2007-02-21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
INDEX
RESOLUTION To amend Area, Use, Sign Variance applications 1.
Area Variance No. 5-2007 Rene and Nicole Stehle 5.
Tax Map No. 307.00-1-4
Area Variance No. 7-2007 Vance Cohen 8.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
Area Variance No. 10-2007 ADD Development 18.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-4
Area Variance No. 11-2007 Dennis and Susan Fredette 22.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-55 & 56
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 02/21/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
CHARLES MC NULTY
RICHARD GARRAND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated February 21, 2007. Prior to setting
this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize
you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are
guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the
Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the
record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals
can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this
Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this
Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation,
this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the
appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof
contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only
authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than
administrative items, we will invite public comments on each appeal, however, in the
interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and
information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed
a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time
limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to
limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the
appellant or the public will be addressed through this Board. all dialogues during the
hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. First we will approve minutes of
the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 15, 2006: Correction: Page 50, in the middle, comment by Charles McNulty,
says a postage sized stamp lot, should be postage stamp sized lot
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CORRECTION THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15,
2006 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the November the 15, 2006 ZBA minutes is seven to
zero, seven yes, zero no. The November 15, 2006 minutes are approved.
November 22, 2006: No corrections
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2006 QUEENSBURY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the November 22, 2006 ZBA meeting minutes is
approved by a vote of seven yes, zero no.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2006 QUEENSBURY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The vote is seven yes, zero no. The December 20, 2006 ZBA
meeting minutes are approved. Next on the agenda, for administrative purposes, folks,
is a concern not only by a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but also by the
Executive Director, and that deals with the security of documents. So I’m going to
request that the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, when you are finished with a
particular case, if you would be kind enough to take the documents that you’re finished
with and place it in the receptacles in back of us, the Executive Director has assumed the
responsibility for shredding and what have you. Thank you very much. The third and
final administrative portion this evening concerns a resolution, and before I move the
resolution, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’d like to thank the Executive Director, I’d
like to thank the Town Attorney and Staff for their input. Board members, the Executive
Director, Town Attorney and Staff have recommended a Resolution to change
application requirements for the ZBA. The Resolution will meet the needs of the Town
Attorney, Executive Director, and Staff, as well as ensure that ZBA members (and
Alternates) receive copies of each document in the official files necessary to reach an
intelligent decision.
MOTION TO AMEND THE AREA, USE, AND SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
As follows:
1.Each request to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals must include the
Original Application plus (18) copies. As recommended by Staff.
2.Each application for an appeal will require 19 copies of the deed identifying
ownership of the property described in the appeal. As recommended by Staff.
3.Each application for an appeal will require the Original denial letter from the
Zoning Administrator, plus (18) copies establishing Standing. As recommended
by Staff.
4.Each case file furnished ZBA members (and Alternates) for review will contain a
copy of every document in the official files. This will include all submissions, be
they from the applicant or any opponents or neighbors, and any correspondence
related to the application. As recommended by the Town Attorney.
5.In accordance with New York State Town Law 267 and other applicable
references the Chairman will set final agenda upon completion of the Review
process.
RATIONAL:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
The rules of evidence outlined in New York Zoning Law and Practice and NYS Town Law
267 are specific. The ZBA as a Quasi-Judicial Board is mandated to make a decision on
the totality of the evidence contained in the record, and only the record. Evidence relied
upon by the ZBA must be introduced in the public hearing and further that the ZBA may
not rely on information gained on the examination of records outside the hearing room,
nor may it rely on reports received after the close of a public hearing.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got one concern. The requirement for an original
deed, is there a definition of that? You mean the original deed that I have to my property
I have to give to the Town?
MR. ABBATE-Good question. Let’s clear that up right now. Help out, guys.
MRS. BARDEN-No.
MR. ABBATE-No. So let’s amend this.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s not what that says, then.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me change it, then. Staff, how would you like me to change
that? Each application will require.
MRS. BARDEN-Nineteen copies of the deed.
MR. ABBATE-One copy of the deed, plus 18, or a total of 19 copies. How about if I
change it that way? Okay. I’m going to amend my resolution as follows. Thank you, Mr.
McNulty. Each application for an appeal will require 19 copies identifying ownership of
the property described in the appeal as recommended by Staff. Does that satisfy your
concern?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Why are we asking for 19 copies?
MR. ABBATE-Good question, and I raised that question as well, and the reason for that,
it was explained to me by Staff as follows. Nine of the copies automatically go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, okay. An additional copy goes to the Executive Director.
Another copy goes to the Town Attorney.
MRS. BARDEN-Staff copy.
MR. ABBATE-Staff copies.
MRS. BARDEN-File copy.
MR. ABBATE-Records Clerk copies.
MRS. BARDEN-Warren County copy.
MR. ABBATE-And so that’s the rationale for the 18.
MS. ALTER-Otherwise at the last minute we’re making copies and we just don’t have the
time to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MRS. JENKIN-Shouldn’t you have a copy of the deed anyway, rather than just identifying
ownership, or is that enough to identify ownership?
MR. ABBATE-We’re going to have a copy of the deed.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MS. ALTER-It’s going to be a Xeroxed copy, if the person doesn’t have a second
original.
MRS. JENKIN-Of the deed.
MS. ALTER-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-So that would mean, because you said you were going to eliminate
original deed. You said just require 19 copies identifying ownership, correct?
MR. ABBATE-Of the deed.
MRS. JENKIN-Well then you need to put in the deed.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s change it, then, 19 copies of the deed identifying ownership of
the property. How’s that?
MRS. JENKIN-That’s better.
MR. ABBATE-Beautiful.
MR. URRICO-Isn’t it enough to know the original deed is on file, that it’s been confirmed
to be on file, rather than having 18 copies of it floating around? I mean, we know about
nine of them, but we don’t know where the other ones are ending up. They’re being sent
out, but how do we know they’re getting to that person’s desk?
MR. ABBATE-A good question, and I’m going to have to ask the Executive Director to
respond, or their Staff.
MS. ALTER-You’re uncomfortable because a copy is going to someone and you feel it
may go astray?
MR. URRICO-I’m comfortable knowing there’s one on file if we need to look at it.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s the way we’ve been doing it.
MR. URRICO-I don’t know if everybody that gets copies of notes, Staff Notes and stuff
needs a copy.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The only problem there is the letter that was submitted by the Town
Attorney, a two page letter that each of us received.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I saw that.
MR. ABBATE-Here’s what basically it states, that we can only make our decision, I can’t
say to you, let’s say on a review, I did a completion review and don’t worry about it, gang,
because I saw a copy of the deed. I can’t do that, because you can’t take my word for it.
A copy of the deed has to be in the file so that each member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals can satisfy themselves that, in fact, there is a deed in each file.
MS. ALTER-If you should have to go to court, for example, you would have to say that
you saw it, and if you didn’t see it, then there’s an issue.
MR. ABBATE-Exactly, and that was the issue, too, Mr. Urrico, in the event that, let’s say
that I had to go to court, as a matter of fact, I’ve already had to sign a couple of
statements anyway, the case under litigation, and I had to say that I personally have read
these documents. So I couldn’t say to you folks, look, don’t worry about it, guys, I saw it.
That’s not good enough, it doesn’t cut the mustard, and that’s the reason for it. Okay?
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve resolution is six yes, one no. The resolution as read
and seconded is passed and will take effect this date. ACTION: Staff is requested to
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
make appropriate changes in the application requirements and procedures in the
submission of case files to ZBA Members (and Alternates) for review. These rule
change should reflect the information listed in paragraph one (1), two (2), three (3), four
(4), and five (5) above, and to further make public these revisions as appropriate.
Copies are to be provided the Executive Director, and Town Attorney. Thank you very
much.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II RENE AND NICOLE STEHLE
AGENT(S): STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S): RENE AND
NICOLE STEHLE ZONING: LC-10A AND RR-5A LOCATION: 908 LUZERNE
MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SIDE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FROM
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: JANUARY 10, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE:
10.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.00-1-4 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-020
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this on, I believe, January 24, and we’re
hearing it again tonight because I guess it was mis-advertised previously.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just to refresh people’s memory, from Staff Notes, “The applicant
requests relief for an oversized garage on the property (in excess of 900 sq. ft. in floor
area in a residential district), per §179-5-020 for the LC-10A and RR-5A zones. Side
setback relief of 43-feet from the minimum 100-feet is also requested, per §179-4-030 for
the LC-10A zone.” And that’s about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The last time we met, folks, the public hearing is still open, and so
just to ensure, Counselor, unless you object, I’d like to survey the public, see if there are
any additional comments, with your permission.
MS. BITTER-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be
heard on Area Variance No. 5-2007? If so, would you be kind enough to raise your hand
and I will recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-All right. I see no hands raised. Then what we will do, we will continue.
Counselor, the last time that we left, I believe I was on the verge of asking Board
members to offer their opinions. Do you want me to go through that again?
MS. BITTER-Actually, could I just make a couple of clarifications on the minutes? I know
that there were some Board members that weren’t here. I know that one of the
comments that Mr. Bryant had made was that he was confused as to whether or not the
adjacent landowner could see the house or see the addition, and I wanted to make a
clarification. When I was speaking of that in my application, I was speaking of the
adjacent neighbor that is immediately affected by this setback, which are the
Barrowmans. They are not able to see this house, nor will they see the addition. The
area that Mr. Bryant was speaking of was the Watson lot that you can see on the survey
as to how that’s in like more of the southeastern part of the property, but it’s not
immediately adjacent to the house. Other comments that I just wanted to make with
regards to that single car garage that is existing, in the minutes the applicant had
explained that it’s a post and beam house. They cannot utilize that for purpose of
storage of a vehicle because there’s a post located 12 feet in. Due to the fact that they’re
at the top of a mountain, they all have SUV vehicles which are 21 feet in length. So they
can’t even store their car in there right now. That’s used for storage. Another item I just
wanted to bring up from the last meeting was the inclusion of the breezeway. The
reasons the applicants identified that it was necessary were because of those windows
that are located on the south side. They wanted to preserve those windows and
preserve their views. So that they can still utilize those rooms for that viewing area, as
well as the wood stove that’s located in that area. They didn’t want to sacrifice those
items if possible.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor, your comments are duly noted and in the record.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I do have a letter that was submitted by the Barrowmans. It says,
“We are aware that Rene Stehle is requesting a variance because he lacks the 100 feet
setback between his property line and his proposed garage. We are in agreement with
his receiving a variance for the lack of setback. Adjacent property owners: Tom and
Ruth Barrowman”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Do any members of the Board have any
additional questions they’d like to ask Counselor?
MR. URRICO-I understand why we’re doing the de-attached garage as opposed to the
attached garage, but why does it have to be larger than 900 square feet?
