1998-08-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 26, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
LEWIS STONE
PAUL HAYES
ROBERT MC NALLY
MEMBERS ABSENT
BONNIE LAPHAM
BRIAN CUSTER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A CHRISTOPHER & SUSAN
GRANGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 39 MEADOW DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING. REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE AND FOR
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 58-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION 179-
20, 179-60, 179-79
CHRISTOPHER & SUSAN GRANGER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1998, Christopher & Susan Granger, Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
August 26, 1998 “ 39 Meadow Drive
Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of an 888 square foot attached garage.
Applicant requests 16 feet and 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirements,
Section 179-60. Also, the applicant requests 1.4 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback
Criteria for considering an Area Variance
requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-20.
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be
2. Feasible alternatives:
permitted to construct a garage at the preferred location. Due to lot size
3. Is this relief substantial relative
and proximity of the pond, feasible alternatives are limited.
to the Ordinance?:
16 and 25 feet of shoreline relief may be interpreted as substantial, while 1.4
4. Effects on the neighborhood or
feet of front setback relief may be interpreted as minimal.
community:5. Is
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 60-1990 res. 8/21/91 construction of a retaining wall
Staff comments:
(extension) Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action, as the
proposed construction is no closer to the shoreline than the existing house and minimal relief is
SEQR Status:
requested from the front setback requirement. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. and Mrs. Granger, is there anything else you want to add to the
application? Nothing? Are there any questions for the applicant? It looks fairly straightforward
to me. I was at the property today, and where else could they put it, because not only the pond, but
the hill on the up side of the house, and the septic system and everything else coming in there.
MR. STONE-And the front setback is, I mean, with the land that they don’t own that is, in a sense,
in the right of way, but certainly is never going to be built on, the 1.4 gets lost very easily in that.
MR. THOMAS-Very easily. Well, if there’s no questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to
speak opposed? Opposed?
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HARRY HANSEN
MR. HANSEN-I’ll speak in favor of it. My name is Harry Hansen. I live at 19 Meadow Drive,
Queensbury. I’m a neighbor of the Grangers, directly to the south, and I would hope the Board
would consider very favorably this application. The individual wants to put in a garage. It’s
something that most of us have. He doesn’t have one at this time. The setback that he’s
requesting, I believe, is for a pond that he and his family put in initially. So, I just hope that, I do
not object to it. I go past it each day on the way to work, and so I would hope you would
favorably consider it. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? All right.
MR. STONE-I think, as you said, Mr. Chairman, it’s very straightforward. It’s a nice piece of
property. The amount we’re granted, we would grant, might be certainly minimal, but it’s a matter
of, it’s the only place to put it. The house certainly should have a garage. There’s plenty of land
between it and the pond, and certainly the front is no problem whatsoever.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to make a comment? Would someone like to make
a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1998 CHRISTOPHER & SUSAN
GRANGER
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
39 Meadow Drive. The applicant proposes construction of an 888 square foot attached garage.
The applicant requests 16 feet and 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirements
of Section 179-60. Also, the applicant requests 1.4 feet of relief from the 30 feet of front setback
requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-20. The benefit to the applicant would be they’d be
allowed to construct the garage where they’d like to, also where it seems like the only place that
they can. Feasible alternatives, due to the configuration of the lot, the wetlands that are behind
them, the septic system, I believe this is the only logical and probably the best place to place the
garage. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is. As Mr. Stone
pointed out, when you consider the right of way and where that actual setback starts, I believe the
garage is placed in the most benign place possible for granting minimal relief. Effects on the
neighborhood or community, I believe that there’ll be a positive on the neighborhood, as further
development of the property in a sense that makes sense. Is the difficulty self created? It is only in
that they want the garage, and I have a garage, and I’d want mine, too. So, I move that we
approve the variance.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. STONE-I have one question. Why are we giving two different numbers of relief? It would
seem to be, we would give the maximum relief for one point on the, wherever it’s maximum.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it just happens to be two points from the pond.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the house. It’s the Waterfront one, it’s this one.
MR. THOMAS-It’s this one here.
MR. STONE-Yes, but I mean, if you grant the minimum relief, I don’t understand why we have
two numbers, that’s all.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s just the two ends of the garage.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. BROWN-You can give the maximum if you want. If you can give the 25, it’s going to
include the other end.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, I could measure anywhere along here, since it’s not a straight line
anywhere.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I would give the maximum and leave it go at that.
MR. HAYES-Again, we’ve got it pinned down.
