of driveways is
important to not presume that we want more curb cuts in that area. As mentioned, as part of
the agreement, recognition from the nearest neighbor was also asked, that we recognize that
the Dunham’s Bay Fish and Game Club, which has been in existence since the mid 50’s also
be included because future people who will be purchasing these lots must keep in mind the
fact that they do have noisy activities that occur from time to time, and that they won’t be
having to cease and desist from those activities in the future. As far as the general feelings of
the Board, it’s generally thought that the three acres fits into the formula, based upon the 32
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
acre parcel size, and that this is a minimum intrusion into that 32 acres in totality. That
there be a written agreement that all three lots can use this one driveway to gain access to
Ridge Road, and also that there be no further subdivision on this lot.
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Steves, do you understand the conditions?
MR. STEVES-I do.
MR. ABBATE-And for the record, do you agree with both these conditions?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do.
MR. ABBATE-He does. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 80-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there is no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 80-2005 is approved. However, I’m
going to add this, since we have conditions. 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. If you are the agent, you have stated that
the principal has granted you authority to accept conditions of 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 on 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
hearing. For the record, the appellant has stated he understands these conditions. I request
Staff to bring these conditions to the attention of appropriate personnel. Thank you, Mr.
Steves.
MR. STEVES-Understood. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 SEQRA TYPE II STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER
AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S): STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER ZONING
WR-1A LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL
REMODELING OF THE EXISTING 2,299 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ADDING
71 SQ. FT. TO TOTAL PROPOSAL OF 2,370 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT,
SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION
OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BOH 1, 2005 SEPTIC VARIANCE;
SPR 61-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-4-030;
179-4-070
DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE SEABOYER,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-2005, Steve & Debbie Seaboyer, Meeting Date:
November 16, 2005 Project Location: 83 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes a 2,370 sq. ft. single-family residence with attached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief:
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
Front setback relief of 5-feet, where 30-feet is the minimum.
Shoreline setback relief of 19-feet, where 50-feet is the minimum.
Side setback relief of 12.5-feet for the S. side, where 20-feet is the minimum.
Side setback relief of .92-feet (one-inch) for the N. side, where 20-feet is the minimum.
Floor Area Ratio relief of 11%, where 22% is the minimum.
All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR zone.
Additionally, relief is required from §179-13-010 E, for expansion of a nonconforming
structure.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 61-2005: Pending (11/22/05), development within 50-feet of the shoreline.
BOH 1-2005: Approved 1/24/05, septic variance.
Staff comments:
This proposal is for redevelopment of an existing 2,299 sq. ft. structure, with an expansion
totaling 151 sq. ft. (80 sq. ft. enclosed porch and 71 sq. ft. interior renovation space). The
redevelopment will be built on the existing footprint at a higher elevation, with existing and
proposed setbacks being the same.
The expansion will increase the nonconformity of the FAR requirement, where 22% is the
maximum, existing is 33% and proposed is 34%”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
November 9, 2005 Project Name: Seaboyer, Steve & Debbie Owner(s): Steve & Debbie
Seaboyer ID Number: QBY-AV-05-81 County Project#: Nov05-32 Current Zoning: WR-
1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes residential
remodeling of the existing 2,299 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, adding 71 sq. ft. to total
proposal of 2,370 sq. ft. Relief requested from front, side and shoreline setback requirements
as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 83 Rockhurst Road
Tax Map Number(s): 227.13-2-36 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes
residential remodeling of an existing 2,299 sq. ft. single-family dwelling by adding 71 sq. ft.
making the total proposal of 2,370 sq. ft. Relief requested from front, side, and shoreline
setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The
information submitted shows the elevations, layout of the home on the property, and
information about storm water controls. The application also included a new septic system
where the applicant received a variance to locate the septic 90 ft. from the shoreline where
100 ft. is required. 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 11/16/05.
MR. ABBATE-I see that the applicants are at the table. Would you be kind enough to state
your name and your place of residence, please.
MR. SEABOYER-My name is Steve Seaboyer. I’m from Clifton Park.
MR. HOWLAND-I’m Dean Howland. I’m from the Town of Lake George.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Proceed.
MR. SEABOYER-Just briefly, ladies and gentlemen. My wife Debbie and I are looking
forward to becoming residents of the Town of Queensbury within the next year or so, and it’s
a retirement type of thing, and we’re looking forward to utilizing the house that we own with
what we believe is a minor reconfiguration so that it’s more handicap accessible, and
environmentally friendly, and we’ve asked Mr. Howland here to assist us in designing
something that meets those requirements, as well as meets the needs of the Town of
Queensbury. I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Rigby came out over the weekend to take a
look at our project, and then the rest of you who had a chance to look around, I’m glad you
did that, too. It’s easier to understand the project when you see it in person. So, thank you
very much for your time tonight.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. HOWLAND-Again, my name is Dean Howland, and the Seaboyers came to me after
they got their approval for the new septic system, which was done last January, and in the
approval of the septic system, there was a requirement for a retaining wall to be built, let’s
say halfway between the road and the existing house. If you’ve been up there, you realize
that you go to the existing front door, you walk down about four feet off the road and from
the garage elevation. The existing structure, we want to leave all the foundation walls.
Possibly the existing garage walls if they’re all structurally sound. There are some inner
problems with the existing structure as the basement walls leak. Trying to figure out how do
we put a new leachfield in on the back of the house with a retaining wall and we’re going to
have to fix the basement walls. Therefore, and with the new septic system, we have to
remove the existing driveway as it is and dig it up totally to put in the septic tank and
holding tank. So I came up and I started looking at it and said, well, if we fix the existing
foundation and we solve the problem that goes in the, there are two basement levels, one on
the north side, came up with the fact that if I raised that floor up a foot, and I continually
raise up the back of it, and I put a new retaining wall, a poured concrete wall, right against
the existing structured wall, I could elevate that whole front lawn, or driveway side lawn,
roadside lawn, whatever you want to call it, up so that it would be fairly level, so that they
could walk in on, not walking down into a property that makes, basically just a water
catcher. That’s how we started with this particular plan, and what it would do, it would raise
the north basement level one foot. We’d have to add, again, a new foundation wall on the
roadside of most of the structure, and it doesn’t say. We will be removing a 48 square foot
porch and moving the porch over closer to the driveway. I’m a builder, basically build 90%
on the lake, on Lake George. We’ve being doing stormwater management on every home
since ’84 and we’ve come up with a fairly decent way of making stormwater management
work. We gutter everything. We have a gutter guard process that doesn’t allow pine needles
into anything, and we’ve come up with a system that works pretty well. On our plan that
we’ve submitted, we know that we need three drywells. We show two. The third one, since
we really can’t excavate anything, we’re really not sure where we’d like to put it. I’d like to
put it underneath the driveway on the missing part of the other part, but we’d basically
elevate the garage roof. The pitch would change, and we’d elevate that roof a little bit over
two feet, and the main center structure, which goes north and south, or parallel to the road
would be raised seven feet two inches. This gives us a height that we need inside the
basement, because I want to raise the foot. Only got seven foot nine to start with, and it
allows them to walk in from the garage by stepping up onto an entry foyer, and then the walk
down approximately two feet to the main level of the house. There is a center foundation
area that we don’t know what’s in there. If you look on the plans, you’ll see there’s an
existing master bedroom that’s underneath the garage, and there’s an existing kitchen on the
north side. In between, unless we start taking things apart, we know there’s full foundation
walls on both the roadside and the lakeside. We just don’t know why it’s not open. We don’t
know what’s in there. So that’s our major, that’s there we’re going to work around. We
would like to be able to pass from the north foundation to the south foundation, and that’s
basically the 71 square feet that we’re asking for inside, in existing basement. It’s filled with,
we don’t know if it’s filled with dirt, partially filled with dirt, we just don’t know what’s in
there. Do you have any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I don’t have a question, but I’d like to bring something to your
attention.
MR. HOWLAND-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-What I’m going to do, particularly since Mr. Seaboyer indicated that it was a
minor request, I’d like to read a portion of Section 179-13-010, Code of the Town of
Queensbury. “A nonconforming structure or use or a structure containing a nonconforming
use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair but may not be enlarged or
extended….All setback provisions of this chapter shall be met…..In no case shall any increase
or expansion violate or increase noncompliance with the minimum setback requirements of
the shoreline restrictions….Site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for
any enlargement or extension of a nonconforming structure….within a critical environmental
area designated by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury”. In effect, if I have this
right, you are seeking seven areas of relief in the WR zone. Additionally, the expansion will
increase the nonconformity of your Floor Area Ratio requirement which is 22% is the
maximum. Existing is 33, and you’re proposing 34. In addition, you have an absorption field
of 90 feet from Lake George instead of the required 100, an absorption field of 2.35 feet from
your property instead of the required 10 feet setback, as well as a multi flow unit four feet
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
from the structure instead of the required 10 feet setback. Now I bring that to your
attention, and I will now move to the Board and see if they have any questions. Board
members, please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Staff, relative to what you just said, and
that’s on the relief required. You indicate that the floor area relief is 11% requested. Isn’t
that really 12%?