MS. BITTER-The reason that they’re proposing is because they’ll have the storage of
their two vehicles and because they have no storage located in the house at all. They
don’t have a basement because as they indicated at the last meeting the basement
essentially where it would be located is their master bedroom, and the house doesn’t
have an attic. With the three children they have, they just acquire multiple things that
they’re just in desperate need of storage, which is why they have that extra stall for
tractor, snow blower, whatever things are necessary to drive in, and then the area above
for things that they can store in that above area.
MR. URRICO-So they’re not willing to budge off of that 900 square feet?
MS. BITTER-They really feel that it’s necessary to have that size, with the need that they
have of the storage.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions? All right. Then I’m going to
close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 5-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And 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, and while State law
sets forth five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike a Use Variance test, this
applicant need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather,
we must merely take into them into account in deciding whether to grant an Area
Variance. Please introduce your motion with clarity and the motion itself is not subject to
debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise their right to vote no and
introduce their own motion. Do we have a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No.
5-2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want discussion first?
MS. BITTER-Yes, I thought you were going to poll the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Discussion first, yes, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we
have a volunteer who wants to start first?
MRS. JENKIN-I tried to get up once. I couldn’t get up once, but I got up the second time.
MS. BITTER-Well, lucky you. I wasn’t going to make it up there this week.
MRS. JENKIN-And so I did. I walked around the house. I hope nobody minded. I think
the benefit to be achieved is actually, it will be a benefit for the applicant. I think that
there are no other means, actually there’s just no other property, area that’s flat enough
in order to put it. I looked up to the side, and I don’t think that, you can barely see the
house from the other side. I don’t think it’ll make an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. I think, more or less, it’s very isolated, even from the road. The request
is substantial, and that’s where I had a problem. Because of the zoning, they should
have 100 feet, but I think because of the placement of the house and because the lot’s
so narrow, I think that that overrules. I think the request will have no adverse physical
effects or environmental effects on the neighborhood and it’s really not self-created
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
because they bought the property and were not aware, which they probably should have
been, but they were not aware that the house sat right on the lines. So I would agree
with it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Folks on the Board, do we have any other
comments? Joyce, please.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. While it might be interpreted as considerable, there are
limited options, and the neighbors next door don’t object, and I don’t think that the, in that
area, considering the amount of property, that the request for the extra size of the garage
is excessive, so I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Rick, would you like to give it a go.
MR. GARRAND-Certainly. As far as what the applicant is looking for, the benefit to the
applicant I don’t see can really be achieved by any other means. While I do think the
problem is self-created by the applicant and it is a substantial request, looking at the
balancing test, I think that the other three factors would outweigh the two negatives on
this one. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, Chuck, would you like to go.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I might as well. I’m kind of on the fence on this one. On the one
hand, I think there are some mitigating factors that obviously there’s no other easy place
to put this structure and probably certainly any alternatives that could be figured out
would be less convenient than the one that’s proposed. On the other hand, this is a case
where it’s kind of buyer beware. They should be aware of what’s going on when they
buy a place like this. There’s a 100 foot setback there for a reason, and at times there’s
a temptation to say, well, gee, elsewhere in Town it’s 30 feet or 20 feet, so cutting into
the 100 feet by a little bit is no big deal, but it is. The zoning in that area calls for a 100
foot setback. So I’m kind of torn, and I suspect there’s going to be more than enough
that are going to be in favor, but I think I’m going to stay opposed on principle, if nothing
else.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s see. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The side setback relief is substantial at 43% but I think it’s been
explained that it’s due to the configuration of the lot being so narrow. Most of the
properties up there aren’t that narrow, and I think that the house pre-existing, they’re
buying it kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. There’s no cellar. The
nearest neighbor’s not going to be affected. The 100 foot setback I think is reasonable to
assume because I think it wants to preserve the rural character of the neighborhood, but
this is not going to change that, as has been described. There’s more than enough
space between that and the next house, the nearest one nearby. As far as the size of
the garage, the slight increase in the size of the garage, I think when you balance that
out against the size of the property and the over 10 acres up there, it’s not a substantial
request. We’ve given much larger requests than that before. So I’m all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I’m afraid to say I’m going to be on the negative side as well, and I guess
I’m more bothered by the size than the setback. Our Code doesn’t make exceptions for
size of a garage based on the size of the property. It may be something that needs to be
fixed, but right now it doesn’t make that exception, and the fact that this is larger than
what is considered an acceptable size bothers me, and the fact that they’re not willing to
maneuver a little bit on that bothers me. So I would be against it. I think there are
alternatives, the alternative being a smaller sized garage. So I would be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’ve listened to what Counselor had to say
and also my fellow Board members, and every one of the comments this evening there
were some excellent points, particularly excellent points from Mr. McNulty and Mr.
Urrico. Although they didn’t say it, I’m going to surmise this is what they meant. There is
a responsibility, Counselor, as you know the term due diligence, okay. However, since
we are charged with a balancing act, since we’re charged, since we have a responsibility
to act as a safety valve, by law, if you will, and taking that into consideration, I would tend
to side with Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, and Mrs. Hunt in that I would
support the application. Having said that, now we turn to the motion, which I indicated
earlier. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 5-2007?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2007 RENE AND NICOLE STEHLE,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
908 Luzerne Mountain Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,133 square
foot attached garage with second story storage space. The applicant requests relief for
an oversized garage on the property in excess of 900 square feet of floor area in a
residential district, per Section 179-5-020, for the LC-10 Acre and RR-5A zones. Side
setback relief of 43 feet from the minimum 100 feet is also requested per Section 179-4-
030 for the LC-10 Acre zone. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be
permitted to construct a structure on his property. I don’t think there will be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, and while it’s
substantial, it’s a large piece of property, and the nearest neighbor has no objection, and
there’s plenty of barrier between the two structures. The request will not have adverse
physical or environmental effects, and it’s self-created only in the sense that the Stehle’s
want to build this garage. So I move that we pass Area Variance No. 5-2007.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 5-2007 is five yes, two no. Area Variance
No. 5-2007 is approved.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II VANCE COHEN AGENT(S): RON
MOGREN, SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): DR. MITCHELL COHEN
ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1159-1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING FACILITY. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-INT. ZONE. CROSS
REF.: MANY (TOO MANY TO LIST) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 14,
2007 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION: 179-4-030
RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2007, Vance Cohen, Meeting Date: February 21,
2007 “Project Location: 1159-1161 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to remove one of the buildings on-site (Shindig’s) and maintain the
smaller, A-Frame structure (ice-cream stand). In addition to the latter use (fast-food
restaurant), the applicants propose to construct and operate a public parking facility, 53
total parking spaces are proposed.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief from the minimum permeability requirement of 30% for the
HC-Int.-zone, per §179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be able to construct the desired 53 parking spaces.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives include reducing the total number of parking spaces and replacing
with green-space, this will increase the total amount of permeable surface area.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
Feasible alternatives could be explored further during a SEQR coordinated review.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 6% less permeable area (1,577 sq. ft. of paved area), may be considered
moderate.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Effects on the community include potential visual impacts and water quality impacts from
a site that is 76% developed.
These and other potential impacts could be explored further during SEQR review.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SPR: Pending, 18,000 sq. ft. public parking facility, and associated site work.
NOA 4-06: ZA determination upheld, SPR required for the proposed parking facility.
Staff comments:
This request is a SEQR Unlisted Action and the project is subject to site plan review for
the parking facility. The Board could consider requesting coordinated review, and that
the Planning Board seek lead agency status (there may be other involved agencies) and
issue a SEQR determination prior to consideration of the variance. Alternatively, a
recommendation by the Planning Board could be requested prior to ZBA deliberation.
Possible feasible alternatives to the variance sought and any potential impacts to the
community could be explored during the Planning Board’s review of the total project.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
February 14, 2007 Project Name: Cohen, Vance Owner(s): Dr. Mitchell Cohen ID
Number: QBY-07-AV-7 County Project#: Feb07-16 Current Zoning: HC-Int.
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a
parking facility. Relief requested from minimum permeability requirements of the HC-Int.
zone. Site Location: 1159-1161 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 295.8-1-2 Staff
Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a parking facility and
to maintain an existing 456 sq. ft. building. The project involves removing an existing
2,605 sq. ft. building and paving the remaining area. The site is proposed to be 24%
permeable where 30%of the lot is to be permeable. The site is to have 53 parking
spaces as required per code. The information submitted shows the parking layout, curb
cut location, dumpster location and signage. The information also indicates the site will
have 3.5% of the landscaping where per the guidelines at 5%. Staff recommends
discussion to address the impacts of the two uses on Route 9. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No Action Default Approval. Due to lack of a quorum of the Board,
No Action was taken. Noting suggestions clarify information about elements in the DOT
row, compliance with landscaping guidelines, compliance with permeability, vegetation
removal, and retaining wall construction.” Signed by Warren County Planning Board
2/16/07.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see, gentlemen, you’re at the table. Would you be kind enough to
identify yourselves and your relationship with this appeal, please.
MR. MOGREN-I’m Ron Mogren with Saratoga Associates, and this is Vance Cohen, the
applicant.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You understand, of course, the procedure here this evening.
Neither one of you are attorneys, I’m assuming. Okay. Have you been before us
before? Okay. Here’s what we’ll do. Since you’re not attorneys, basically we allow you
to present to us, in your own words, information that you feel will support your request for
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
an appeal, and if at any time during this hearing there’s something that is said or a
procedure you don’t understand, stop us, raise your hand, I’ll identify you and we’ll make
every effort to make it clear for you. During the hearing itself if there’s anything perhaps
you may have forgotten to tell us which you feel will support your case to a favorable
decision, feel free to again, stop us, and introduce that. Fair enough? Are you ready to
proceed? Please do.
MR. MOGREN-Yes. As you mentioned, the first thing I just would like to point out is that
right of way strip is that we are trying to take some asphalt out of there and increase the
green space there. It seems like that strip has been an integral part of this design all
throughout. Number One example is stormwater management. All the water from that
right of way from the sidewalk to our site is draining into the site. So we’re taking that
into consideration with our stormwater management, which is not shown on the plans we
gave to you, but we are putting in some underground infiltration units in a low spot there.
So we think we’ve done some substantial stormwater improvements because quite
frankly right now there aren’t any. It just kind of ponds to the low point there. So, we’ve
taken the area into consideration for our stormwater management. We’ve reduced
impervious area in there, and I feel like the visual impact, as you drive by there, you’re
not going to decipher where the property line is. It’s going to look like part of the site
there. So I just thought it was a little unfair that we’ve taken this strip and we’ve taken it
into all of our design work and everything and we’re not able to use it for what we need to
use it for. So this six percent that we’re short on the open space is just about that strip
right there in front, and again we’re just asking to include that in as a benefit for us,
because we’ve been working with it, as our design for stormwater management and
stuff, and then in addition to that, you know, you’ve seen the planting plan. We’re
planting it with landscaping and stuff. So that’s pretty much all I have to say about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would this gentleman like to add anything at this time? Okay.