MR. THOMAS-We’ve got it pinned down, the dimensions.
MR. STONE-Okay. No problem.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. GRANGER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1998 TYPE II RR-3A KIMBERLEE P. GOSLINE
OWNER: WILLIAM & MARY GOSLINE OFF BLACKBERRY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CREATION OF A LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-22 LOT SIZE: 9.47 ACRES SECTION 183-
24
MARY LEE GOSLINE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1998, Kimberlee P. Gosline, Meeting Date: August 26,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “ Blackberry Lane Applicant
Relief Required:
proposes creation of a 3 acre parcel without frontage on a public right of way.
Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the Subdivision Regulations which require all new lots to
Criteria for
have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public right of way, Section A183-24, C.
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to create a non conforming building lot and construct a
2. Feasible alternatives:
home on same. Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
proposed right of way. 40 feet of relief
4. Effects on the neighborhood
from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial.
or community:5.
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff
UV 1321 - res. 1/20/98 To construct a horse barn
comments:
Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed lot is near
the end of a short cul-de-sac road and the applicant has obtained permission for access from the
adjacent property owner. A condition of the previous Use Variance, UV 1321, states that the 9.3
acre parcel remain undivided. However, the density requirements for the maintenance of horses
would allow for three horses on the remaining 6.3 acres. The current density requirements are the
same as those in effect at the time of the previous variance; 3 acres for 1 horse, 2 or more horses
SEQR Status:
shall have 2 acres per horse. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are you Kimberlee Gosline?
MRS. GOSLINE-I’m Mary Lee Gosline.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you’re the property owner.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, I am.
MR. THOMAS-There was a previous Zoning Board variance for this property.
MRS. GOSLINE-There was one in ’88, and it was brought to my attention. I read it, he brought it
to my attention, the way they put it down, but at the time, I remember Mr. Turner saying to me, I
couldn’t have any more horses on my property, because I had 9.47 acres. So that gave me
adequate room for more horses. So they said, don’t have any more horses. I don’t really
remember them saying that I couldn’t, you know, do anything to my property afterwards, and at
the time, my children were little, and so I didn’t even think about it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, we’ll, you know, we’ll address that second, but first we’ll address
this right of way thing.
MRS. GOSLINE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Because as the sitting Zoning Board, we can modify this, delete it, not delete it,
whatever needs to be done to it.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s really not very, I mean, I have enough property as it is, on my own lot, for
the horses I have, and we don’t board. They’re just our own horses.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think at the time this resolution was made, that there were no guidelines for
horses on property.
MRS. GOSLINE-At that time, it was three acres for the first horse, and one acre for every
additional horse.
MR. BROWN-There were guidelines. Three acres per horse, two or more horses, two acres per
horse.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-At that time?
MR. BROWN-At that time.
MRS. GOSLINE-My neighbors had, all my neighbors, I had two neighbors that had horses, Dave
Little and Jerry Thorne.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, like I say, we’ll hit that next, but it’s this right of way and road frontage
thing that takes precedent, I believe. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Well, I would like to see the map explained, since the map that we had did not have
Blackberry on there.
MRS. GOSLINE-My property consists of 9.47 acres. It goes from here to here. This is
Blackberry Lane. Betty Little owns a right of way right here that’s 50 by 100. The house that’s
here is Mozel. I don’t know his first name, but his driveway comes right on to this property. So
it’s been used as a road for quite a while. He’s been there 12 years he said. I’ve asked Betty if I
could use it just to get to this parcel here, so I could make a three acre lot for my daughter, and she
has granted me, she’s giving me a deeded right of way. She won’t sell it. I’ve asked her about
selling it, because that would relieve her of any liability or any taxes, but she won’t sell it.
MR. STONE-Now, that extension going up to the north, that’s that paved, and then it becomes
dirt, and the driveway goes off of that?
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s kind of a crushed stone right now.
MR. STONE-Right, and his driveway goes off to the right.
MRS. GOSLINE-It goes right in here, yes.
MR. STONE-Right next to the property line.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Or he’s next to the tree where the sign was on. I assume that’s on your property,
where the sign was?
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, right here.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying that extension of the “T”, Betty owns, Betty Little owns?
MRS. GOSLINE-Betty Little owns this, right here. She wants to keep it, because this is a lot that
she could separate, or is already separated. I don’t know how it’s surveyed, but her house sits
right here.
MR. THOMAS-How wide is your lot, along Blind Rock Road?
MRS. GOSLINE-I think it says 129 feet.