MRS. BARDEN-Is that the existing is 33, and they’re asking for 34?
MR. BRYANT-Well, they have 33 now, and they’re going to 34. So it should be 12%. A
question for the applicant, relative to the expansion, the 150 some odd feet. You explain
some of that as to being part of the foundation, what you’re saying, in the basement, in the
area in the basement?
MR. HOWLAND-Right. There’s, again, an error between the south basement and the north
basement. It’s not open between the two.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the 80 feet, where else is that?
MR. HOWLAND-Well, they put the 80 foot is for, we’re removing a 48 square foot porch,
but we’re adding a four foot wide walking porch from the garage to the new front door.
MR. BRYANT-Which is how many square feet?
MR. HOWLAND-Which would be the 80 square feet, but we’re removing 48, which they
don’t have on here. This 71, we’re not adding anything outside the building other than we’re
taking off a 48 square foot porch and adding an 80 square foot porch.
MR. BRYANT-So then you are increasing it.
MR. HOWLAND-We’re removing one porch and taking another porch. Everything else is
inside the building.
MR. STONE-So that porch you’re talking about is on the non-lake side?
MR. HOWLAND-It’s on the roadside. There is a porch, right, that’s on the north side of the
building, front door, away from the garage, and when they came up with the design, we
attached the porch to the garage, as part of the retaining wall.
MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple of concerns that I just want to express. Because, first of all,
when I hear you say we’re going to raise it we’re not sure what’s in there, we’ve had many
problems where people have said I’m going to put a second story on, and the next thing you
know they’re building a new house, and it’s just a concern. We’ve seen it many too many
times, where people get into the house, and I don’t know the age of this house, but we do
know that times takes its toll on a building, and quite often the building is really not
renovatable, if there is such a word, when you finally get into it, and you’re expressing
concern that you don’t know what’s in there and that gives me some trouble. The other thing
is the permeability numbers. I’m trying to figure out how you get as high as you have. There
is an asphalt drive on the north side, and that’s part of this property?
MR. HOWLAND-Correct.
MR. STONE-And you’ve got the house. So we’re getting only 33% nonpermeable on the
property? It seems to me more, but I haven’t measured it. It’s just a concern that I have
that we’re over the, we may be over the reg.
MR. ABBATE-Well, Staff is diligently checking that out right now.
MR. STONE-Because I don’t think that the drawing shows, for example, this whole area to
the north is non-permeable. It’s an asphalt driveway, and it doesn’t really reflect on this
drawing that it, in fact, is asphalt and non-permeable. Just a question. Just a concern.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, we spoke to Staff, too, we had many meetings with them, prior to
that, but it was always said, we plan on removing the existing floors and up. The only thing
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
we might leave would be the existing wood structure garage walls. The foundation walls we
don’t plan on changing. We plan on adding one to the rear of the roadside one.
MR. STONE-Again, it depends what you have to do, because, remember, Queensbury does
not have a footprint rule. If you take the structure down, it’s down, and we’re now.
MR. HOWLAND-Understand, but we don’t plan on taking the foundation down.
MR. STONE-I know you don’t plan on taking it down. I’m gun shy. That’s all. We’ve seen
it many times.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re just renovating this building, in other words?
MR. HOWLAND-Well, again, what we’re going to do is we’re going to take the whole house
down to the top of the foundation wall.
MR. STONE-The whole house is coming down?
MR. HOWLAND-Here to the top of the foundation wall.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re demolishing the structure?
MR. HOWLAND-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s not the understanding that I had.
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not the understanding that I have either. That’s why I went into
this long dissertation by bringing to your attention that you may not enlarge your house, but
you’re indicating to me that you intend to make it higher than what it actually is, after you
demolish the house?
MR. HOWLAND-It shows on the particular drawing that we’ve turned in, and what I did is
I overlaid the existing house in black, and you have that, and I’ve showed it both on the
street side and the lakeside, and I showed, in black, where the existing house is at the
moment, compared to what we’re asking for.
MR. URRICO-I guess my question is, if we’re redeveloping this house, why can’t it be made
conforming?
MR. HOWLAND-You want me 50 feet off the lake, 30 feet off the road?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-I don’t think you’d have anything left.
MR. URRICO-Well, what about all the setbacks you’re asking for? Are you just assuming
that because you’re building on the same footprint that everything should be the same, but
maybe there’s some room for compromise.
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, 50 and 30, am I correct, to the lake? And one side is, you’re 77 feet
deep on the south property line, and you’re 97.5 feet on the north property line. Take away
80 feet, you don’t have any house on the south, and you don’t have, you’ve got a house that’s
going to be 17 feet deep on the north. So you’re going to have a pie-shaped house.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s a pre-existing nonconforming lot. I mean, there wouldn’t be any room,
we couldn’t meet anything.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. We’re doing a new construction here. It’s
redeveloping the whole lot. We don’t have a survey of the property. We’re talking about.
MR. HOWLAND-I have surveys here for you, if you’d like.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. BRYANT-Surveys, but I don’t have it in my package.
MR. URRICO-I don’t think I have enough to work with.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not going to accept that survey, no.
MR. HOWLAND-I’m just saying.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me ask, while these folks are mulling over what they’re mulling
over, let me ask a question. I have a question for you. In the final analysis, when you do
what you intend to do, will there be an enlargement of this structure, whether it’s height,
whether it’s width.
MR. HOWLAND-There’s height.
MR. ABBATE-Answer my question, though. When you get done doing what you’re going to
do, are you planning to enlarge this nonconforming structure?
MR. HOWLAND-We’ll enlarge by height. It shows on that. The main ridge you go up seven
feet two inches.
MR. ABBATE-What’s the answer, yes or no, are you planning on enlarging this
nonconforming structure?
MR. HOWLAND-We’re not going out. Any of the walls, other than the porch.
MR. ABBATE-Are you planning, aren’t you requesting a height variance?
MR. STONE-No, they’re just going higher, but they’re within the 28 feet.
MR. ABBATE-They’re within the thing. Okay. That answers my question. Okay. No
problem.
MR. BRYANT-Can I see the survey, please?
MR. HOWLAND-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the current status of the parcel at the present time? Are you
living there year round? Is it just seasonal use at the present time, it’s not a year round
dwelling?
MR. HOWLAND-It’s a year round dwelling.
MR. SEABOYER-It’s just not very elderly friendly, the stairs.
MR. RIGBY-Just looking at the statistics, and, Chuck, I want to just elaborate a little bit on
what you were saying. I mean, you seem to be geared towards whether this is an expansion of
the parcel or property or whether it’s not. In looking at what’s existing and what’s proposed,
and what I’m seeing here, on the site development data sheet, it seems like we’re basically
placing a building in the same footprint as the existing building, with minimal expansion.
There is some expansion, perhaps, you know, the one, I think we’re talking about one inch of
expansion on one side of the house, and the height of the building, I think, is going to be
higher than it is right now. Correct?
MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct, because we want to bring the roadside yard, I believe you
were up there. You saw, you walk down four feet. I’d like to bring that up so the grade, so
we can stop all the water from going there. We want to collect it, but we want to stop it.
MR. RIGBY-And the total square footage of the building really is a minor expansion. That’s
the way I’m looking at it.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine. That’s how we want it explained, so I understand it.
Okay, guys, who else?
MR. BRYANT-After looking at this survey, I really want to revisit the figures on the
permeability, because, I know my glasses are dirty, but I think this is more than 34%.
MR. STONE-We’re supposed to be 35% non-permeable?
MRS. BARDEN-Sixty-five permeability.
MR. STONE-Sixty-five.
MR. RIGBY-Right now it’s, what 33.2% impermeable.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what the applicant says.
MR. RIGBY-Right. Correct, and the total that it’s going to be when it’s done is 34.1, per the
applicant.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-But I, look at the survey and see what you think.
MR. STONE-Again, I’m concerned, and I’m looking at your language here, general
information, remodeling. I don’t consider this a remodel. I consider it new construction on
an old foundation, and they’re very different, in my mind.
MR. HOWLAND-Every time that, I’ve been doing this 33 years, if we build a house from
scratch, that’s new.
MR. BRYANT-This is scratch.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, if that’s the terminology.
MR. STONE-Okay, but we’ve been burned, Mr. Howland, by houses on the lake that have
had alterations, sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes total, and it’s a concern.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand that, but I said, we spelled out, the alterations are fairly well
spelled out and I didn’t imply with Staff or anything that we weren’t doing what we’re doing.
MR. STONE-No, I’m not suggesting, just the language you used, and now that we have used
that as a basis for questioning, where we’re finding that, well, it’s not quite what most of us
thought it was, at least two of us, I can’t speak for anybody else.