Well, then I’ll proceed here. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any
questions for the applicants concerning Area Variance No. 7-2007?
MR. URRICO-You indicate this is going to be a fast food restaurant, the A frame.
VANCE COHEN
MR. COHEN-It’s a snack shop. Right, it’s going to remain.
MR. URRICO-Where’s the parking for that?
MR. COHEN-It’s along with this parking, the entire lot.
MR. MOGREN-As a matter of fact, we have a breakdown of the parking. There is a
portion of it that’s attributed to the restaurant, and that amount is.
MR. URRICO-I see two handicap spots, three handicap spots. I see 37 and 38, and no
indication that you would actually save those or keep them open for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to guess you’re looking at the ones that are one, two,
three, four, and forty-two, forty-three, forty-four, and forty-five, you have the hatched
marks on those?
MR. MOGEN-Well, the hatched marks, this represents the existing, you know, we want
to retain the existing asphalt, but what I was going to answer your question was 18.2
spaces are required for the restaurant, okay, under the Code, and so 18.2 is for the
restaurant, and then the balance is the parking facility.
MR. URRICO-So those spots wouldn’t be sold or rented for the day, they would be kept
open for the restaurant?
MR. COHEN-The business, right.
MR. MOGREN-Could you repeat that again? Are you asking us if we’re designating
certain spots to be used only for the restaurant?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. MOGREN-Because we’re not really proposing that.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. URRICO-So then if the lot is sold out, there’s basically no room for the restaurant
parking.
MR. MOGREN-Yes, I would think, the business would be run.
MR. URRICO-That lot’s usually sold out by 10 o’clock, 10:30. The restaurant would be
open, what, at noon?
MR. COHEN-Right. There will be certain spots designated for the restaurant.
MR. URRICO-You just said they wouldn’t be.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m confused. Let’s back up here. A Board member asked a
question. Would you repeat your question again, please.
MR. URRICO-My question is, are there going to be certain designated spots which are
going to be reserved for the fast food restaurant.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you have one answer, and your answer was completely
different. So let’s clear this up right now.
MR. MOGREN-Okay. The plan as it is now doesn’t show any designated parking for the
restaurant or the parking facility. Now, Vance, you’re willing to do that.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not satisfied with the answer. Help me out. Let’s clear this up. To me,
you’re not answering the question.
MR. MOGREN-Okay.
MR. COHEN-Well, our plan is to have the restaurant to be open during certain hours,
and then the parking facility is going to be run during certain hours, and a portion of the
parking for the restaurant will be used for that purpose, for the restaurant, and then the
rest of it is going to be used as the parking lot for the pay parking.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then we’ll go back to Mr. Urrico’s question again, please.
MR. URRICO-My question is are there going to be certain spots reserved for the
restaurant, and how many of them?
MR. COHEN-We haven’t determined the exact amount that we were going to reserve for
it. It depends on the time of the day that we’re going to be, you know, running the
restaurant, which hasn’t been determined yet, but there will be spaces available.
MR. URRICO-But if the restaurant opened and the lot’s full, you’re not going to have
spots.
MR. COHEN-Well, there will be, you know, we’ll make consideration, you know, whether
it’s going to be a half day parking space.
MR. URRICO-Are you going to page The Great Escape and ask people to move their
cars?
MR. COHEN-No, we’ll work it out with our patrons, whether it’s going to be a full day spot
or a half day spot.
MRS. JENKIN-Didn’t you say that, and I’m interrupting. I’m sorry, but didn’t you say that
a fast food restaurant is supposed to have 18 spaces?
MR. MOGREN-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So then you’ll keep 18 spaces clear for the restaurant?
MR. COHEN-For when it’s, during the restaurant’s business hours, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And what are those business hours?
MR. COHEN-That’s yet to be determined because we’re not sure who’s going to be
running it yet. We’ve been leasing the property out over the past few years, and
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
depending on who comes in and what they’re exactly going to do, we’re not sure if it’s
going to be run during dinner hours, if it’s going to be run all day.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Just to sort of continue with that theme, how do we know you’re not going
to be using the grassy areas for parking as well?
MR. COHEN-Well, we’re designating, you know, this X amount of parking spaces, and
there won’t be any.
MR. URRICO-But that didn’t stop you, in the past, from parking on the grassy area.
MR. COHEN-Well, we didn’t know how much in demand we were going to be right there,
and we did park some cars on the grass until.
MR. URRICO-So if you’re in demand now, you’re going to do the same thing.
MR. COHEN-Well, no, we’ve established a set parking lot here, and so we feel that will
cover that demand.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other questions concerning this Area
Variance No. 7-2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make a couple of comments. I think that, you know,
when we forced The Great Escape to put the pedestrian bridge in and create all their
paved parking that that created a new avenue for adjacent property owners to make a
little cash by also creating parking facilities here, and I think that, you know, we did
permit, last year, the mountainside one up on the other side of the road up there, up the
hill to the south, and in this instance here, though, that we’re, one of the questions I have
is, you know, the Community Development Department has asked us for a coordinated
review with the Planning Board on this, and I think that part of what we were trying to do
was to clear up the old days of people jaywalking across the road and things like that,
and I think that it would be incumbent upon you, as providing parking services, to have
signage directing that all pedestrians will cross on that bridge.
MR. COHEN-And we do, and we instruct them to do so.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other comment I would make would be that, you know, in
having driven by in the summertime with your flagging the drivers in and stuff like that, I
think there’s some confusion as to that, too, not knowing if it’s Great Escape parking or if
it’s your parking or who’s it is, or why some guy with an orange flag is out there flagging
cars down. It’s confusing for the drivers and things like that, and I think that’s something
that, an issue that should be looked at by the Planning Board. I don’t know if we have
anything in Town that allows people to solicit parking in that manner, you know, because
it does seem to me to be confusing for drivers who aren’t familiar with the area and the
parking lot situation.
MR. COHEN-Right. We were just letting them know that we were available for parking.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, and I don’t want to confuse that with your ability to make
money. I know you’ve got to pay for your property there by some means. I think that,
you know, what you’re proposing here looks to me to be an improvement. The numbers,
the 53 number I think is something that’s subject to review, and the Planning Board really
ought to be, ultimately, the one to make that determination as to whether that number is
too high or is that number a reasonable number that they can live with, and I think at this
time I would rather see a coordinated review occur before we make our decision,
because we don’t want to mess up what we’re trying to improve in that area.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, I think you had something else
you wished to say?
MR. URRICO-Well, I also want to, I want to agree with Mr. Underwood about a
coordinated review. I think when the planning was done for that corridor, with the
pedestrian bridge and with everything that was done, there was a master plan or some
plan in effect that would lighten traffic there and not create, move the light so that there
would be a safer environment there, but what wasn’t anticipated were the accessory
businesses that would go up as a result of this, and I think it would be wise to have the
Planning Board take another look at it with that in mind as well. The other issue that I
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
wanted to raise is the issue of the sign on that A-frame. As far as I can remember, and
I’ve been on the Board long enough, that when we gave a variance for a sign, it was for
the freestanding sign, and there’s been a sign on that building that seems to be
oversized. It’s been there since, for two years now, and I’d like to know what your plans
are for that.
MR. COHEN-That sign would remain for the business that’s going to be there, and I
believe it’s within the 100 square feet of, that’s allowed.
MR. BROWN-Which building are you talking about, Roy?
MR. URRICO-The A-frame.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, there’s a wall sign that’s on the roof of the building.
MR. URRICO-But I think the variance was given for the freestanding sign.
MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes, the wall sign’s a compliant sign.
MR. URRICO-It’s a compliant sign? Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes, Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-What we’re really being asked to approve here is relief from the
permeability requirement. Could you speak a little bit to how many parking places you
would lose if you complied with the permeability requirements, and whether or not
there’s, or is that a problem financially? Would it make the parking lot not viable or just
cut money?
MR. MOGREN-It comes to about 10 spaces. So that’s what we’re dealing with. It’s a
substantial amount.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Obviously there’s some benefit to the applicant in terms of
financial return if he can have those 10 spaces, but I think we need to know more. So
you’re not going to make a couple of bucks, big deal, or does it mean that you’re not
going to make so much that you’re not going to pay your taxes?
MR. COHEN-Well, having those additional 10 spaces, we’re planning on doing a
considerable landscape with the property, putting a really nice retaining wall in, which is
very expensive, and that would obviously help to pay for our cost on the property. With
the improvements, we definitely would request to have those 10 spaces to help benefit
the business.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other comments or questions?
MRS. JENKIN-One comment. If you don’t find someone to lease the A-frame for a
restaurant, then that will remain closed, correct? And then it will only be a parking lot?
MR. COHEN-That would be correct.
MRS. JENKIN-And then if you took away the 10, then you have 54, right, that’s total
now?
MR. COHEN-Fifty-three.
MR. MOGREN-Fifty-three total.
MRS. JENKIN-Fifty-three, and then you took away the 10 you’d have 43. If you had the
restaurant running and you took away 18 then you’re left with around 20 spaces to rent
out.
MR. COHEN-That’s right.
MRS. JENKIN-To make money for just parking.
MR. COHEN-Right.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MRS. JENKIN-I don’t know, if you’re talking about money, do you get more money in
because you have the restaurant running, or do you get more money from just having a
full parking space there?
MR. COHEN-Well, we anticipate running as a parking facility and having the snack shop
open, you know, we’re not sure of the exact hours. So it’s real hard to say, but our plan
is to have both.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MS. ALTER-Mr. Abbate, if I could add a point.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MS. ALTER-As part of the coordinated review of the stormwater, we’ve asked the Town
Engineer to review your plans. He has not finished his review this evening, but he will
have it done by the time you come to the Planning Board, and I think we might want to
rely on his expertise with respect to whether or not there’s sufficient permeable area on
the site to comply with the new stormwater regs that are mandated by the Federal
government.
MR. ABBATE-Excellent point. Thank you very much. Do we have any other questions
before I continue, folks? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 7-2007. Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on this
variance? If so, would you raise your hand? I see one gentleman. Sir, would you come
to the table and identify yourself and your place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North
Queensbury. I would just like to remind everyone that collection of a fee for parking is
sales taxable. So this operator should obtain, probably has a sales tax identification
number for the operation of the restaurant, but that revenue collected from the parking is
an item that’s sales taxable. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other folks in the
audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 7-2007? I see no other hands.