MR. THOMAS-There are the numbers here to add up, but it’s 116 and 121 and 64.
MR. BROWN-301 feet.
MRS. GOSLINE-301 feet?
MR. THOMAS-304.
MR. BROWN-301, plus or minus.
MR. STONE-Yes, 301, 302.
MR. THOMAS-And the road frontage required in this zone, RR-3A, is 200 feet. Okay. I can
think of a real easy way out of this, and that is, on that south property line, to give 40 feet, parallel
that lot line right down to Blind Rock Road. Even though you won’t use that as a driveway, but it
meets the requirement of the Town to have 40 foot of road frontage on a Town road. It’s an easy
way out. Am I right or wrong, Craig?
MR. BROWN-That would give the lot.
MR. THOMAS-That would satisfy the requirements.
MR. STONE-How much would that take off the 6.3 remaining acres?
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s 1,000 feet long and 40 feet wide. So that’s an acre. So instead of
making this three acres up here, just make it two, plus there’ll be an acre going down, you know, of
other land. So, it’ll still be the three to make the RR-3 requirement, and as far as going across
Betty Little’s land, you know, with an easement, I don’t think the Town really cares how you get
onto the property, as long as you’ve got the road frontage. That’s what the requirement says. It’s
an easy way out, and you don’t need a variance.
MRS. GOSLINE-I’d really rather see if I can get the variance to go on through here, because this
is 50 foot onto this little road.
MR. STONE-No. Chris is not saying that you don’t get on the property that way.
MRS. GOSLINE-But then I’d have to survey this, deed this over to my daughter, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what he’s saying.
MRS. GOSLINE-I don’t really want to do that.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t look like that land is used now anyway for anything. It looks like it’s
just overgrown and treed and shrubbed and everything else.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, it is, but my husband puts gardens on it, and I’ve given enough at the
moment. Three acres is.
MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, you make this, this lot in the back two acres, and then there’s one
acre that goes down to the road to conform to the zoning code.
MRS. GOSLINE-My husband uses all, he’s got gardens all through here, and I don’t, I’d really
rather see if we could do it the other way.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t matter if there’s gardens through there or not. It’s not like the
driveway’s going to be there. You could put the driveway through there anywhere you want.
MR. STONE-You don’t have to have a driveway.
MR. THOMAS-No, you don’t have to have a driveway up that 40 foot.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. THOMAS-The requirement says 40 foot on a Town road. The requirement says 40 foot on a
Town road.
MRS. GOSLINE-Then what happens if I want to put an addition on or something on my house,
and then I don’t have the setbacks from the property lines.
MR. THOMAS-The side setback is, in that zone, I think, RR-3A, is 30 feet.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s 30 feet.
MR. THOMAS-And right now it looks like you are probably.
MR. BROWN-110 feet.
MR. THOMAS-110 minus 40 is 70. So you could put a 20 foot addition on the house.
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, can we see if I can get a variance first?
MR. THOMAS-Okay. You can try. No guarantees. Are there any other questions for the
applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance?
In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENNIS BROWER
MR. BROWER-My name’s Dennis Brower. I reside in Queensbury. I didn’t come here this
evening to speak in favor or opposition to this proposal, but ironically, it’s before you. This
property happened to be owned by my aunt, prior to Mary Lee, and it’s a very nice piece of
property. From what you’ve said yourself, Mr. Thomas, she could, indeed, go through the
mechanics and expense of dividing her property up and meeting your Codes without any problem,
but it seems to me, if Betty Little’s willing to give her a deeded right of way, in fact, that expense
and the effort should be needless, in my opinion, because she certainly has a large enough lot in
that sector to give to her daughter, to build a house, and apparently, that would meet all your
zoning requirements. So I’m in favor of it, and thought I’d put my two cents in while I was here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak either in favor of or opposed to?