MR. ABBATE-No, I would agree. I was confused, too. I went off on the wrong foot with a
different idea of what was taking place.
MR. RIGBY-Chuck, I just asked Susan if she would look up the terminology for what’s a
remodel versus what’s new construction, and in my mind I seem to remember there are
certain things you can and can’t do that fall within the context of a remodeling, and new
construction. Demolition of all walls except for one or something along those lines.
MR. ABBATE-Right, okay.
MR. SEABOYER-One of the reasons that we asked Mr. Howland to look at a little bit more
of a radical approach than a strict re-siding job, maybe a new roof, is the fact that this house
is a 50’s vintage structure, and the insulation and heating system are very inefficient. We’ve
asked him to help us put this thing, this building up to energy codes, which is what we’re
doing, and it’s not going to be inexpensive. If there was an inexpensive way to do this, I
would love to do it, but it’s not easy, and consequently what Dean has come up with is, in our
humble estimations, as good a blend of retaining the square footage that we have, footprint, if
you will, improving the energy efficiency, improving the environment as far as the
stormwater management is concerned, because there is none right now, and of course the
septic system which we did apply for and get granted to us in January will be a big
improvement to what we have now, too. So, I didn’t mean to indicate earlier that I consider
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
this to be a minor thing, but I am saying that the square footage that we’re asking for inside
the footprint was what I was referring to, but it’s far from minor as far as the checkbook’s
concerned, but I believe that our neighbors are certainly in favor of this. To the best of my
knowledge everyone is, and we’re really not going to be expanding the house outside of where
it is right now. So, thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. URRICO-If I’m reading everybody correctly, I think the major concern is with the
permeability, and the possibility that this might be more extensive once they start tearing
things down than it’s presented now, but in some of the other cases we’ve had before us, prior
to this, it wasn’t as drastic as this to begin with, and it ended up being more drastic, and they
had to come back and re-submit a variance for that reconstruction because it no longer was a,
it was a complete tear down, so therefore they had to come before us as if it was new
construction. Now they’re coming before us with that drastic item right before us now, rather
than after the fact.
MR. ABBATE-Good point, Roy. You’re absolutely right.
MR. HOWLAND-We’re trying to be honest about this.
MR. ABBATE-What he’s suggesting is you’re right up front with us saying this is what’s
going to happen.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on what Mr. Urrico said. This is one of these
applications where I miss Mr. McNulty, because he always says it best. When you get to a
situation like this where you have a nonconforming structure, and you tear the building
down, we have the opportunity to do something a little bit different to try to make it, and
even though it’s almost impossible because of the size of the lot and the configuration of the
lot, but to try to make it a little more conforming or apportioned in such a way that there is
more, I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Make it less nonconforming.
MR. BRYANT-Less nonconforming, okay. I can go with that, and yet you’re bringing a
project, and you’re basically using the same footprint and we’re doing the wrong thing all
over again. So the question is, could we do something with the design to alleviate some of
these relief issues that you’re requesting?
MR. SEABOYER-Believe it or not, initially, we had asked Mr. Howland to add another story
on, and with conversations with Staff, they said that’s not going to go. We recommend we
not do that, and that’s fine. So this project actually has been scaled down somewhat, but as
far as.
MR. BRYANT-But you know you can’t fit ten pounds of feathers into a five pound bag, do
you know what I’m saying? So your lot is only so big. So you can only build such a structure
and frankly, we’re at a point now, if you’re going to tear the building down, why don’t we
think about something that’s more proportional to the size of the lot and more conforming, as
far as the Code is concerned, and that’s my only comment relative to that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other comments regarding Area Variance No. 81-
2005?
MRS. HUNT-With the semantics of remodeling and redevelopment, it seems almost like a
rebuilding, and then we could be more conforming, one thing could be on the south side, by
reducing the size of the garage, you wouldn’t need 12 and a half feet. At least that’s one place
where you could reduce the amount of relief.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s an existing two bedroom house. The one bedroom is underneath the
garage. That’s the master bedroom. That’s going to remain there. It’s an undersized garage.
It’s a two car garage, but it’s only 20 feet wide.
MRS. HUNT-That’s the south side, then?
MR. HOWLAND-That’s the south side, right.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Joyce. Anyone else on the Board have any questions
concerning this application? If not, then what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing,
if I may, gentlemen, and I’m going to request that anyone in the public who wishes to
comment on Area Variance 81-2005 please come to the table, identify yourself and place of
residence. Do we have anybody in the audience?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, again, I’m a resident in North Queensbury.
Where is the Waterkeeper when we need him? I don’t know if I recall correctly, but at the
present time this dwelling is on a holding tank. Is that correct?
MR. HOWLAND-Yes, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-It went on a holding tank because the septic system failed. I believe.
There’s no other reason to go on a holding tank than that the system has failed. The other
criteria for a holding tank is that it’s a seasonal use. I believe the permit that they have for
going back to a conventional system, in fact it is not a conventional system. It’s an Eljen
system. They kind of shoehorned this one in. It’s got a feature of aerobic treatment and all
that sort of thing, but the lot is extremely small and that’s why they have gone to the Eljen
system. I don’t think that the cross reference includes the holding tank because it was put in
some time earlier. In any case, there’s going to be, the thing I think you have to be concerned
here with is less the degree of nonconformance, but the increase in intensity of use. This
probably was nothing more than a seasonal use dwelling, and now we’re going to convert it,
or has been converted slowly over the years to a year round facility. The land just won’t
support it. Now we’re going to, in addition to this on site wastewater system that is going to
infiltrate water into the ground, we’re going to put a stormwater management system on top
of it and infiltrate more water into the ground that can’t take it and it’s all got to flow in one
direction, to the lake, and probably through the foundation drains, because they’re so close to
each other. This has gone for site plan review?
MRS. BARDEN-Next Tuesday. Next week.
MR. SALVADOR-I seriously think you should table this application until site plan review is
conducted and some of these issues be addressed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have anybody else in the public?
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I just have a couple of questions. They’re saying
here they’re adding a 71 square foot addition for a total proposal of 2,370 square feet, as
opposed to the existing 2299. To me, that’s an increase in the building.
MR. ABBATE-That’s why I said initially, to me, based on the facts and figures that I have,
it’s an increase in the nonconforming structure.
MR. BRYANT-The whole wording on this agenda is totally incorrect.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right, you’re right.
MR. BRYANT-Because if you read this, it appears that they’re adding 71 feet onto an
existing building voila, but that’s not the case. The case is they’re tearing the building down.
They’re starting from scratch. They’re going to build on the existing foundation with some
modification. It’s a brand new project. It’s not the old project remodeled. I agree with you
100%.
MRS. SALVADOR-And I’m also concerned about the septic system. This is a two bedroom
house now?
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s on 0.20.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MRS. SALVADOR-Less than a quarter of an acre.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Now we just built a house on three quarters of an acre. We have a
septic system for three bedrooms, and we’re tight on that property. I mean, we fit everything
in, and everything looks great. I just think here that we’ve got something that’s too big for
this lot, and my main concern, and I have been before the Town Board many, many times,
and no one listens about these septic systems, and as far as the distance of the septic system
from the water. I’m assuming they get their drinking water out of the lake, but there has to
be some hold on this, because we have Codes where you have to have your septic so far from
your water and we keep giving variances for those. That’s going to come home to bite us
some day.
MR. RIGBY-I was going to make a point on that. The variance has already been issued for
the septic system.
MRS. SALVADOR-I know they have.
MR. STONE-The Town Board Of Health.
MRS. SALVADOR-And that’s another thing. I’m sorry, but I do not believe that the Town
Board should act as the Town Board of Health. Sorry. That’s it for tonight.
MR. BRYANT-They’ve already acted relative to this.
MRS. SALVADOR-This one I understand, but we have more coming up.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Constantly.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, let me ask this question here. Did I hear you right earlier when you
said there has not been a site plan review yet?
MRS. BARDEN-No, next meeting, second meeting of the month, next week.
MR. SALVADOR-In our calculations for permeability, I think this Town does not recognize
the fact that the area over an infiltration device, a septic infiltration device, should be
counted as impermeable. I mean, we’re relying on evapotranspiration to take place, so in that
area, you can’t call it permeable. You just can’t call it.
MR. STONE-It’s going the other way.
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Gentlemen, would you care to respond?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have two letters, also, that need to be read in.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, would you like to read those into the record now, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The first one is dated November 11, 2005, RE: Seaboyer, 83 Rockhurst
Road, “Dear Sir/Madame: I have lived on Rockhurst Road since 1973. As you can see, I’ve
been around for quite a while. The plan the Seaboyer’s have to reconstruct their home sound
terrific. It will certainly improve the look of the neighborhood. I hope they will be able to
get more use out of their property when they finish their project. Sincerely, John Heckman”
At 68 Rockhurst Road, and the second letter which was received this evening, “Gentlemen:
I’m writing this letter in reference to the reconstruction project at 83 Rockhurst Road, owned
by Steve and Debbie Seaboyer. we have been neighbors with the Seaboyers for the past five
years since they purchased this property. We thoroughly understand the scope of this project
and support their efforts to upgrade their residence. This improvement will certainly fit with
the surrounding structures on Rockhurst and will certainly enhance the value of all our
properties. We hope you will find this project to be within your guidelines so that they may
move forward with construction. Sincerely, Jeffrey M. Clark” At 77 Rockhurst Road.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to respond to any of the comments that were made?