Gentlemen, would you be kind enough to come back to the table, please. What I’m
going to do is ask members to make some comments concerning the application and the
testimony that was given this evening. Do we have an individual, a volunteer who would
like to start? Rick, would you be kind enough to start.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to say that I don’t feel comfortable at this
point, I wouldn’t, at this point, feel comfortable voting in favor of this application without a
coordinated SEQRA review. I have several issues I’m concerned about. There’s going
to be a lot of filling and grading going on on this property, and I’m not quite sure what
type of environmental impacts that’s going to have on the area. I’m also concerned
about the fact if there are undoubtedly going to be people walking directly across the
street from this lot. You can tell people to use the pedestrian walkway, but that is
considerably out of the way from where The Great Escape entrance is, and I have a
problem with people crossing the road there. I’ve seen it done every summer, and it’s
created hazards for that strip of Route 9 every year. So at this point I wouldn’t be in favor
of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much for your comment. Do we have someone
else who would like to proceed? Joyce, would you?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to Mr. Garrand. Without the engineer’s report and the Board
makes SEQRA review, I don’t feel I could go for this application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. We’re going to go right down the line. Mr.
Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I think I made my point clear. At this point I would be in favor of seeking
Planning Board involvement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. MC NULTY-I think a Planning Board review before we make a decision would be
helpful. On the one hand a lot of these concerns that we’re raising, and I share them, I’m
concerned about somebody out there mucking up traffic with an orange flag. I’m
concerned about people crossing the street just after we solved that problem by causing
Great Escape to spend a chunk of money to put a bridge across, but for the most part
those are Planning Board issues, except for the fact that I think there also responsible to
this Board in terms of will it change the character of the neighborhood, but it still falls
closer to the Planning Board and at this point, I’m not sure that we’ve got enough
justification to allow the additional parking spaces, disregarding all those others. This is,
in essence, new construction of sorts, and I think we need more justification than we’ve
heard so far as to why should we allow a decrease in permeability beyond the set limit,
simply to add 10 spaces. I mean, if it puts more money in somebody’s pocket, that’s nice
for them, but I don’t think that’s justification for a variance. If it’s a terms that the
business will fail absent those 10 spaces, or some other concern like that, that might be
a little different. So I think I’ll jump on the bandwagon of wanting to see some more
discussion before we make a decision.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think I would rather see this review occur before we render
our decision here this evening. I think that, you know, there are some pluses here. I
think, you know, the removal of the Shindigs restaurant would be a plus. I mean, I think
it’s been tough for people to come in and run that business over the years. They’ve
come and gone, and, you know, nobody makes it there really. So I think that the, in
keeping just the ice cream shop there would probably be a better fit for the summertime
usage, and you’re probably going to make a go of that, if it works for you. As far as the
parking, though, I think that the Planning Board’s probably going to render a decision
also regarding, you know, ingress and egress out of there, as far as whether you need
one place or two places, you know, just to keep the flow of traffic going. I know that
when your traffic leaves at peak times at the end of the day when the patrons are all
leaving Great Escape, you know, you guys get stuck having to wait for hours and hours
to get out of there, but in general I think that if we allow them to review this, I think they’re
going to give you some reasonable solution to what you’re asking for here, and I think
that then we can make our choice.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MRS. JENKIN-I do agree with Mr. McNulty’s comments and my concern is that minimum
permeability requirements and less parking spaces would be a good idea. Okay. It is
the permeability and the extra parking spaces, and I agree it would be a benefit, and it
would be an improvement, but I think that, just to make money from the maximum
number of parking spaces is not going to help the area at all. So that’s my opinion, and
I’m not willing to say yes to your request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I concur with my fellow Board members.
Quite frankly at this time, I’m not comfortable that there has been sufficient information.
Certainly we haven’t received information concerning SEQRA, particularly since this is
an Unlisted Action, what have you. So I concur. I think Staff has made an excellent
point. I think I’m looking for a motion to move this to the Planning Board and make them
the Lead Agency in SEQRA, with a recommendation. However, the Planning Board is
going to have 30 days in which to get back to us with a decision. So I’m looking for a
motion to move this to the Planning Board, giving them the authority to be the Lead
Agency in the SEQRA, as well as any other provision you wish to put in there, with the
condition that the recommendation back to the ZBA is within 30 days.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, 30 days is not a reasonable timeframe.
MR. ABBATE-Thirty days is what the County requires by law.
MRS. BARDEN-The Planning Board, after seeking Lead Agency status, will have to wait
30 days before they.
MR. BROWN-I guess the first step here is if what you want to do is recommend that the
Planning Board be Lead Agency to perform SEQRA on this action.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. BROWN-That’s what your motion can say.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-In that motion there’s some flexibility where you can ask the Planning
Board to also seek an input from any other involved agencies. In this case it appears
obvious involved agency, New York State Department of Transportation.
MR. ABBATE-But I don’t want this to go on for six months.
MR. BROWN-Once the Planning Board, if they accept or seek Lead Agency, we notify
the New York State Department of Transportation and say, are you an involved agency,
do you want to be the SEQRA Lead Agency. The Planning Board may wait up to 30
days. If the DOT doesn’t respond in 30 days, they can go ahead. If they respond inside
the 30 days, they can go ahead at any time at that point. They don’t have to wait the full
30 days.
MR. ABBATE-My concern is the fact that I know the case load for the Planning Board.
Okay, and I’m concerned with due process here. If I can have a reasonable timeframe.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think there’s any infringement on due process here.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I do. You’re not on the Board. I’m concerned with due process.
Okay, and if you can give me a reasonable timeframe, that would be fine, but we’re not
going to send this to the Planning Board and say whenever you get back to us, no way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we can look at it in the context of, it’s February now, and
The Great Escape doesn’t open until Memorial Day weekend, right, that’s the earliest.
So I mean, I would think it could be concluded by the beginning.
MR. ABBATE-All right. A reasonable timeframe, ladies and gentlemen, is okay with me,
but I want a timeframe.
MS. ALTER-How about two months, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-Ms. Executive Director, I have no problems with that. At least we have a
timeframe. Okay. So the Executive Director made an excellent suggestion. Two
months for recommendation from the Planning Board. Do I have a motion here from
someone? We need a motion to move it to the.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You go ahead and make it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’m going to move a motion that we take Area Variance
No. 7-2007 and request that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency in the SEQRA,
since this is an Unlisted Action. In addition to that, I’m going to also request that they
certain can seek other areas of expertise, such as our Town Engineer, as an example to
include in the information, and then I’m also going to ask that within two months, that
they consolidate this information and come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals with a
recommendation. Would anyone like to add or detract anything from that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I would say we can put you back on the agenda, you
know, we can just add you on because it’s a just, it’s a quick add on. It’s not like it’s a
major deal.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I don’t have a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I’ll tell you what,
st
folks. Why don’t we put them on the agenda, today’s the 21 of February, is it not? Let’s
say April. That’s okay with me. How about if we have the timeframe the Planning Board
will get back to us by the second ZBA meeting in April 2007 with a recommendation and
the results of the SEQRA? Is that okay, folks? Do you want to add anything to that?
MRS. BARDEN-I guess I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MRS. BARDEN-You want the Planning Board to get back to you by the second meeting
in April, or you would like to put them on the agenda the second meeting in April.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We can put them on the agenda. We would assume they would be
back to us by then.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s not a problem. We’ll put them on the agenda, please. Would
you mark that down, Susan, please.
th
MRS. JENKIN-That’s April 25.
th
MR. ABBATE-April 25. Thank you very much.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask that all related agencies also
forward information and recommendations to this Board also.
MR. ABBATE-We’ll include that as part of the motion.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I guess, procedurally, by requesting that the Planning Board be Lead
Agency, all those determinations of significance or desire to be Lead Agency go to the
Planning Board.
MS. ALTER-But we can copy the ZBA.
MR. BROWN-If the Planning Board wants to copy you with that as Lead Agency they can
certainly do that, but I’m not sure we could require the other agencies to notify you as
well, but we can provide you copies of that.
MS. ALTER-We can ask.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MS. ALTER-And we will copy you with whatever the Planning Board gets.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. Yes, absolutely, we want copies of that, exactly, please.
MR. URRICO-I guess I’m confused. If we’re asking the Planning Board to be Lead
Agency, don’t they dictate the pace of the application?
MR. ABBATE-No, only a Zoning Board of Appeals can make a decision on a variance,
no other agency.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So when we’re asking them to move on the SEQRA, don’t they
have to proceed per their due diligence and make sure that everything is correct?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-So how can we assume that it’s going to be done in two months?
MR. ABBATE-Well, the problem is this. Do we want it to go into 2008?
MR. URRICO-I don’t know what the timeframe would be, but we never do that, when we
had, you know, Golden Corral, for instance. We didn’t say to them, get back to us within
a certain timeframe.
MR. ABBATE-The problem, Roy, is basically that the Planning Board is so backed up
right now.
MR. URRICO-I understand that, but what I’m saying is that this is something that we
haven’t done before. Is this a new precedent?
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s not a new precedent, but I think we have an obligation to seek
obviously information if we’re going to make the Planning Board the Lead Agency, but
we also have an obligation for due process. I don’t think it’s fair to say okay folks we’ll
see you in the Year 2008.
MR. URRICO-But neither do we want them to rush it through there.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not saying rush it through, but we have to have a timeframe.
MR. MOGREN-Can I ask you a question?
MR. ABBATE-You may.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. MOGREN-I appreciate your concern for the timeframe, but we’re scheduled for the
Planning Board next week, we’re on the agenda there, but based on my previous
experiences with that Planning Board, it’s probably highly unlikely that they would grant
an approval that night. So I was just wondering, if they haven’t made a decision by the
25th.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you propose a particular timeframe,
since you’re the one being effected.
MR. MOGREN-I’d love to have yours work out. That would be great. Like I say, we’re in
front of the Planning Board next week, and I suppose then we’re asking for a conditional
approval based on the ZBA, it’s got to be conditioned.
MS. ALTER-No, no. We’re starting the SEQRA process next week, right? We haven’t
done that yet. So we’ll need to do that, and it’s Unlisted. So it’s going to be a minimum
of 20 days. Okay. So in theory they should get everything back in time for the two
month timeframe. If they don’t, they have the right to tell the ZBA we need a little more
time. I mean, we’re assuming you want to have this for the season.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s it. Good point.
MS. ALTER-So I mean, they’re having extra meetings to hopefully catch up. So that’s a
good thing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Folks, so now the motion has been.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if you don’t mind
making the tabling motion again. There were a lot of things mentioned, and I want to
make sure I get everything in the tabling motion.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let’s do it again. You’re absolutely correct, Maria. Thank you
very much. Okay.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA
REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2007, VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
1.Since Area Variance No. 7-2007 is Unlisted.
2.That they do whatever research that’s necessary to compile information to
come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals within 60 days to provide a
recommendation.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 7-2007 is referred to
the Planning Board as Lead Agency for SEQRA, and with the stipulation that they will
compile necessary research information and get back to the Zoning Board of Appeals
th
within two months to be placed on the agenda tentatively for April the 25. Thank you
very much, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II ADD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S):
ABD ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS OWNER(S): PAMAL BROADCASTING, LTD.