Is there any correspondence, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, there is. Addressed to Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals,
“Dear Mrs. Lapham: I received notice that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public
hearing on August 26, 1998 to consider a variance request made by William and Mary Gosline. I
will be unable to attend the hearing, therefore I would request that this letter be submitted to the
Board and become part of the record of the hearing. I am a rear adjoining property owner to the
Gosline’s and am aware of what they wish to do to their property. I am in favor of granting them a
variance to subdivide their property. It will in no way have an adverse effect on surrounding
property. I have been a Real Estate Appraiser for 20 years and can state with confidence that the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
Gosline’s plans will not have a negative effect on the property values in the area. In addition, one
need only look at Glen Lake, which is less than a ½ mile from the property, to see multiple
dwellings on single parcels, properties surveyed to within 1 foot of the pavement of Fitzgerald
Road to have enough acres to build on or see the apartment complex which adjoins the Gosline
property to understand that their plans will not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I
wish to thank you in advance for submitting this letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on
August 26, 1998. Respectfully, Michael R. Swan”
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, as we listen to this letter, I am reminded of something that a couple
of years ago I asked the Town Board to consider, and that is reading the name of the correspondent
before we actually hear the letter. We have this when people appear before us. We know who they
are, and I would like to know who’s writing the letter, as we hear it.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-It’s okay with me. Can you remember that, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I can.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. That’s it for the correspondence?
MR. BROWN-There’s the letter from Elizabeth Little, granting the right of way. I don’t know if
you want to include that?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You might as well read that in there, too.
MR. BROWN-This is from Elizabeth C. Little, “To Whom It May Concern: I am the sole owner
of a piece of property approximately 50’ by 100’ at the end and right side of Blackberry Lane in
the Town of Queensbury. It is my intention to give Kimberlee Gosline a “right of way” over this
property for the purpose of reaching her property. The deed for this “right of way” will be
forthcoming. Elizabeth C. Little”
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there’s no date on that.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-There was a letter from Mr. Horrigan, that I submitted last night, from the
subdivision.
MR. BROWN-That might be in the site plan review file.
MRS. GOSLINE-My neighbor Mr. Horrigan, Ed Horrigan, he’s in favor of it, too.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I just happen to know Mr. Horrigan, so I trust that he did say he was in
favor of it. I have a question for Staff. A deeded right of way, how legal is that? Can it be
withdrawn at any time?
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so.
MR. HAYES-Not if there’s consideration, which could be (lost words).
MR. THOMAS-Because that’s the only thing that concerned me was, could this deeded right of
way, could the deed be withdrawn.
MR. STONE-Would that be recorded?
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-With the County.
MR. MC NALLY-We could make it contingent upon it.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I have a question, though, going to what Mr. Thomas said earlier, I know you want
to see what we’ll do on a variance, but is there a magic to where this house is placed, as you’ve
sketched it in? I mean, could, for example, could it be further to the, I guess, to the west? And
therefore, you could reduce the size of the three acres?
MR. THOMAS-No, it’s an RR-3 zone. It’s zoned three acres. So it has to be a minimum of three
acres.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes. Most of my neighbors are all one acre, and most of their properties are
surveyed one acre, but I chose not to go against the Ordinance and go for three acres.
MR. STONE-Good point. I forgot that point.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant?
MRS. GOSLINE-I do like to keep it rural. So that’s why I wanted the two parcels so large.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, lets talk about it? I’ll close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Lew?
MR. STONE-The only concern I have is that we have been, as a Board, concerned over the past
couple of years with lots that don’t have the minimum frontage on a right of way. We have
granted some relief, but we have never granted, to my knowledge, total relief, is what you’re asking
for here. In other words, we’re going, you have nothing on a Town road. You’re asking for a full
40 foot variance. That’s the only concern I have. I mean, I think it’s a reasonable project. It
certainly, as Mrs. Gosline says, she wants to give a three acre parcel. She doesn’t want to even
think about asking for a variance for that. The concern that I have is, are we setting a real
precedent, not for this area, but for other lots in Town? There are a lot of landlocked lots, and are
we inviting a lot of clever ways to get around this particular limitation, but I’d like to hear what the
other three guys have to say.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Lew. I think it’s more than a reasonable project, actually. Mrs.
Gosline is deeding over three acres to her daughter, staying within the Code. The property is rural.
Her property is rural, and I believe this will be, too, and I think we have to go to the closest
neighbor’s viewpoint, and that’s Mrs. Little, and she’s obviously deeding over a right of way. So,
by definition, she’s in favor, and I guess I really don’t have a problem with it. I think in this case
they’re just trying to do the best they can, and that seems to be the most logical place to, outside of
having a right of way, to enter the property. So I would be in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see any real effect on the neighborhood or community. I think there are
feasible alternatives, like you suggested. If you really wanted, you could put a road out to Blind
Rock, and it’s self created, to the extent that the applicant has chosen not to, but on balance, when
you really look at it, there is a right of way across Betty Little’s land, or the Little lands, but I
don’t see what real difference it would be allowing this variance, where access by right of way just
as wide as a road, if not wider, would allow emergency vehicles and what not into the property, if
need be. So, I’m not terribly against it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. My major concern was the fact that the right of way was a right of way.