MR. SEABOYER-Just the comment regarding the Waterkeeper. Mr. Navitsky, Chris
Navitsky is the Waterkeeper, and he was very instrumental in assisting us in designing the
septic system that we have. The holding tank has been there since Day One with this
property. This is not a replacement for a failed septic system. The original owner was
Nashold, Mrs. Nashold, back in the 50’s, and it’s never been a seasonal house. It’s been a year
round residence for Mrs. Nashold and a steady use by us, but in anticipation of this project,
we want to make sure that we were doing the right thing and we didn’t put ourselves, or the
environment, in a compromise condition.
MR. ABBATE-See, let me interrupt you for a second. You’re absolutely right, and we want
to make sure that we’re doing the right thing as well.
MR. SEABOYER-Right.
MR. ABBATE-So we both want to make sure. I’m going to ask the members now, based
upon what they’ve heard this evening, to offer their comments, just to see, basically, where
we’re at, and I’m sorry that Mr. McNulty isn’t here this evening, because I would call on him
first. So let me start with Mrs. Hunt this time, please.
MRS. HUNT-As far as I’m concerned, there are just too many questions for me to really
make a decision at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Let’s start with Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I agree with Mrs. Hunt. I think, since this
thing is scheduled for a site plan review, that we should probably wait to have the Planning
Board look over the documentation and come up with a review that we can refer to, because,
frankly, between the Staff notes and the announcement, I’m really dissatisfied with the
wording that was used, because it was deceptive to say the least. I mean, even the public to
see this announced that you were going to remodel an existing structure, when it’s actually a
demolition and a new project, so I would prefer, rather than to rule on it tonight, that we
table it until the Planning Board has dealt with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we have a responsibility when it comes to these
substandard sized lots, that when we do upgrade those properties, that we carefully consider
the cumulative impact of going from what may have been marginal existence in the past to
something that’s a little bit more conforming. I think that there are some changes that could
be considered here, you know, some feasible alternatives. They have substantial paved areas
on that property. They also have a two car garage, even though it’s not a large two car
garage, but nonetheless, when we’re talking about a .20 acre lot, I think that we have an
opportunity to downgrade the size of what’s going to be constructed, even if it’s smaller than
what’s currently there, that’s something that should be considered. I also received this letter,
this was just handed to me. This is a letter from C.T. Male which basically reviews these
projects for the Town, and I don’t know if you want me to read that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you, please. If it’s relevant, please read it into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This was from today, November 16, 2005, to Mr. Craig Brown.
“Dear Mr. Brown: As requested we have reviewed the stormwater components of the
submission package for the above referenced project. The information we reviewed included
the Site Plan Review application, the Resolution Approving Sewage Disposal Variance, the
Application for Stormwater Management Permit and Drawings A-1, A-3, and A-S (dated
September 21, 2005). The documents were prepared by Howland Construction Inc. Based on
our review of these documents, we offer the following comments: General The proposed
project results in less than 1.0 acre of disturbance and therefore the owner is not required to
obtain SPDES permit coverage from the NYSDEC for stormwater discharges. Regarding the
Short Form EAF 1. This form was not filled out. Regarding Stormwater 2. The application
for Stormwater Management Permit indicates that 3 – 6’ diameter drywells are required but
only 2 are shown on Drawing A-S. The note describing the storage provided in the crushed
stone, on Drawing A-S, is not easy to understand. 3. A silt fence detail should be added to
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
the plans noting embedment of the silt fence below the ground surface. 4. A detail for the
proposed drywells, including the surrounding crushed stone and some means of access to
inspect/maintain the drywells, should be added to the plans. 5. Drywells require deep well
drained soils to function properly. Some soil information (test pit data and percolation test
results) should be obtained in the area where the drywells are proposed. 6. Some elevation
information should be provided to determine the elevation of the proposed drywells relative
to lake water levels. Is there a wall between the drywells and the lake or is the ground surface
steeply sloped? Regarding Wastewater 7. The location and dimensions of the proposed
wastewater disposal system per the “Resolution Approving Sewage Disposal Variance”,
should be shown on drawing A-S. If you have any questions related to our comments, feel
free to call our office. Sincerely, C.T. Male Associates, P.C. T. James Houston, P.E. Senior
Civil Engineer”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there are enough questions that it would be incumbent upon us
to have them sort it out a little bit better, but I will go back to my original question, which is,
to me, this is a new build, and as a new build, there is no footprint law in Queensbury where
you can just raise the same house, bring the same house on the same footprint, and basically
ask for waivers based on that. What you are doing is basically new construction, in my mind,
and we have the opportunity, perhaps, to scale back, and make it more conforming on a lot
that’s, an area where there was a nonconforming structure prior to this, and I would like to
see that addressed. If you can’t meet them, that’s one thing but I haven’t seen them
addressed and there are enough questions in my mind that I think we need some more
information, whether it comes from a site plan review or from the applicant.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I think basically everything that’s been said is along the lines of
something I would have said. I think the site plan is necessary. The applicants are stating
that they’re not changing the footprint. Okay, that means that site plan can be looked at
with what’s in place already, in other words, we don’t have to do anything for the Planning
Board to look at the Planning Board looking at the plan that you’re proposing, and I think
we need that. I think there’s so many questions. One of the questions that gets raised by this
Board quite often when somebody has done something and now they’re seeking a variance,
but the same thing would apply here. When I see something that requires five or six points of
variance, then it really raises concern on my part, and to put this piece of property on the
foundation that already exists, you’re asking for all kinds of relief. I just think we need to get
as much thinking on this thing as possible before we commit to any variances whatsoever,
and I certainly would encourage the Planning Board to take a look at it, and get back to us in
this case.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I really don’t have all that much to add. I can see what you’re trying to
do, and it makes a lot of sense. I mean, you’ve got a structure there now that you’re really
just trying to say, okay, let’s basically take this same structure and let’s improve it, but really
in actuality what you’re doing is you’re taking it down and building a new one, but I
understand what you’re trying to do, and it looks like a great project, but the problem I have
is the same problem that the other members of the Board have had, too, is that, you know,
what is new construction and what is renovation and there’s a part of the Code here that we
haven’t really referred to, 179-13-010, Section A, Part II, and it says, “No rebuilding shall
exceed an aggregate of 50% of the gross floor area of the single family dwelling”. So, I mean,
just by that Code, we’ve really, we’re not issuing a variance for that. We’re issuing a
variance, basically, to say that you can construct what you’ve already got there. So I think
we have to go back to this Code as well, but, to make a long story short, I’m in agreement
with what everybody else has said, that, you know, I think we need site plan review,
particularly for stormwater issues. So I’d like to see it go to the Planning Board, too, for site
plan review. I think that’s next week.
MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct. There was also the requirement for stormwater on the new
porch roof. Being an existing building, if you remodel it, you only had to have stormwater for
a new roof, which would be the part over that part. We’re trying to do stormwater
management for the whole project.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. RIGBY-Right. That makes a lot of sense, because you’re adding height, you’re adding
roof also.
MR. HOWLAND-Right. I met five or six times with Staff, totally, before we evolved with
this project, just trying to answer their questions, and they knew we’re basically taking down,
putting it back up to the foundation level. I mean, we’re leaving the garage and the room
below it. The questions that you have unanswered, other than are they, could we tear the
whole building down and be more conforming on two setbacks? I’m not sure what the
questions are that you’re asking for.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the basic question is this. What would be the impact, we don’t know
what the impact is going to be because, based on the description that was provided to us, it’s
basically 180 degrees different than your interpretation this evening. You’re talking about a
complete teardown and a rebuild. So what we want to do, in order to be fair, to not only the
public, but to you, as well as this Board, is determine the results, or review the results, of a
site plan review by the Planning Board. Until then, I don’t see how we could possibly
consider this for a vote this evening. We want the results. We want to know the impact. We
want the results of a site plan review from the Planning Board before we consider this
application.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, Susan.
MRS. BARDEN-I guess I’m quite confused as well. They’re in front of the Planning Board
next week for site plan review, for development within 50 feet of the shoreline, and for
grading and filling within 50 feet of the shoreline. I guess I don’t understand what you would
want the Planning Board to recommend to you, when the real meat of this project, I think, is
the relief, and I think, to be fair to the applicant, you could say, you know what, I’m
bothered by permeability. I’m bothered by the shoreline setback, I mean, some floor area
ratio, all of these things to give them some direction, and it might be better to have it tabled
and say, why don’t you come back with something a little less. I don’t think that you’re
going to be getting, from the Planning Board, really anything that you’re going to need for
the amount of relief that is requested.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Susan. Would any of the Board members like to respond
to Susan’s comments?