ZONING: LI LOCATION: 89 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 216 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE LI ZONE. CROSS
REF.: BP 97-387 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 14, 2007
LOT SIZE: 4.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-4 SECTION: 179-4-030
TOM ANDRESS & ANGELO TREMANO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2007, ADD Development, Meeting Date:
February 21, 2007 “Project Location: 89 Everts Avenue Description of Proposed
Project: The application is for a 216 sq. ft. commercial addition to the existing 2,932 sq.
ft. broadcasting building.
Relief Required:
The applicants request wetland setback relief of 20-feet, from the minimum requirement
of 75-feet, per §179-4-030 for the LI-zone.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be able to construct the proposed addition in the desired location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for shoreline setback relief of 20-feet from the required 75-feet may be
considered moderate at 27%. However, the existing building maintains a 40-foot
setback, therefore, no further encroachment will result.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 97-387: Issued 7/28/98, 1260 sq. ft. commercial addition (office space).
Staff comments:
The site plan shows a line illustrating the limit of Federal wetlands, which is not derived
from an actual field delineation of the known ACOE wetlands on the property. This could
be requested by the Board to verify the specific amount of setback relief required.
While the request for relief may be considered moderate, no further encroachment into
the minimum 75-foot shoreline/wetland setback is proposed. It appears that feasible
alternatives appear to be limited due to the presence of wetlands on-site.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, would you be kind enough to identify yourselves,
please.
MR. ANDRESS-Certainly. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and surveyors
representing the applicant. With me tonight is the applicant’s representative, Angelo
Tremano from ADD Development.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you were hear earlier when I gave the procedures, since both
of you are not attorneys?
MR. ANDRESS-Yes, I was.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you prepared to proceed?
MR. ANDRESS-Yes, I am.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. ANDRESS-All right. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me, I do have some
photographs that might help the members of the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. If you wish to introduce those, please do.
MR. ANDRESS-Thank you. Okay. We’re here tonight for Adirondack Broadcasting to
propose a very small addition, and as you can see from the photograph, an infill between
the building. The addition is approximately 216 square feet. So it’s only approximately
nine by twenty-four. Not a large addition, but by creating that infill, it allows the interior
development of the building to be modified so that it works better for interior flow.
Basically, we have an area that’s dry, and then most of the site, probably why it was
developed with towers for broadcasting, is wet. There’s an actual very well defined limit,
because the water sits right at the edge of the gravel. So it was quite easy to measure.
We just measured the distance from the gravel to the edges of the building. One of the
corners of the building is actually only 40 feet from the edge of the water. So obviously it
doesn’t meet the 75 foot requirement. The other portion of the building is 55 feet, and
our addition would protrude to that 55 foot. So that’s why we’re here before this Board
for that 20 foot variance for the 55 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any questions?
We have a volunteer who would like to start out with questions? Do we have any
members of the Board who would like to ask any questions concerning Area Variance
No. 10-2007? All right. If we have no questions, then this is what I’m going to do. I’m
going to continue on and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No.
10-2007, and do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on Area
Variance No. 10-2007? If so, raise your hands and I’ll be happy to recognize you. I see
no hands raised, and we will continue on. I’m going to ask members to offer their
comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are
directed to the Chairman, and the comments expressed by Board members to the
Chairman are not open to debate. I’m going to respectfully, again, remind the members
that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears
on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be
specifically stated. Having said that, may I have a volunteer and ask members to please
volunteer to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 10-2007. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really consider this very small addition to have any impact on
the wetland back there whatsoever. I think that the 216 square feet is not going to do
anything. It’s going to help your layout in making your office and your business work in a
better manner I would say, and in general I think that the benefit to the applicant
outweighs any detriment to the wetland back there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Why don’t we start at the end.
Chuck, do you mind, we’ll go right down the line, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree with what’s been said, that, you know, if this were a
new project or it was a protruding addition on the backside, I’d have a real problem with it
being that close to a wetland, but in this case it’s an infill. The building’s already closer
than that, and this isn’t making the violation any wider either, because it’s going between
two legs of the building. So I think all the decision falls to the benefit of the applicant and
no detriment that you can pin down. So I’d definitely be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Rick, would you go next, please?
MR. GARRAND-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if there’s a question I could ask of
Staff really quick.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, please do.
MR. GARRAND-Is there currently litigation pending against the Town of Queensbury
with respect to these wetlands in this area?
MRS. BARDEN-Not that I’m aware of, no.
MS. ALTER-I’m not aware of any, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I’ve seen the inside of
this building. It’s cramped in there, and also the infill of this one area I don’t think is
going to make a whole lot of difference, with respect to the area. So at this point I’d be in
favor of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. I don’t think that the request is substantial. I think that the area
that you want to infill, it’s definitely an advantage to you to do it to make it more efficient.
It doesn’t encroach into that huge area back there, and so I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You got me.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I did. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Not only does he have no other means feasible, but I think this is the only
means feasible is where he’s putting the addition. I would be in favor of it. I don’t see it
as a problem.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, did we get your comments?
MRS. HUNT-Not yet.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MRS. HUNT-No, I would be in favor of this. I agree with my fellow Board members. It’s
a very modest request. It’s certainly not going to change the effect of the neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I totally concur with my fellow Board
members. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No.
10-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members again that we have the
task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and
remember, while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, unlike a Use
Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five
factors. Having said that, do I have volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 10-
2007?
MR. URRICO-I’ll take it.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Urrico.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2007 ADD DEVELOPMENT,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
89 Everts Avenue. The proposal by the applicant is to build a 216 square foot
commercial addition to the existing 2932 square feet. In doing so, the applicant is
requesting 20 feet of relief from the minimum requirements of 75 feet per 179-4-030,
referring to the wetlands. In making the application, the applicant has proved to us that
he is satisfying the balancing test, which encompasses the benefit being able to be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, and in this case the only means
feasible to the applicant is a space which he has designated for the addition. In doing so
also the applicant is not making a change to the neighborhood that would be undesirable
in any respect. The request, while percentage wise might be considered moderate, in
actuality is not getting any closer to the wetlands than the current building already is.
The request should not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and the
difficulty may be considered self-created because they’re a crowded building and they
need more space. I would move for its approval.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 10-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 10-2007 is approved.
MR. ANDRESS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2007 DENNIS AND SUSAN FREDETTE AGENT(S): TOM
HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING CHARLES JOHNSON, PARADOX DESIGNS
OWNER(S): CRESCENT PLACE LLC ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 69 BIRCH
ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
(BROWN’S HOTEL) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MINIMUM
ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT
SIZE: 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-55 & 56 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090
TOM HUTCHINS & CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2007, Dennis and Susan Fredette, Meeting
Date: February 21, 2007 “Project Location: 69 Birch Road, Glen Lake Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,085 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief to exceed the height requirement by 3-feet, where 28-feet is
the maximum, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Additionally, relief from the required minimum 40-feet of road frontage per principal
building, per §179-4-090, is requested.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
The applicants would be permitted to construct the proposed single-family dwelling at the
desired height.
The applicants would be permitted to utilize a private driveway to access their property.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include reducing the proposed height of the structure.
Feasible alternatives relative to the road frontage requirement appear to be limited.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for additional 3-feet of height over the maximum 28-feet may be considered
minimal at 10%.
The relief from the minimum road frontage requirement of 40-feet is the maximum 100%.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate visual impacts on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a
result of the height request.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty of the request for height relief may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
2006-350: Issued 6/12/06, demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. residence and garage.
2001-603: Issued 8/15/01, 320 sq. ft. dock.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
Staff comments:
While the actual request for 3-feet of relief over the maximum 28-feet may be considered
minimal, the potential visual impacts to the neighborhood or community should be
discussed.
While the request from the minimum road frontage requirement of 40-feet is the
maximum 100%, the difficulty does not appear to be self-created. The requirement is for
the purpose of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks
and/or ambulances (§179-4-090). It appears that the Town highway extends to 65 Birch,
the 70-feet (+/-) of gravel drive extending from there to 69 (project location) will need to
be maintained to allow safe access of emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshal has
indicated that access should not be a problem (see Mike Palmer correspondence).
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, I see you’re already at the table. Would you identify
yourself, please.
MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here
on behalf of Dennis and Susan Fredette. To my right is Mr. Fredette. To my left is
Charles Johnson, who’s Mr. Fredette’s architect. We are here seeking relief from two
items, the first being the minimum road frontage required for new construction on this
parcel. I’d start with a little bit of info. on the parcel. The Fredette’s are the owner of 69
Birch Road. There is presently a structure on the property. It is, I don’t know of the age,
but I think, suffice it to say it’s very old. It’s in poor structural condition. It’s not a good
candidate for a re-model. What the Fredette’s would like to do is demolish this structure
and build a lower new modern single family house on the property. The first variance we
request is for the fact that this parcel is cut up without any direct road frontage on Birch
Road. To my knowledge it’s been that way forever. There is a deeded right of way for
both this parcel and also the parcel to the south, which is owned by Clark, to go across a
small portion of the parcel to the north, across this subject parcel, to access Clark. That
easement is written to the owners of this parcel as well as the Clarks. In practice, I’ve
talked with the Assistant Highway Superintendent. In practice, the Town maintains down
to an area within what I’m showing as blacktop surface on the parcel to the north. I don’t
have anything in writing from them, but in practice they maintain down to there. As Jim
indicated the Fire Marshal has submitted something indicating his lack of concern for
emergency access to the parcel. That’s in a nutshell the summary of the road frontage
variance we’re requesting. I’m going to turn it over to Charles to discuss the more
interesting issue of the building we’re proposing.
MR. JOHNSON-Hi, good evening. As Tom said, we’re going to be taking down the
existing building that’s there and hopefully making an improvement with our new house.
This house has been designed basically as a Cape, single story house with a second
floor tucked up underneath the roof. We’ve done this to minimize the bulk, reduce the
visual size and importance of the house. We originally looked at a two story boxy design
with a fairly shallow roof design that would conform with the 28 foot height restriction, but
we rejected that, for aesthetic reasons. We really wanted to try and blend with the
neighborhood, the smaller scale houses. So we’re here tonight to ask permission to
break the rules, so that the rule, the spirit of the rule, would be sort of better enforced.
It’s sort of an unusual situation tonight. As you can see, the amount of actual height that
we’re asking for, actually there’s a typo. It’s four feet, not three feet. So we’re asking to
have from 28 to 32 feet. I think in our documents we said three feet, but we’d really like
four. So that the reason we’ve got that four feet of extension in height is primarily for the
entry side where we have the garage tucked in to the basement. So we’re locked in with
our basement floor elevation in relation to the driveway. We’re trying to improve the
back driveway a bit. So that locks in our elevation of the basement.
MR. ABBATE-Let me interrupt you for a moment, please.
MR. JOHNSON-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-The description indicates that you’re requesting relief to exceed the height
requirements by three feet. You just stated on the record that three feet is incorrect,
you’re seeking four feet?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Was this indicated in your application?