MR. URRICO-It makes sense to me, too.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Anybody else?
MR. STONE-Well, I think we’ve done that. I mean, I hear what Susan’s saying, and I think
one of the basic problems is that I was confused. Maybe the words are all there, but I was
confused by what the project was. I believe, from what I’ve heard, that a lot of people were.
MR. ABBATE-I was confused as well.
MR. STONE-But certainly I can tell you that I’m always concerned by anything that is too
close to the lake. Okay. I mean, that’s a given. I’m concerned by the lack of survey data on
permeability, because I observed the property today, and I did go out today, and there’s this
huge asphalt, I’m sorry, I don’t want to get judgmental, there’s a large asphalt driveway on
the north side. There’s a building which goes almost from side to side on the property with
the exception of this asphalt driveway. We’ve got the driveway in front of the garage.
There’s that swale that you want to get rid of in the front, and I didn’t go too much in the
back, I didn’t pace it off, but I’d just like to see numbers that address specifically
permeability on the property, and I also had a question, just looking at the sight lines to the
sea wall, I guess I want to know if the sea wall is the lake, or if the lake, I mean, because we
always get into mean high water mark. Mr. Salvador has sensitized us to that, and I see the
lines going to the outside of the sea wall. I see the lines, I just want to, I’d like to see exactly
what the distances are. So I know what relief I’m being asked to consider.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. This is what I propose, and the decision is entirely up to you, because
you deserve a fair and impartial hearing. So mine is merely a suggestion. I would suggest
that you request this Board to table this for approximately 30 days, for the following reasons.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
Number One, it would give you an opportunity, and Staff will present you with Staff notes,
to go over the Staff notes and find out just what the concerns of the Board are. Number Two,
it would also give us an opportunity by then to take a look at what the site plan review had to
say. Maybe the results of the site plan may not add anything to our concerns, or perhaps
maybe the results of the site plan may clear up even one portion of our concerns. So, it would
seem to me that for your benefit and our benefit and everyone’s benefit, that perhaps you
consider tabling for about 30 days. So that you can address, from the minutes of the meeting,
all the concerns that have been raised. It will give us an opportunity to also wait, I believe
next week is the site plan review, yes. It will also give us an opportunity, I’m going to request
Staff to furnish each member of this Board a copy of the results of that site plan review. So
that the next time that we meet, we can speak a little more intelligently, because I have to
admit, and I agree with Mr. Stone, I was completely confused based upon your description of
your project and what you said was in complete opposite. That’s why I went through this
long dissertation. There was nothing in here to indicate this is a complete teardown and a
complete rebuild.
MR. RIGBY-I have one suggestion. If we’re going to have the Planning Board do a site plan
review, we have to have them do the site plan review based upon the granting of this
variance, then. So, in other words, they need to review it with the assumption that, yes, you
know, let’s say the variance has been granted, and then go through that process, and then
when it come back to the table here we don’t have to put these people off for another.
MR. STONE-That’s why I said, the foundation is going to stay where it is, that’s the most
important thing, in terms of distances and the site plan.
MR. RIGBY-So I think what we’re all concerned with, really, is stormwater management and
those types of issues, correct?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Fair enough.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I want to back up a little bit. I just want to add this to the
record, okay. I don’t totally disagree with what you’re saying, Mr. Rigby, but frankly I think
what Mr. Underwood said earlier is exactly how I feel, relative to this project. The fact this
is a brand spanking new project, the way it sits now with the amount of relief that you
require, is totally unacceptable to me, as a Board member. On the other hand, if you have a
design that is more compliant, obviously the size of the lot, you’re not going to be totally
compliant, possibly this structure has to be downsized. Maybe you can’t have three
bedrooms. Maybe can only have two bedrooms. Maybe the garage should come down.
Something that indicates that we’ve got a new project and we’re trying to become more
compliant, you know, as far as the Code, and so with that regard, the whole concept of
accepting the project as it exists today I think is not a valid.
MR. ABBATE-Staff wanted to comment.
MRS. BARDEN-Again, if you think that the project is unacceptable, the applicant going to
the Planning Board presenting the same project doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you’re saying
that what you have, what we see in front of us is not acceptable. So I think it’s either you
table them and give them some direction on what you expect, what reliefs you would like for
them to work on, what might be acceptable, and have them come back next month for
possibly less relief, but I think for them to go to the Planning Board with the same project is
not going to.
MR. ABBATE-But they’re scheduled to go before the Planning Board anyway.
MRS. BARDEN-But if you table this application, then they will be basically, the Planning
Board won’t hear it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion, I think part of the problem is that we’re
caught because in this instance, in most of the instances on these smaller lots, like we visited
with the Whites last month, these are substandard sized lots. The houses that have been
created on them over the years do not reflect what we would ever permit in this day and age,
and I think what we really need to do, perhaps you guys can do this when we have the final
PORC meetings and things like that, too, and we have that joint Planning Board venture
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
meeting later this month. These lots are not, per se, unbuildable lots, but it would have to be,
a revision of the Code would have to be made in order for homeowners, if they wanted to
rebuild on these lots, would have to build something that was more compact than what
currently exists they might have to go up higher, in the sense of like a condominium type
home, you know, where things are more stacked, and that, in effect, would open up more
green space area on these small lots, and not have so much impermeable area as we are
concerned with here tonight, but I think that you could concern yourselves with the
permeable areas that are presently there, and, you know, we’re going to have to get inventive
on this in the future, if we really want to make an impact that’s positive for the lake, and not
just simply band aid approach it and rubber stamp these things through as they come
through, because they’re not going to improve anything as they exist.
MR. ABBATE-I do believe, however, that the minutes of this meeting this evening pretty
well expresses how each individual feels, and I think that in itself might be a tool that you
might want to research out to take a look at and perhaps come back, but the decision is
entirely yours. I’ll make this statement, you don’t have sufficient votes for an approval this
evening.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand that, but I still haven’t heard, other than you would like us
to come back with a project without the garage, or just, I’m a little confused.
MR. ABBATE-I think the term was we’d like you to come back with something more
compliant. Am I correct, ladies and gentlemen?
MR. STONE-I think we’d also like to know exactly what the numbers are for the project that
you ask.
MR. SEABOYER-I think we can provide you with more accurate, if it’s in accurate. I’m not
saying it is.
MR. STONE-No, I agree.
MR. SEABOYER-But more specific information on the permeability ratio. We can look at
more green space, and we can certainly make sure that you have all the details that you need
for the stormwater management system, which I agree is important. It’s something that was
being suggested to us, we never even considered (lost words), because I haven’t been happy
with the way that the water drains. So we can certainly do that. To shrink the footprint
would be a little bit difficult and would really make it a much more expensive project.
MR. STONE-And we understand that, but you’ve come before us tonight with a project, I
think Mr. Bryant said it very well. You’ve come before us with a project that none of us have
understood it to be, and if we had our druthers, if you owned that lot, and it was just sitting
there, and you wanted to put a house on, I can tell you that I, for one, would not like being 31
feet from the lake. I, for one, would not like being 12 and a half feet from, or eight and a half
feet from one of the sides. I certainly would respect our Floor Area Ratio requirement,
because it was specifically put in for properties in this part of Town. I mean, that’s why we
have it in the Waterfront 1A zoning. So, those are the kind of things that trouble me. I
would be less concerned, personally, with the five feet relief on the front, because, again, I was
reminded, driving down Rockhurst today, it’s almost Wall Street, and I know your father
built a lot of those houses, Mr. Howland, but they’re very close to the road, and you do get a
sense of a wall, but having said that, I would be less disinclined to grant the relief for being
closer to the road, but that’s where I’m coming from in terms of this project. The
permeability raises a red flag to me, and that’s why I brought it up earlier, but I certainly did
not look at the property when I went out today with the description that you provided
tonight in mind at all.
MR. HOWLAND-I just have a question for you, too. I provided plans and stuff that shows
the existing changes, elevation changes and stuff, but it’s the description that was written by
Steve or by myself?
MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy of that?
MR. HOWLAND-I have the original. I’m just saying, you look at the description, or do you
look at?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. STONE-We look at everything.
MR. ABBATE-We look at everything.
MR. HOWLAND-But the plans show you , I mean, it overlays everything.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it also, that could also indicate that you’re lifting the house.
MR. STONE-I have a house right next to me, or right around the corner from me, that they
raised it.
MR. BRYANT-Exactly.
MR. STONE-So I’m well aware it can be done.
MR. BRYANT-We just had one of these a month or so ago where they were raising the
house, and there was an issue about the house. So, in this case it’s raze, but in any event, this
public agenda that was published doesn’t say anything about demolition of a structure,
starting from scratch. Whether you’re maintaining the same footprint or not is of no
consequence, once the building comes down, okay. It doesn’t say anything like that. It just
says you’re remodeling an existing structure and you’re adding 71 square feet. It doesn’t say
that you’re tearing down a building and you’re, you know what I mean, and therein lies the
problem. It has nothing to do with your application, but I came to the meeting with the
understanding that it was going to be some sort of renovation. You were going to raise the
building, do your thing, add a porch, whatever, and so be it, but it’s a completely different
project in my mind. We have the opportunity to correct some wrongs.
MR. ABBATE-I also think, too, when you raised the issue with Mr. Stone, that you don’t
know what happens when this wall comes down, and you’re not sure what happens if you do
this. That raises a lot of questions as well.
MR. HOWLAND-What I stated was we don’t know what’s underneath that center part. If
it’s non-doable, we don’t do it. We don’t know what’s there. We don’t know if it’s a big rock
in there, if there’s rock ledge in there. We don’t know why that they encapsulated that part,
and again, that would be with the 71 square feet. If you can’t do anything, then there’s no
increase.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask the applicant. Do you have a sense of where we’re coming from?
A sense of what we’re looking for?
MR. HOWLAND-No, I’m going to have to speak to Staff again, because I’m not, I know
that you want the stormwater management, you want that a little bit more detailed on that.
MR. ABBATE-Let me try it this way.
MR. HOWLAND-C.T. Male, I got a fax today. This has been in for two months, and we’ve
been before the Staff for almost five months now, as far as stormwater. That’s not a problem,
but I’m assuming that the main issue, you want us to come back with something either loping
off the garage. We can’t really go higher because we have a 28 foot rule. So, I guess I’m
going to have to speak to Staff.
MR. ABBATE-So in effect you have no idea what any of us have said this evening, impacting
your?
MR. HOWLAND-Well, I could see that we could remove the driveway on the north side of
the property, the blacktop. I mean, that would take some permeability away. We’d have to
remove it anyway for stormwater management. I understand that. That’s one thing that
could be addressed. Making the building smaller, we could eliminate, I assume, that
basement area. We could always walk down the same set of steps that they get down to the
master bedroom now. We’d still have to raise the floor up. That would give us a two foot
crawl space to put mechanicals in.
MR. URRICO-What about the new covered porch? Is that closer to the?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. HOWLAND-I did the new covered porch, we removed 48 square feet and we added 80,
and the reason I did that was of the approval for the septic system there had to be retaining
wall put in, and I’m looking at that, and I’m going, well, it’s a block retaining wall. It’s not
isolated. If I built, if I poured a concrete wall and we increased the retaining walls, which are
there, just rebuilt them, we could encapsulate all that leachfield behind the house. I don’t
want to have it get in my stormwater management, and I don’t want it to get into the house
at all, and that’s what that’s for.
MR. URRICO-But that’s what we’re asking, though, is that there’s an example of five feet
where asking for relief, where 30 feet is the minimum, whereas if you don’t have it, if you
can’t do it, you can’t do it.
MR. HOWLAND-Well, the garage is less than what the porch would be.
MR. URRICO-That’s not explained here. That’s the kind of thing that hasn’t been explained
to us, that we need more information on. I don’t have a survey map to show me exactly what
you’re talking about. I have some figures here, but it’s not a survey map.
MR. HOWLAND-Okay. We have the survey maps.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but we didn’t have it at the beginning of the meeting.
MR. STONE-As I’m reading the Town Board of Health resolution, and I think I’m fairly
knowledgeable on on-site systems, multi-flow unit doesn’t tell me anything. I don’t know
what it means.
MR. HOWLAND-I have all the details.
MR. STONE-I know, but in their resolution, multi-flow, what does that mean? There’s four
laterals coming out of a Distribution Box, or, as Mr. Salvador said, as an Eljen unit, or an
aerobic unit, which would give us some relief in this Town, because we’d do a better job, but
I’m not going there, but the point is I wish the Board of Health would help me.
MR. SEABOYER-I think we have a pretty good understanding about what your concerns
are. Mr. Howland will talk with Staff, I’ll probably join him, but if you’re receptive, if you’re
telling us that you’re receptive to re-visiting some of these issues, we’re certainly willing to do
the best we can to satisfy your concerns.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s certainly fair. Are you then suggesting that to this Board that
your Area Variance be tabled for approximately 30 days?
MR. SEABOYER-Well, I guess that’s your next meeting, right?
MRS. BARDEN-Table to a specific date, if you could.
MR. STONE-Technically you can’t, it’s already closed. We’re getting into this. Right,
Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-Technically you can. I don’t know if the applicant can get anything to you.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the other thing, too.
MR. BRYANT-Give them 62 days.
MR. STONE-Give them 62 days.
MR. ABBATE-We can do 62 days, that’s not a problem.
MRS. BARDEN-Can you make it a specific date, please.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Why don’t we do this. That way there there’s flexibility on your
part as well as our part. Would you be receptive to tabling your variance for a period up to
62 days? Up to 62 days?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. HOWLAND-I have one other question. Did you state earlier that we have to come, I
thought we had to come here first, and then go to site plan review. So we can’t go to site plan
review to answer the questions anyway. That’s how it was explained to me originally.
MRS. BARDEN-I think you can, you’re on the agenda. It’s been advertised. Whether or not
you think it’s going to be beneficial with the plan that you know you’re going to have to re-
work, I suppose is probably up to you.
MR. HOWLAND-Can I ask one more question? The plan has to be re-worked for, was it,
again, how it was written up, I believe you called me, Susan. Was it you? I wasn’t sure, I
haven’t met you before, and you asked me if it was a tear down and stuff, because we had
gone over that with everybody else. Is that the problem, how that was written up?
MR. URRICO-I think there are two issues.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Roy, go ahead.
MR. URRICO-I think one issue we have is with the Staff notes, which refer to this as re-
development, rather than reconstruction, and there’s a difference in the way we read things in
the Code because of that, and then, as far as, if it is indeed reconstruction, which it appears it
is, since you’re tearing things down to the foundation, then we’re looking at, okay, this was
previously nonconforming. Can this be more conforming than it was before, rather than
maintaining the status quo.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand, too, but the more conforming is, what do you really mean
there?
MR. URRICO-Well, you’ve asked for a series of reliefs, and not mentioning, and also the
permeability. So you’ve asked for seven reliefs.
MR. HOWLAND-Right, because it’s existing.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not existing once you take it down. Once you take it down, it’s not
existing anymore.
MR. HOWLAND-But I’m not taking the foundation. I’m not taking the garage off.
MR. BRYANT-It has nothing to do with, once that building comes down, it’s not existing.
MR. URRICO-Once 50% comes down, then it’s no longer existing any longer.
MR. BRYANT-It’s no longer existing, so therefore we start with a clean slate, it doesn’t
matter where the foundation is. We can design a building that will be more conforming. By
more conforming, it doesn’t mean we’re going to chop off this wall and do this. It means re-
design the structure so that it fits in the lot, within the floor area ratio requirements in the
Code, and then, you know, you made need some relief because of the situation with the lot,
and that’s understandable.
MR. URRICO-It’s not going to be 100% compliant. We know that.
MR. HOWLAND-You’re just asking us to make the size smaller.
MR. BRYANT-But if we’re going to have seven reliefs, and now the difference, instead of
asking for 75% relief on one side, we’re asking for 67% relief, it’s not acceptable. You’re
starting from scratch, you can design a building that will be more conforming.
MR. HOWLAND-Let me ask you one more question. So basically what you’re saying, for
the depth of the house, it’s only 20 feet deep now, and part of it goes out like 10 feet. So I’ve
got to have some sort of place that they can live. Are you telling more for 20 feet on one side
and 20 feet on the other side?
MR. BRYANT-That’s the Code. I mean, obviously with the size of the lot it’s going to be
impossible, unless you build a one room hovel, and we understand that. The lot is small, but
your building now extends from one side of the lot to the driveway, and then that extends to
the other side of the lot. So obviously it’s a little bit much.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. HOWLAND-We’re one foot or one inch off the 20 foot on the north side. Again, I’m
trying to get some reasoning here.
MR. STONE-Let’s go back. We have granted relief within five feet of the property. We had
one we revisited last month or the month before, five feet. That’s a number. I can’t tell you
what the number’s going to be.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand. I’m trying to get an idea.
MR. STONE-You heard us. We’re concerned. How can you alleviate some of our concerns?
And let me just, something you asked was it Staff notes, was it what you wrote. This, I
believe, is your writing, the general information, and it says after remodeling.
MR. HOWLAND-To me it’s a remodel.
MR. STONE-Definitions are so important. I wouldn’t consider that to be remodeling. That’s
taking a kitchen and ripping out the cabinets, to me. Obviously, Mr. Rigby, I think, agreed
with that.
MR. ABBATE-So we’re back to, would you like to request this Board to table your
application for a period up to 62 days?