MR. JOHNSON-No, that’s what I just said, it’s a typo.
MR. ABBATE-So this is a last minute adjustment.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clear that up for the record.
Continue, please.
MR. JOHNSON-So it’s our garage that really drives this height requirement. We’ve got
basically a walkout basement topography of this site, and as I said, the existing road on
the back, we’re trying to raise the elevation a bit to help the adjacent neighbor. So that
establishes our placement of the building on the property. I’d also, at this point, like to
introduced another visual aid here. I’ve got a picture I’ll pass out to the Board of the
existing site, with the proposed computer generated model of the house superimposed
on it, and I think it helps give an indication of the scale of the building in relation to its
neighbors, the neighborhood. There’s sort of sliding white line through the building. The
lower photograph shows the new house and there’s a white line that kind of cuts through
the top of the roof area. That’s my attempt to kind of put a 28 foot glass ceiling above the
topography of the site, so you can see how much of the house, or how much of the roof
actually exceeds that 28 foot layout. So it’s fairly small in nature towards the center of
the house, not something that the average person’s going to perceive. It’s a view from
the lake. So you can see that it’s impact to the lake is hopefully pleasant. So this project
meets all of the other requirements that the Town has put on the property. The relief that
we’re requesting is not substantial, and this will not have an adverse impact on the
neighborhood or the environment.
MS. ALTER-You’re going to need to re-notice because you asked for less.
MR. JOHNSON-I was wondering.
MS. ALTER-Yes, well, I’m the voice of doom. So you’re going to have to re-notice. The
Board can hear what you’re saying tonight, but someone looking at the papers is going to
realize that there was an error.
MR. JOHNSON-I wondered if the legal ad had the three foot specified.
MS. ALTER-Well, we have whatever you give us. We can’t be psychic.
MR. ABBATE-See, that was my major concern, and I just spoke to Staff about that.
While it may not change anything as far as we’re concerned, but if it were advertised as
three feet, I would suggest that we advertise this, for legal safety, if you will, but I’ll leave
that up to the Board. That’s my recommendation.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are the neighbors, near neighbors affected? Are they here? One of
them I see. They’re both here.
MR. ABBATE-One of the neighbors are here? Yes, we’ll give you an opportunity to
speak in just a few minutes, okay, but can we keep that in the back of our minds, before
we make any decision this evening? So we can continue on. Just keep that in the back
of your mind. It was advertised, folks, as three feet.
MR. MC NULTY-Do we know it was actually advertised as three feet or did it just say that
they’re requesting height relief?
MR. ABBATE-Help me out, guys, will you.
MRS. BARDEN-The agenda just says relief requested from the maximum height
restrictions.
MR. ABBATE-It didn’t indicate anything?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t need to re-do it.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If you folks are comfortable with that, guess what, since they didn’t
use a mathematical number, I’m comfortable with it, too. It’s up to you folks.
MRS. BARDEN-Let me just check.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, would you, please, Susan. Unfortunately, as a quasi-judicial Board,
we’re subject to judicial review. Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-It didn’t specify.
MR. ABBATE-It was not specified in terms of feet, is that correct?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I don’t have any problems with
that. Do you have any problems with that, as long as we made it a matter of record?
Okay. Then we will continue, please.
MR. JOHNSON-I’m all set. I’d ask, at this point, that the Board grant our two variance
requests, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s fair enough. So what I’m going to do, then, is ask
members of the Board if they have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 11-
2007? Do we have someone who’d like to ask a question?
MR. GARRAND-I have a couple of questions. Currently this is an apartment house.
How many tenants are in this building right now?
MR. JOHNSON-It’s vacant. I think there were four, maybe, four apartments.
MR. GARRAND-And what is the height of the current structure?
MR. HUTCHINS-If you can see the black shadow behind the rendered house shows
where they’ve pulled out the other house. It’s 10 to 12 feet, it’s estimating, higher than
the house we’re proposing.
MR. JOHNSON-I’d say 42 to 45 feet, roughly.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s quite high.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other members of the Board that have questions
concerning 11-2007?
MR. URRICO-Will it be maintained as a multifamily house afterwards?
MR. JOHNSON-No. We’re replacing it with a single family residence.
MR. URRICO-I sort of disagree with you about it being minimal. Whether it’s three feet
or four feet, I feel the height requirement is there for a reason, and it’s pretty strict. You
have to have a real good reason, in my estimation, to go beyond that, and just aesthetics
doesn’t necessarily cut it with me. So I’m going to need something better that, you know,
for me to see your side of it, than aesthetically it doesn’t blend in. I need to know why
you need to have it at that height.
MR. ABBATE-Please answer the question.
MR. JOHNSON-There’s two reasons. We’d like to keep the bulk of the building to a
smaller scale, because as you can see the houses on either side are fairly small. So we
didn’t want the big two story front right up to the setback line with a sort of flattish roof.
We didn’t feel that fit in. So that’s, and I hope you feel the same way. So that’s kind of
why we went this way. It’s not to get anything out of it. We’re trying to make the building
fit the neighborhood better. We’re trying to make it look better from the water, rather
than just this big shoulder to shoulder kind of house.
MR. URRICO-So it’s possible to lower it, is what I’m asking.
MR. JOHNSON-Anything’s possible, yes.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. URRICO-I mean, it’s more than possible. It’s something that could be done. You
said yourself that you considered that to begin with and didn’t like the way it looked, but
other than the way it looked, there was no physical reason for having changed to a
higher.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, the physical reason is trying to keep the building down, okay, and
to do that we’ve steepened the roof. So the peak of the roof gets slightly higher, but the
overall effect is a smaller feeling house.
MR. URRICO-Is there any way to bring it down and still maintain the aesthetics?
MR. JOHNSON-The rooms underneath that roof just get smaller and smaller. So for
every foot that we crimp it down, we lose an area. We only have, there’s two bedrooms
there.
MR. URRICO-But it’s a new design. You’re starting from scratch. There’s a chance to
design it so it meets the height requirement.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes. I would just say that the four feet is probably imperceptible. The
28 foot house next to the 32 foot house, the average person wouldn’t notice.
MR. URRICO-We’re not the average person. We’re a Zoning Board.
MR. JOHNSON-Well, we’re kind of designing for the average person. I know you guys
are the Board.
DENNIS FREDETTE
MR. FREDETTE-There’s one other issue, and that is that the neighbor next door would
like us to raise the driveway behind and so we have to bring the level of the basement up
in order to do that, to grade up to their driveway, and that would help them considerably,
and we’ve agreed to do that, to bring in the fill to do that, but if we bring the basement up,
then it makes it really difficult to meet that restriction, because more sticks out.
MRS. JENKIN-I have one consideration, and it’s the house behind, which I don’t think
that there’s any adverse effect to the house beside this, and I think it would be a real
advantage to build a beautiful home, considering the other building now is really ready
for a teardown, but the problem is the lake view. It’s never been, with this great
apartment block that was up, or apartment house that was up before, the house behind
really had no lake view at all. Now you brought it down. It is down lower, but if you
lowered it the four feet more, it would have a considerable impact on that house behind,
because they would see more of the lake. I feel, just from seeing that, I’m not sure, I did
not walk up to the house up above, but I think the four feet is considerable as well, and I
think that the plans could be made to fit the zoning regulations.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that height because you’re measuring from the walkout on the
lakefront side there?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s the garage, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, in the past I know that people have done like berms or, you
know, little things trying to jig jag the numbers down from what they are, but I don’t know,
it doesn’t really seem that that’s a feasible one on this one.
MR. HUTCHINS-If we eliminated that walkout, that would eliminate the requirement on
the front, but we still have the garage in the rear, we still have it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Folks on the Board, do we have any other questions concerning
11-2007 before I start? All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 11-2007. Do we have any individuals? Would you folks please come
forward to the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself, please, and where you
reside.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LINDA CLARK
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MS. CLARK-Hello. My name is Linda Clark. I live in the house behind the building, and
I’m here representing of course myself and also my parents who live next door to the
proposed structure. They are in Florida. So they’ve asked us to talk for them. This is
my brother.
BILL CLARK
MR. CLARK-And I’m going to talk basically about a few issues that we have, both
positive and negative, and some concerns, and basically the positive aspects of what we
really like and what we’ve seen.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now what I’m going to ask you folks to do, please, when you do
speak, we want it on the record. Would you speak directly into the microphone so our
secretary can pick up every word you say, please.
MR. CLARK-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-So if you’re prepared, go right ahead.
MS. CLARK-Okay. To begin, in terms of the height issue, I had an opportunity to look at
the picture that was done, and my big question was how different would it be, in regards
to the structure that currently sits there, and if you look, there’s a dark area on that
picture, and it shows where the current structure actually is in terms of the height, and
the new structure that’s being proposed is actually much, much lower than the current
structure. In addition to that, if you were to look out my house, right now I’m looking over
top of the brown house, but since they centered the house in the middle of the property,
I’m going to get a beautiful view. I’m very happy. I’m psyched. Yes. So it’s going to be
actually lower and over. So this is a good thing. I don’t have any issue with their three or
four foot proposal, because really it’s only just the peak of the house. It’s not the whole
span of the house that’s the additional three feet, or four feet. Let’s go on four, because I
don’t have any problem with four. So I just don’t see where that’s going to be an issue
for me, and so I’d like to support that part of it. They also said that some of the grading
on the property is coming down where the house is going to be built. So, if you think
about it, the grading’s coming down, the house is going up, but the house is still smaller
than the house that’s there now. So it seems to me it’s all a win/win. Okay. My one
concern about the grading happened to be the stand of pines that are between the two
properties, and I asked that there be consideration with those pines that the root
structure wouldn’t be destroyed so that the pines, you know, would die, and they assured
me that that, in fact, was not the case, that I wouldn’t have to worry about that. They’re
going to actually make use of that basement area, well, the partial basement, that’s in
that structure that sits there now. So they didn’t see where any of the roots would be
disturbed. So that made me very happy, too. My other issue that I wanted to bring up is
to just make sure that the right of way that goes through the back area, now I’m speaking
for my parents, that right of way, that it be wide enough and negotiable so that you can
get a fire truck through there, because that’s the only access for a fire truck. There’s
another road that comes down, but there’s no way a fire truck could come down that
other road, for a number of reasons. My septic tank is partially under that road. So you
can’t drive a huge truck through there, and the curvature of the road would not allow for
it. So if we would be sure to take those things into consideration, that would make me
very happy to. So on the overall, I’m very pleased. I’m very happy with this new
structure. I just can’t begin to tell you how great this is.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Would you like to respond as well?