MR. HOWLAND-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You would?
MR. HOWLAND-Let me ask one other question. Now, if we come back with a total new
plan, then this tabled application is moot, correct?
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not correct.
MRS. BARDEN-It would be the same application.
MR. HOWLAND-It would be the same application.
MR. ABBATE-The same application, absolutely. You can make whatever renovations you
wish, because it’s only been tabled, and if your renovations that you present to this Board
clears up a lot of the questions we’ve raised this evening, there shouldn’t be a problem,
administratively.
MRS. BARDEN-And if you want to go to the Planning Board, they can’t take action on your
application, but they could make some recommendations to this Board, but that’s your call.
Can you do a table to a specific date, though, please.
MR. URRICO-What are our meeting dates for next month?
MRS. BARDEN-December do you want or January?
MR. ABBATE-December, if we have a meeting.
MR. SEABOYER-There’s a construction season to consider.
MRS. BARDEN-The first or second meeting in December?
MR. ABBATE-We have a meeting, I believe, on the 21 and we have a meeting on the 28.
stth
Am I correct?
MR. STONE-Well, if we have two meetings.
MR. ABBATE-No, but I’m just saying, that’s a Wednesday, the third Wednesday should be
the 21 of December, correct?
st
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. HOWLAND-Could I ask you, what meetings would the Planning Board be after that, if
we wanted to go the following week?
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. So you better do the first meeting, so that you could do the Planning
Board the next week.
MR. HOWLAND-By the 21.
st
MRS. BARDEN-So tabled to the 21, so you would need.
st
MR. HOWLAND-And we’d have to have this information in by, if we come back with
changes it’s usually by the 15.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s the 16 now.
th
MR. URRICO-Susan, is it possible for us to be specific about a date, since we’re waiting for so
many other, we’re waiting for the applicant to find out some other information before they
can proceed. Can we just give them 62 days?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Why do we have to give them a specific date? If we give them up to 62
days, that should cover it. I don’t think a specific date is appropriate. Here’s what I’m going
to do. If you are requesting we table this thing, I’m going to move that your variance be
tabled for up to 62 days.
MR. HOWLAND-I understand, but one question. If we wanted to come in the 21.
st
MR. ABBATE-I said up to 62 days. You have a lot of flexibility.
MR. HOWLAND-So you don’t have to have it before we arrive here?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
MR. HOWLAND-That’s my question, is what day do you need that information?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, again, if they don’t table it to a date next month, if you do, then he
can just get it in as soon as possible because the deadline for December has passed.
MR. ABBATE-Is the 15.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Which is today. So it’s either you table it to a December meeting and say,
hurry up guys, get this in, or you table to 62 days and they have an entire month.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then, you’re talking about the 28 of the month?
th
MR. HOWLAND-Well, if we give you a week in advance of your meeting, is that enough
time for you to review it?
MR. ABBATE-Well, you have to comply with what Staff requirements are, not our
requirements.
MR. URRICO-And you have enough time, Susan, to get that information?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Table to the 21 and see how it goes.
st
MR. HOWLAND-If we get it in two weeks before the 21 meeting, then we’re okay.
st
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re requesting the 21 of December? Let’s make this clear.
st
MR. HOWLAND-Yes.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right. So the applicant is requesting the 21 of December, and I don’t
st
have a problem with that.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
83 Rockhurst Road. Until the December 21, 2005 meeting.
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-I just want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, we don’t get the information on the
20.
th
MR. ABBATE-Well, there are a lot of issues that have been raised, administratively.
MR. STONE-We said like a week.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. We certainly need it. I don’t want it 24 days ahead of time. I think it’s
reasonable to assume that we have this at least a week in advance, particularly since we are
basically all volunteers and not employees of the Town.
MR. HOWLAND-We’ll get it as early as we can.
MR. ABBATE-Everybody basically works for a living.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 81-2005 is seven to zero for, the motion is
carried. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 81-2005 is tabled to the
21 of December 2005 meeting. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, folks, for your patience.
st
AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2005 SEQRA TYPE II ANDREW, JR. & BARBARA SUE
DARNLEY AGENT(S): PETER BROWN OWNER(S): ANDREW JR. & BARBARA SUE
DARNLEY ZONING SR-1A, MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE LOCATION 10 WARREN
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITH EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGE. PROPOSED USE FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT
IS CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,370 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH 576 SQ. FT.
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE SR-1A
ZONE. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2005 FOR NOVEMBER 2005; BP 2005-507 ATT.
GARAGE, BP 2004-814 2-CAR ATT. GARAGE; BP 2004-747 DEMO.; BP 2004-742 SFD
WARREN CO. PLANNING NO. LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-70 SECTION
179-4-030
PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2005, Andrew, Jr. & Barbara Sue Darnley, Meeting
Date: November 16, 2005 “Project Location: 10 Warren Lane Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximate .688-acre parcel into 2
residential lots. The subdivision would result in both lots sized .344-acre each.
Relief Required:
Lot 1: .656-acre relief, from the 1-acre minimum lot size.
Lot 2: .656-acre relief, from the 1-acre minimum lot size.
Relief per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2005-507: Issued 8/5/05, attached garage.
BP 2004-814: Issued 11/2/04, 2-car attached garage.
BP 2004-742: Issued 10/05/04, single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
The zoning in this area requires a minimum lot size of 1-acre. This request is to create two
lots of approximately .34-acres each. Lots along Warren Lane are, on average .34-acres, while
across the street fronting Warren, lots are slightly larger, but still nonconforming .43-acres.
While the granting of these variances would be consistent with the character of the
neighborhood, substantial relief is required relative to the ordinance.
The lots are proposed to be serviced by municipal water and individual on-site septic
systems.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see the petitioners are here. Would you be kind enough to identify
yourself and your place of residence.
ANDREW DARNLEY
MR. DARNELY-My name’s Andy Darnley, the owner, and my wife, Barbara Sue is there,
and my agent Peter Brown.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, thank you. Would you proceed?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think you’ve got the description of it. Basically it’s, we know where it’s
located, in a Mobile Home Overlay District, okay, and of course this is nonconforming
because it is in an Overlay District, it is actually zoned secondary or after the fact, after the
mobile homes were there, into a, I believe it’s a one acre residential single-family zone, and as
we all know, there was one house that was built for his older brother, one of his older
brothers, who is retired, was displaced from Florida, and he’s living in the house right now
and Andy owns the house, Andy and his wife own the house, and they need to have some
economic relief from it, so they have another brother that’s going to be coming from Buffalo,
and they want to sell the other property to, when he retires, and therefore to offset his losses,
and that’s pretty much it. It’s in a, as you’re well aware, the lots down this side of the street
are pretty much the same size as this lot. This has 300 foot. The other ones on each side are
at least 150, and across the street, they’re a little bit narrower in the front, deeper in the back,
so it comes up a little bit more, acreage, and the home is already there. There was photos
submitted with this thing to show you what has been done. We tried not to take photos of
the rest of the neighborhood, obviously, for other reasons, but, anyway, this is a step in the
right direction for affordable housing. They’ve continued affordable housing, and even
though it’s not a trailer, or two trailers, I don’t have to get into it any deeper, okay. If you
guys have any questions.
MR. ABBATE-Well, any time you have, if you want to add anything during our discussion,
please do, and if you have any questions concerning our procedures, don’t hesitate to ask.
Okay, so basically you’ve presented your case. So what I’m going to do is proceed and ask if
any members of the Board have any questions they’d like to ask you. Gentlemen, ladies?
MR. STONE-I guess the only question I would have, and it’s incidental, you just built this
building less than a year ago, the house, a little over a year. I mean, you got the building
permit. Why didn’t you subdivide then?
MR. BROWN-He couldn’t afford to. He couldn’t do it, Number One, because of the issue
that happened. This was a modular home that came off a lot. Okay. What was the
hurricane down in Florida, his place got demolished, Charlie. So anyway, he came up here,
had no place to live, was living was Andy, and so Andy went out and purchased the property,
purchased a modular home, put it on the property for him as quick as he could, okay, so he
could get back into his own home and stuff like that. So that was the circumstances behind
it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. BROWN-But Andy still owns the lot and to offset his losses on that, his other brother
can’t afford to buy a house, and is willing to buy it and put it here, the same type of situation,
and this would really take and cut his losses.
MR. DARNLEY-But at the time, I had no intention, the lots, I just bought the lot, 300 by
100, and with the Board, we put the house where they recommended it, and my other brother
had interest in it, in looking at the property, and that’s why we wanted to do it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Board members concerning
82-2005? No questions? Okay. Then what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing and
anyone in the public who wishes to be heard, please come up to the table, speak into the
microphone, and for the record please identify yourself. Do we have anybody in the public
who wishes to speak on Area Variance No. 82-2005? I don’t see any hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-Then I’m going to move on and I’m going to ask members of the Board to
please offer their comments on your request for a variance. May I start with Mrs. Hunt,
please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I really don’t have a lot of problem with this variance. I think it’s
reasonable. The one acre minimum size lot does not, is not conforming in that area, and I
think it would be hard put to have one acre lots. I also think that, compared to what we were
looking at before, the .20, this is a larger lot, and no water problems, I have no problem with
this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I agree. I mean, you’ve got to look at the neighborhood. You’ve got to
consider that the lots are in keeping with the lots on that side of the road and not that far out
of keeping with what’s on the other side. The neighborhood is what it is. Certainly the
property that you have built is very attractive. You’ve done a very nice job with it. I can
assume, therefore, that the second house will be that way. The only concern that I would
have, and it’s not really a concern, is that you can get what you want to put in without any
further variances, and if you got this one in, I’m sure you could get another one in, and that
would be my only concern. So I think it’s a fine project.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-Just a question for you. I just want to make sure I understand. The frontage
on both, on the one large lot now is 300, and it’s going to be split into two lots which are 150
frontage each. Is that correct? Okay. Looking at the neighborhood, there’s a diagram in
here in the packet that shows the frontage on all the lots in the neighborhood, and
predominantly they’re all 125 feet frontage. So if this frontage came in front of me before you
had developed the lot, I certainly would have approved it, and in looking back at it now, and
looking at it as a new proposal, I think I still would be in favor of it. So, I’m in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-They say everything is relative, I think in this case more so than others. I
think, compared to the previous application, I think this one makes more sense to me,
because the Number One balancing test that we have is the benefit to the applicant versus the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and I think in this case the
applicant has demonstrated that benefit far outweighs any detriment. I think that the
benefit could possibly achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, but not very readily,
and I think there won’t be any undesirable change in the neighborhood. The relief requested
is substantial, but only because the zoning in this area is different than what is actually
represented by the lots that exist in that area. So if it was compared to the lots that exist, I
don’t think the request would be considered substantial, but in reality it is. The request
won’t have any adverse environmental effects, and although this is self-created, I think the
applicant has demonstrated to me that it deserves the variance, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood, please.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would essentially be in agreement with everybody else. I think that
the lots that presently exist on that street, this will reflect just another house that’s on the
street. It’ll look like it fits into the mix. It wouldn’t be a substantial request by any way,
shape or means. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Unfortunately, I’m going to have to disagree with the other Board members.
I do agree that the majority in the lots in the neighborhood are nonconforming, but the fact
remains that the zoning in that area is one acre. The lot is now nonconforming as it exists.
To break it down into two lots that are even more nonconforming is substantial, and in my
view unnecessary. So I’m going to have to disagree and come down on the negative side.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
MR. ABBATE-While I agree, partially, with what Mr. Bryant has said, I’m inclined to agree
with the majority of the Board members, that there would be no significant change in the
neighborhood, and certainly you have done a fine job, and if we take into consideration the
previous application before yours, this is a heck of an improvement. So I would go along with
the application. I’m going to, at this point, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance 82-2005. Is there a motion?
Do I hear a motion for 82-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2005 ANDREW, JR. & BARBARA SUE
DARNLEY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
10 Warren Lane. The applicant is proposing to subdivide an approximate .68 acre parcel into
two residential lots. The subdivision would result in both lot sizes .344 acres each. In doing
so, the applicant is seeking relief per 179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone. The applicant, in view of
the balancing test, in weighing the balancing test per this variance, we’ve noted that the
benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, perhaps, but there is no
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, because most of the
nearby properties, if not all of them, are of similar size and per the Staff comments, the lots
along Warren Lane are, on average, .34 acres, across Warren Lane, lots are slightly larger but
still nonconforming at .43 acres. So there is no undesirable change in the neighborhood. The
request is substantial per our Code, but again noting that the Code does not necessarily reflect
what actually exists in that neighborhood. The request won’t have any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and the difficulty could be considered self-created. I move that we
approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 82-2005 is six in favor and one against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 82-2005 is approved.
MR. BROWN-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome, gentlemen. We have some other business to do here.
Besides going back to Old Business, which deals with the Cingular Wireless, we have a couple
of minutes of the meeting to approve. So let me go back to Old Business, to Staff and see if
Staff has come up with something.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I found some things.
MR. ABBATE-Wonderful.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MRS. BARDEN-To enlighten all of us. On February 16, 2005, this Board granted Lead
Agency Status to the Planning Board for SEQRA review on Cingular Wireless. That was the
one and only time I think you all saw this. This is Use Variance 15-2005. After that,
February 22, the Planning Board tabled the application, due to an incomplete submission of
nd
some application materials, tabled to the April 26, 2005 meeting. April 2005 meeting, again,
this was tabled by the Planning Board until the applicant has provided the items as specified
in Staff comments for the meeting. So those were both in April, and then, on October 18,
th
the Planning Board, and I think that this was a directive of Staff, formalized a resolution
stating, Whereas on August 16, 2005, the Planning Board extended to the applicant a 60 day
time frame to do the following: provide additional information, submit further extension
request or submit status update for their project. To date nothing has been received for Site
Plan 6-2005 Cingular Wireless. Motion to Deny without prejudice Site Plan No. 6-2005
Cingular Wireless. So the Planning Board did that on October 18.
th
MR. RIGBY-So on August 16 it was (lost word)?
th
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-And I think Craig was probably just trying to, considering they denied it,
trying to tidy things up a little bit for you all, because you had this open-ended SEQRA
coordinated review.
MR. URRICO-Where is this location? Is it over by Quaker Road and Ridge Road?
MR. STONE-This was Ridge and 149.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, that’s right, but if you still want information, you know, that’s fine,
but I think that they made it quite clear.
MR. ABBATE-Did you say that the Planning Board met in October on this and they granted
a 60 day extension?
MR. RIGBY-No, it was actually August 16.
th
MRS. BARDEN-No, it was on August 16.
th
MR. ABBATE-August 16. So it expired in October, basically.
th
MRS. BARDEN-There’s just a resolution for Staff to send a letter to the applicant saying,
give us the status on this project, or we’re going to deny you within 60 days. They didn’t
submit anything. So 60 days after, on October 18, the Planning Board gave them the.
th
MR. STONE-They wanted a Use Variance from us?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-It was back off the road.
MR. STONE-Yes, but they’ve taken the tack that it’s a communication, it’s public service.
It’s not a Use Variance. That may be their approach to it.
MRS. BARDEN-So what do you want to do?
MR. BRYANT-I want to ask Staff a question. How did we end our meeting with them when
they made their presentation?
MR. ABBATE-We sent it to the Planning Board.
MR. RIGBY-All the activity, as of February 16, has been with the Planning Board, not us.
th
MR. ABBATE-That’s right, not with us, that’s correct.
MRS. BARDEN-Just in February, you consented to Lead Agency Status.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
MR. RIGBY-So why do we need to make a decision?
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I said initially, guys. Remember? I said that perhaps we should
let this thing die by itself.
MR. BRYANT-If they don’t respond to the Planning Board, they’re the Lead Agency.
MR. STONE-They have never pursued the Use Variance?
MRS. BARDEN-There’s still Use Variance 15-2005 lingering out there if you don’t go ahead
and get rid of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s just housekeeping.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s just housekeeping.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think all you really need to do is say that due to the fact that it was
never, proper submittals were not made on time, it is basically defunct at this point in time.
Until such time as those submittals are made, we’re basically not even going to hear it.
MR. RIGBY-When was the Use Variance submitted? When was 15-2005 submitted?
MR. ABBATE-February.
MR. RIGBY-So that’s a SEQRA Lead Agency.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, if Staff can assure me that we’re not violating the individual
rights, I have no problems, and if the Board members have no problems with a motion to
disapprove without prejudice, I’ll go along with it, but I want to hear what the Board
members have to say first. Does anybody have any objections to the use of those words?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you can just say that you essentially agree with the Planning
Board’s language. That’s essentially what we’re doing.
MR. ABBATE-And how did they word that again, Susan, please?
MRS. BARDEN-That you deny without prejudice Use Variance No. 15-2005.
MR. STONE-Why don’t we just say we drop consideration of Use Variance No. 15-2005. The
word “deny” indicates an action. I don’t know.
MR. BRYANT-I think we’re doing semantics.
MR. ABBATE-Let’s do it this way, ladies and gentlemen.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE USE VARIANCE NO. 15-2005 CINGULAR
WIRELESS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for denying Use Variance No. 15-2005 was six in favor, one against.
If there’s no challenge, then Use Variance No. 15-2005 is denied without prejudice. Now,
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/05)
before we leave, ladies and gentlemen, I have two notes here to approve the September 21
st
meeting and September 28.
th
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 21, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote is four in favor, zero against, and there were abstentions, which do
not count, and so the September 21, 2005 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals minutes are
approved.
September 28, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the September 28, 2005 meeting minutes is five to zero to
approve. The September 28, 2005 then is approved. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
41