MR. CLARK-Yes. We’re actually very pleased with what’s going on and the plans that
are being proposed. We’re seeing good things. To see the structure that’s existing
come down is just unbelievably happy for all of us. It’s many years in the making, and
we’re really glad, we would be really glad to see it come down. Let’s put it that way, the
existing structure. The road issue, they’ve been working with my parents on the road
issue. We do need to work and make sure that it’s widened to the point where you can
pull a pontoon boat out of where my parents are located. They have other smaller boats,
but the pontoon boat is the big issue at this point, and getting that out with an SUV
pulling it and being able to make the turn, and I really would prefer not to be able to drive
on their lawn or their septic tank or things like that as we come out. The angle, they’re
proposing angling the driveway in such a way or the land where there’s going to be a
place where they can have the water slope into a certain area. I think it’s a great idea.
We’re also kind of concerned about the fire engine issue, because that used to be their
primary access in and out. Birch Road was the address. It’s now Ash Drive, but Birch
Road was the main way to get into my folks’ place there at the end. It’s kind of a dead
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
end, and those are pretty much the issues that I have. The other issue was the patio and
making sure that, again, the root structure wasn’t affecting the pine trees, and one other
little tidbit that I kind of jotted down, that I think is a concern, and the concern is that in
the construction phase, that the waterfront be protected, in the sense that, you know,
maybe some bales of hay or something to keep the water, if you get a downpour, and to
keep the sediment from running into the lake and protecting the lakefront. It’s a beautiful
lakefront and it’s a gorgeous spot. There’s actually a nice beach area already in there,
but I’d hate to see the existing frontage be really totally disturbed, actually the water
area. I could see putting dirt over it and some grass and other things. So that’s pretty
much all I have. So basically it’s a positive and we’re really looking forward to seeing
some change.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, sir, could I get your name for the record?
MR. CLARK-My name is Bill Clark. My father is Reverend Robert E. Clark.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. We have another gentleman. Would you be kind
enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please, sir.
MARK PRENDEVILLE
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Prendeville. I own the
property two houses down, and I would just like to go on record to state that I’m very
much in favor of the Brown’s apartment building being torn down and something being
built there. I would like to see it possibly trying to get it within the height limitations,
though, but anything would be an improvement over what’s there now, and all the people
that live in the neighborhood I’m sure would be very much in favor of it. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much for your testimony. Do we have anyone else in the
public before I start? I see no hands. Gentlemen, would you come to the table, and
would you be kind enough address the issues and concerns raised by neighbors, please.
MR. HUTCHINS-Regarding the site issues, as far as the drive across the back, Dennis
has worked with, or has discussed at least with the Clarks, and we’re certainly willing to
work with them any way we can to improve that drive area to a mutual benefit. I think
part of the restriction the gentleman spoke about regarding width may be on the Clark
property. There are two walls on the Clark property, the driveway’s cut in there. There’s
a wall on either side, and I’m sure Dennis is willing to work with them on coordinating,
but obviously we can’t commit to doing improvements on a neighbor’s property, but we
will certainly work with them. Likewise with fire truck access. We would improve it to a
point where, and again, I don’t think the primary width restriction is on our parcel. In the
past, there was a building there and there were a number of vehicles, and I think that
was part of the restriction on our parcel, but we can work with them any way we can on
the access road. Protecting the waterfront, obviously we intend to protect the waterfront
with erosion control measures during construction. We do have a site work contractor
involved, a very good site work contractor, and we’re confident that we won’t have
tremendous issues there.
MR. FREDETTE-I’ve already talked with Mr. Clark, and I think we know what we need to
do. We’re both in agreement with the driveway. We want to bring that up quite a bit
because there’s quite a little quagmire in back there, and we should be able to bring it up
enough so that we hit the first level of his wall, and I’ve already talked to Tom about that,
which means the first level of the wall is the narrowest part, and if we bring the driveway
up enough to meet the first level of that wall, then it widens out on the second level of the
wall they have, and I believe he said that’s what he needs, that’s the height he needs.
So I think it’s going to work out very well if we do the grading that we planned, both for
him and for us, and so I think you can talk with Mr. Clark to determine if he thinks that’s a
good plan.
MR. JOHNSON-I think the only other issue that wasn’t touched on was the protection of
the pine trees. It’s both property owner’s desire to keep as many trees as possible. So
we’re going to make every effort to keep all those trees intact. The only other thing I
wanted to point out is the existing first floor of the house now is roughly the elevation 112
and a half feet, and our new first floor is seven feet lower than that. So we’re making
every attempt to nestle this down into the ground.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the front side there, you know the back side where your garage
is, you know, even if you’re going to be over height on the backside, I don’t think it’s any
real detriment to the neighborhood. On the front side, you know, I think that you still
could put some kind of a small berm up in front with daylilies on it or whatever. I mean, if
you made the berm three feet high, it would create the illusion that the house was, you
know, only needing one foot of relief. In essence, it doesn’t have to be real close to the
house, but between there and the lake, I think that you could do something that would
kind of camouflage it, and even though it still would be over height, in essence I think that
we could like, you know, look the other way on that issue. I think that that’s something
that’s reasonable with plantings to do. I know like over towards Prendeville’s, that way,
everybody’s got a lot of vegetation in front of their house, and that’s one of the things that
does protect the lake to a great degree. Just to the side of that big oak tree there, I think
that, you know, it could be in that area there that you could do that, and when you came
out you might have to exit sideways left or right, but you wouldn’t have that straight view
straight out through the doors there, you know, where you exit the cellar, but I think that
would be a reasonable solution.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine. Anyone else on the Board have any other comments
before we begin? Okay. I’m going to ask members to basically, if they have any other
comments, to offer them now before we go into the other section here. No other
comments from members of the Board? Okay. Then I’m going to close the public
hearing for Area Variance No.11-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again, I’ve already reminded the members what our task is of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. I don’t believe I
have to go back into it again. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No.
11-2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to poll us first.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Yes, that’s not a bad idea. Why don’t we do it this way and start
with Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I have no objections to this variance. I think that the 32
feet of the new house is certainly much better than the 40 feet or so of a building, and I
don’t think the minimum 40 foot road frontage is a problem, because there really is no
other solution. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, would you mind, please.
MR. URRICO-First I want to acknowledge that I think it’s a good project and it does
improve what’s there now. I do not have a problem with the variance regarding the
minimum road frontage, but I still have a problem with the height. I believe when you
stack the criteria against it, the benefit to the applicant can be achieved at a 28 foot
height limitation or closer to that than you currently have. I’m pleased that the neighbors
don’t have any objection to it, at least one of the neighbors didn’t, the other one did, but I
think when we’re talking about height, and we’re talking about change in the
neighborhood character or nearby properties, here we have a chance, we’re starting with
new construction. So right off the bat we’re starting off with new construction that needs
a variance for height, and I think this sets a bad precedence. Even though we don’t deal
with precedence, we deal with individual properties, what it does is that if every house in
this neighborhood all of a sudden has 32 foot height, that becomes a defacto standard
for the area, and this criteria becomes moot. Because then it’s no longer an undesirable
change in the neighborhood. We’re also considering the neighborhood at large, and we
deal with Lake George all the time. It’s not just the view looking out, it’s the view looking
in. If we’re seeing things higher than they should be, then there’s a problem. So I’m not
willing to go in that direction, myself. The request has gone from 10% to 15%,
moderate, minimal regardless, when we’re dealing with height, every foot counts, and I
don’t think it will have an adverse physical or environmental effect, but I think this
difficultly is definitely self-created. So I would have to vote against it, at least that part of
it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be willing to go along with the request if you create that
berm over on the front side there, on the lakefront side. If that were three feet high
somewhere out in front of that property, I think that it would reasonably convince me that
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
you had tried to get this down. I think that the design itself, setting into the ground, as
mentioned, they’ve already lowered the first floor down seven feet from what’s there at
the present time on the first floor of the building. It’s a difficult thing because I think in
order to change it you’d have to really completely alter the design, and, you know, they’re
trying to make the house appear to be like one of those smaller houses in the
neighborhood. I think if you look at the photograph, you’ll see that the house to the left in
the photograph on the bottom there is actually going to look like it’s higher, and I think
that the one on the right hand side looks approximately the same height as what they’re
trying to create here, in this instance. I don’t think that the garage, you know, the four
feet of relief on the backside is any big deal, because no one’s going to see that except
for the Clark’s up on the hill and behind there, and as they said, it’s an improvement over
what’s there presently on site. I know that, living on the other side of the lake, that this
house has been a contentious issue for many years. To see it go, no one’s going to lose
any tears over this thing going out the window, but I think, you know, it would be nice if it
could be made compliant, but at the same time, I think that they made a very reasonable
effort to make it compliant, and still be able to utilize that upstairs. I know on my house, I
had to deal with the same issues over on the other side of the lake, when I re-did mine,
and I ended up with four foot knee walls on part of my house to keep the height down in
the back where it would be higher than average, and on the front side I didn’t have to
because I wasn’t going to use living space upstairs on it, but I think that it’s reasonable
what they’re requesting here, and the neighbors don’t seem to be affected either, and I
think it’ll be an improvement for the lake.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think the project is a good one. I think you’ve, to get rid of the
apartment building is excellent. It will really improve the neighborhood. I have no
problem with the road in front, the road frontage, but I think I agree with Mr. Urrico. We
do have height requirements. There’s a reason for having height requirements, and it’s
been zoned that way. I think that plans can be made to actually make the house fit
within the requirements. So I’m really, I’m not sure whether to go for it or against it, but I
think I would have to go against it, only because of the height requirement. I think we
should try to make the new places that are being put up on the lake as compliant as
possible.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. We’ll go next to Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-While I have to admit that, Mr. Chairman, the existing building is having
adverse physical and environmental impacts on the neighborhood, I have to agree with
Mr. Urrico that height here is important. I have to say that from the lakeside it will make a
considerable difference as far as the visual appearance. Going through the balancing
test, this thing fails on three different accounts, being self-created, and adverse physical
from the lake, given the four feet of height that they’re asking for, I don’t think it’ll create
an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think it’ll be a positive change in the
neighborhood, but I still do think there is some way to go with the height, as far as this
building. So I’d be opposed to this application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to have to make a majority. I, too, have got no problem
with the road frontage request. It’s a common situation near lakes, whether it’s Glen
Lake or Lake George, and it appears that there would be adequate access to the
property, but again, this is new construction. There’s a 28 foot height limit, and I think
I’ve got to go back to what I’ve kind of said before, in some cases maybe the house is to
big for the property or the wrong design for the property. I’m not sure what, but when
we’re dealing with new construction, versus having to cope with just putting a second
story on something, I think we should be able to comply. Granted it’s a vast
improvement over what’s there, but I would like to see 28 foot height, and just for the
record, I think I still would be opposed if they came back proposing two feet less in
height. It’s new construction, let’s make it fit. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Well, again, I listened to what the
appellants had to say. I listened to what the Board members had to say, and it would
appear right now, gentlemen, that you don’t have sufficient support for approving your
request. I would recommend, if you wish to take my recommendation is certainly entirely
up to you, I would recommend that perhaps you may wish to either negotiate this
evening a reduction of height and/or request that we table your appeal for another time.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. HUTCHINS-A procedural question if I could. Is this one vote? Will this be a yes, or
will you consider the two issues separately?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We can do that.
MR. ABBATE-We can do it any way you wish. We’re flexible.
MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, I’ve got yes on the road frontage, and then I’ve got, we’re going
to be no on the height. That’s evident to us. How would that normally be handled?
Would it be one vote or would it be two separate?
MR. ABBATE-We can do separate votes. I don’t have a problem with that. Do you
Board members have a problem with that? Because whatever the vote’s going to be, it’s
going to be, in the final analysis.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or you could also vote on the one that’s going to pass and then you
guys could table and modify your request.
MR. HUTCHINS-Would it be unreasonable for us to ask for five minutes to confer with
our client?
MR. ABBATE-Not at all. I will honor your request for a five minute recess.
MR. HUTCHINS-Great. One issue before we get to the voting or not to vote. Jim, I do
have graded in there a two foot rise from the floor, as you go out. It’s gradual. It’s not a
berm. It’s a gradual two foot rise and down. So we could likely work that to get it into
three feet, but it is two feet now. The rendering doesn’t show that. It’s very difficult to
show depth on those renderings.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the height mainly from the garage in the back then? Is that the
four feet that you need? And in the front you need two feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we need it from grade in the front.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-But you’re not going to see it from the lake, because it will actually be,
and I can make that two, three, I’m sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Could you hold on for a second, because it’s important that Mr.
Urrico hear this. Okay. We had some sort of a concession, Mr. Urrico. Would you
please explain it, repeat what you just said?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I was just pointing out that we do have graded in to the front, I say
front, but I guess technically it’s the rear, but it’s the lakeside walkout, we have a two foot
rise before you walk down to the lake. It’s a gradual rise, and we can do what we can to
make that three feet, if that would help the Board, in this case in our favor.
MR. URRICO-What does do what you can mean?
MR. UNDERWOOD-When they come out of their cellar, and they open the door, they’ve
got to go up to get to that.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but I mean in terms of footage, what does that mean?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you would need one foot of relief, then, instead of four feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, technically we’re still going to need the same relief because the
measurement is from the porch, but visually you won’t see it.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-From the low point.
MR. JOHNSON-Visually we can make the lakeside comply. Statistically it’ll still be out of
compliance because we’re measuring at the sill of the door, the bottom of the door.
MR. URRICO-So in other words we’re disguising it.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. JOHNSON-We’re disguising it from the lakeside.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re disguising it. We’ve done it before.
MR. URRICO-I would not be satisfied with that.
MRS. JENKIN-May I ask what the height of the ceilings are on the first floor?
MR. JOHNSON-Nine foot ceilings. So the typical floor to ceiling is eight feet, as most
people know. The first floor in this particular house, and in the vast majority of houses
that are built is nine feet. So there’s an extra foot in there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And what have you got upstairs?
MR. JOHNSON-Just eight feet. Just eight.
MRS. JENKIN-And what about the basement?
MR. JOHNSON-Just eight feet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. JOHNSON-Could I make just one other comment, just in response?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. JOHNSON-The Board is 100% right. It’s self-created. We’re here to try and
basically be a good neighbor. As I said before, we could build a two story house with a
flattish roof and I wouldn’t have to be here. I really wouldn’t, and it’s not like I like coming
here. We think this is the best thing for the site or I wouldn’t be here. So, we can go
back to that other plan, and we feel it will be a less desirable end result, and it may even
impact the neighbor to a lesser degree from behind because there’ll be now a vaster
area, you know, an aircraft carrier kind of more in front of her than the sloping roof that
we’re going to be proposing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to put your garage on the side in the other
design, too, or is it still going to be underground?
MR. JOHNSON-The garage is locked. So we’re just going to chop the top off and push
the front of the house out basically to some extent to try and get the living space so that
we have usable, we’ve just go two basic bedrooms up there and a bath, it’s not, you
know the Taj Mahal on the second floor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is your ceiling height on the first floor, is that because of the roofs,
you know, those two rooflines on the front, is that what gives you the nine feet, because
you’re going to the peak up there?
MR. JENKIN-No. You have a cathedral ceiling as well?
MR. JOHNSON-There’s no cathedral ceilings in the house. It’s all flat, and that front
room that sticks out with the arched window, that one room has a higher ceiling. That’s
the only room.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me start with Mr. McNulty. Has this changed your position in
any way, Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, has this changed your position in any way?
MR. URRICO-No, not with regards to the height.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, has this changed your position in any way?
MR. GARRAND-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mrs. Jenkin, has this changed your position in any way?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MRS. JENKIN-No.
MR. ABBATE-So, gentlemen, I offered you an opportunity to table. Obviously you know
this evening that we simply don’t have the votes. So I will offer you an opportunity to ask
us to table your application, or you may request that we continue with the vote.
MR. FREDETTE-I’d just like to make one more comment before you vote.
MR. ABBATE-You may make any comment you wish.
MR. FREDETTE-If we build the house the other way, with the flat roof, it’s actually going
to look a lot worse for the neighbors than if we build it this way. So the neighbors are
going to be impacted in a way that is going to hurt them rather than help them, if this is
voted down, because we have to go to a design that is ugly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What if you eliminated the access on the lakeside there, down
below. Would that be a possibility to come out the side, you know, I mean, it wouldn’t
give you a patio effect or anything like that.
MR. HUTCHINS-We wouldn’t be able to do the garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if everybody’s hung up on the garage. I think they’re
more hung up on the lakefront.
MR. JOHNSON-I get it’s a matter of principle. The Board seems, to me, to be sort of
unwilling to think about what’s best for everybody. It’s more about standing on principle.
It’s the law, it’s the rule.
MR. URRICO-We have a criteria that we’re going by.
MR. JOHNSON-No, I understand that.
MR. URRICO-Okay, so it’s not a matter of being unwilling. It’s a matter that we have a
regulation, a law, an ordinance, and we have to weigh the benefit to the applicant, of the
applicant to the entire community, not just the residents that are adjacent to the property.
MR. JOHNSON-And you’ve heard us talk about our concern for the rest of the
neighborhood, and that’s why we’re here.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and you heard our position.
MR. JOHNSON-Right. Okay. Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-So, gentlemen, I’m going to request a decision from you. We can either
continue with our vote, or I’ll offer you the opportunity to table this, if you wish. It’s up to
you.
MR. FREDETTE-I don’t think it makes sense to table it. I think you should vote. I just
would like you to consider that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then if that’s your desire, we will continue to vote, and I’m going to
request, then, a motion. Do I hear a motion for Area Variance No. 11-2007?
MRS. HUNT-Excuse me. Are we going to split the two motions? Are we going to split
the two variances?
MR. ABBATE-Well, you can vote yes on one.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think you’d indicated you’d split them.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-If we get no on the height, we’d still want to have, if we have to re-
design or renovate or.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, I don’t have a problem with that at all. Okay. So we’re going to
have two. Would someone like to take the first motion, please.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I can do it.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Jim.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2007 DENNIS AND SUSAN
FREDETTE, REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL RELIEF THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE
MINIMUM 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE PER PRINCIPLE DWELLING PER
SECTION 179-4-090, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joyce Hunt:
69 Birch Road, Glen Lake. I think the Fire Marshal signed off on it that he feels that this
is a reasonable request, that it’s really a superficial issue in this. So I would move that
we approve it.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 11-2007, for that portion, motion by Mr.
Underwood, is seven yes, zero no. That portion of Area Variance No. 11-2007 is
approved. Now I need a second motion.
MS. ALTER-Did you mention the criteria?
MR. ABBATE-He did in his motion. Do it again. Let’s clear it up, if there’s any doubt.
MOTION TO AMEND APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2007 DENNIS AND
SUSAN FREDETTE, REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL RELIEF THAT IS REQUIRED
FOR THE MINIMUM 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE PER PRINCIPLE DWELLING
PER SECTION 179-4-090, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joyce Hunt:
69 Birch Road, Glen Lake. The benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to
construct the house. There’s long standing for a house being on this site here that’s
been fully served by the road and they’ve also mentioned the fact that there will be
improvements done to that road to make it more accessible for fire apparatus or for
general access to the property. Feasible alternatives, there don’t seem to be any. It’s
the only access that does allow people to have ingress or egress from that site. The
relief is substantial. It’s 100% relief because they don’t have the 40 feet. Effects on the
neighborhood or community, there won’t be any effects on the neighborhood or
community. In fact it will be an improvement because they are going to raise the grade
of the road, and is the difficulty self-created? In essence it’s self-created by the fact that
a house was created on that property many years ago and a new house on that property
will not be any change to the neighborhood. So I would move for its approval.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-And the vote for the modification is seven yes, zero no. So that portion of
the motion is approved. Now we need a second motion.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, if we vote to deny this part of the application, rather than
tabling it, the applicant cannot come back to us for any height variance?
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not true. There’s been some statutory changes recently that
indicates an individual, an applicant can in fact come back to us for two reasons. One,
either for almost an identical request for a variance, and/or a modification.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. So I need a second motion for the second portion, please.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/07)
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2007 DENNIS AND SUSAN
FREDETTE, REGARDING THE HEIGHT REQUESTED VARIANCE THAT IS PART OF
THIS APPLICATION, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles McNulty:
69 Birch Road, Glen Lake. The applicant is proposing construction of a 3,085 square
foot single family dwelling. The applicant has requested relief to exceed the height
requirement by four feet where 28 feet is the maximum per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A
zone. In making this request, we’re considering the five criteria. Whether the benefit can
be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In discussions, we’ve decided
that, yes, it can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In terms of
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, there has
been some consideration that the neighbors nearby would not be affected or would
actually like to see the change, one neighbor. One neighbor expressed concern about
the height variance. We’re also considering the neighborhood as a whole, being that this
is a lake and this is a WR-1A zone, that it may have an undesirable change in terms of
affecting the standards for the height requirement for that area. The request, where it
may not be substantial, is modified somewhat from the original application, which stated
three feet as a height variance and now it’s four feet. That makes the change from 10%
to about 15%. I believe it’s 14 and change. There is also concern that the request will
have adverse physical and environmental effects, in terms of its view from the lakeside,
and the difficulty is self-created. The applicant has stated this is new construction, and in
constructing the height at his request would put it in non-compliance, and therefore it is
self-created.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin
NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 11-2007, as proposed by Mr. Urrico for disapproval is
four yes, three no. That portion of Area Variance No. 11-2007 is disapproved. Now,
ladies and gentlemen, before we leave this evening, would you be kind enough, please,
to take all the documents.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to save the Vance Cohen ones for next time.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Save the Vance Cohen. Right. What we have to do, for security
purposes, we would like to have all the documents here placed in the box back here so
that the Executive Director could handle it for security purposes, please. Okay, Board
members, thank you very much. Unless there’s some other business, this hearing is
closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
35