I’m not a lawyer, or know anything about real estate, but if you say that the deeded right of way
means that it stays deeded to the party and to the parties thereafter, that I really don’t see a
problem with this, as long as the deeded right of way is deeded 50 feet wide and 100 feet long, as
the size of that piece of property.
MR. BROWN-Right.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-So, I wouldn’t have any problem with it then, if that’s the case.
MR. MC NALLY-Just make sure, whatever the motion is should be contingent on it, that’s all.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. We’re up to a motion now.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1998 WILLIAM & MARY LEE
GOSLINE
, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
The project location is on Blackberry Lane, and the applicant proposes, in lieu of a parcel, which is
subdivided from an existing property that she owns, with frontage on a Town highway, creation of
a three acre parcel, instead with frontage on a public right of way. She requests 40 feet of relief
from the Subdivision Regulations, which require all new lots to have a minimum of 40 feet of
frontage on a public right of way, pursuant to Section A183-24C. The benefit to the applicant
would be that she would be permitted to create a nonconforming building lot, to subdivide her
property, and to construct a home on it. She would also have a questionable benefit of having a
child nearby. The feasible alternatives include use of the easement and right of way, as she’s
proposed, or the alternative, the creation of a driveway across the remaining portion of her
property, going to Blind Rock Road. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in the
sense that she’s actually asking for no frontage on a Town road, but the right of way that she’s
elected to purchase to run with the land is 50 feet wide and 100 feet long, and substantially
substitutes for the Town requirement. It’s a rural parcel. It’s out in the back, and I don’t see any
effects on the neighborhood or the community as a result. The difficulty is, in a sense, self created,
in that she’s electing to, or the applicants are electing to create a landlocked parcel by subdividing
their property, but given that there is a right of way, on balance, I don’t see a problem with it. So
with this in mind, I would move that we approve this Area Variance, contingent upon the applicant
securing from the Littles an easement as described and set forth in the drawings which accompany
their application, allowing the owner of the proposed subdivided lot to pass over the lands of the
Littles to reach Blackberry Road, and it’s also contingent upon that easement being, as she
indicated, 50 by 100 feet, and that unless and until they secure that easement and allow it to run
with the land that they’re subdividing, that permission to build be made contingent upon that. To
modify Variance No. 1321, dated 1/20/88, William and Mary Lee Gosline, to remove the sentence
“The 9.3 acres will remain undivided as long as the applicants own the property, and for the use
indicated in the application”.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. MC NALLY-The project applicant is listed on the Staff Notes as Kimberlee Gosline. Is it
Kimberlee or is it the current property owner that we should be listing as the applicant?
MR. BROWN-I think we could list the current property owner. It hasn’t been subdivided as of
yet.
MR. MC NALLY-And that would be Mary Lee Gosline, and your husband is?
MRS. GOSLINE-William.
MR. MC NALLY-William Gosline.
MR. STONE-The only comment I would have, and it’s a nit pick, is this property is not on
Blackberry. That’s why we’re granting the variance.
MR. MC NALLY-But the right of way would be on Blackberry.
MR. STONE-The right of way would be, yes, but you identified the property.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m sorry.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MRS. GOSLINE-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 57-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A NEWMAN
DEVELOPMENT OF GLENS FALLS, LLC (APPLEBEE’S NEIGHBORHOOD
RESTAURANT) OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. CORNER
OF BAY AND QUAKER ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES RESTAURANT SIGNAGE;
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.4 ACRES
SECTION 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 57-1998, Newman Development Group of Glens Falls, LLC
Project Location:
(Applebee’s Neighborhood Restaurant), Meeting Date: August 26, 1998 “
Description of Proposed Project:
Corner of Bay and Quaker Applicant proposes placement of 7
Relief
wall signs on three facades of a proposed Applebee’s Neighborhood Restaurant.
Requested:
Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance, Section 140, for the placement of
5 additional signs. Given that the proposed building will be on a corner lot, they would be allowed
2 wall signs. Given the setback distances, one sign could be 150 sf while the second sign could be
300 sf. The applicant’s proposal calls for a total of 187.22 sf of signage. The total allowable sign
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of
square footage is 450 sf.
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and display
2. Feasible alternatives:
the desired signage at the preferred locations. Feasible alternatives may
3.
include reducing the spacing between the proposed signs so that they might appear as two signs.
Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
Relief for 5 additional signs may be
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
interpreted as moderate. Minimal effects on the
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. The
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
etc.):
SP 29-97 - res. 12/16/97 Lowes Home Improvement modified - 7/28/98 SV 4-98 - res.
2/18/98 to display two signs on the same facade SV 29-98 - res. 6/24/98 to display a third sign on
Staff comments:
one facade Sign Permits; 98-3213, 98-3214, 98-3215, 98-3228 Given that the
proposed structure will be set back from Bay Road approximately 580 feet and from Quaker Road
approximately 250 feet, the placement of several relatively small, 47.34 sf and 22.6 sf signs may
have minimal impacts on the community. The sign on the North facade may not be visible from
SEQR Status:
any public right of way and therefore might not need relief. Type Unlisted”
MR. BROWN-Warren County Planning Board. “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning
th
Board, held on the 12 day of August 1998, the above application for a Sign Variance for
restaurant signage (Applebee’s Neighborhood Restaurant) was reviewed, and the following action
was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Comments: For this site only.” Tracey M.
Clothier, Chairperson.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lapper, nice to see you again.
MR. LAPPER-And you. I’d like to start off by pointing out that this is a unique case where the
County Planning Board actually approved this, two weeks ago, even though it’s a Sign Variance,
and they made a big deal over that fact. So, that was a good start. A little bit of history of the
parcel. When this was approved for the Lowes, we had mentioned that we anticipated a tire and
battery facility in this location. There was not a lease signed at that time, but there were some
negotiations on going. Since the building’s been constructed and the lease has been signed with
Applebee’s, we view that as a much nicer, softer appearance to the front of the site than a tire
place, which would also be a permitted use in the Highway Commercial zone. In terms of the Sign
Variance, I’ll go up and show you on the map, but when this was approved, the entrance from
Quaker Road was restricted, so that it’s right turn in, right turn out only, so that people wouldn’t
be making lefts across Quaker Road either to turn into the site when they’re heading east or to turn
out of the site and to head west. Part of the justification for the Sign Variance, to have signs facing
Bay Road, is to indicate to people that are on Bay Road where Applebee’s is, so that they’ll turn in
at the entrance, at the Bay Road entrance. Let me just show you that. Here’s Quaker and the new
bridge. This is restricted, so that you can’t, if you’re on Quaker Road, if you’re heading to the site
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
from the Northway, for example, you have to make a left and head in here, because you can’t make
a left here, because that’s what the County Highway Department and the Town Planning Board
determined was appropriate to avoid left turns. For that reason, the Lowe’s sign is already up at
the corner, which faces the intersection, and we’ve proposed a freestanding Applebee’s sign which
would be on the same pylons, and I think I submitted a picture of that, beneath the Lowe’s sign.
The reason for that is so that it directs people to make the left to go north on Bay and to enter at the
main entrance, the signalized entrance to the site, to get to Applebee’s. What I’m trying to do is to
take the square footage that would otherwise be allowed, and actually less square feet than what
would be allowed, to have one massive sign on the front of the building, facing Quaker Road, and
to split it up into a number of signs. The reason for the sign on the Bay Road facade is so that
when people are coming here, they will see that and they will turn in, they will see that it’s an
Applebee’s. When you look at the signs, and I’ve submitted color photos, this is what Applebee’s
trademark is, to split it up so that, under Queensbury’s regulations, this is technically three signs,
with much smaller square footage than it could be. If this was all boxed out, so that it was
attached, you would see less brick. It would be much more imposing, but it would technically not
require a variance because it would be counted as one sign. I mean, we’d still need a variance to
have it on both facades, because that would be two signs, but I had to technically request that this
is three signs because that is how it’s interpreted in Queensbury. I would argue that it’s much
nicer to do it the way that we’ve proposed it, rather than to construct a much bigger sign with a big
box, and cover up more of the nice brick facade, merely to comply with the Ordinance. In terms of
the sign on the back of the building, and I’ve submitted a photo of that as well, I don’t believe,
under the definition of signs that require permits in the Queensbury Code, that that requires a
variance because, let me just show you that. The site, which is just slightly smaller than 25 acres,
includes the whole area, with the stream corridor and the associated wetlands and the drainage area
that we’ve built to channel all the drainage away from the stream, so that it’ll slowly filter into the
stream, rather than what it was doing before this site was developed. So, when you, if you put a
sign here, the intention is so that people who are shopping at Lowe’s will see this small Applebee’s
sign, and hopefully drive to Applebee’s, but you don’t, because of where that sign projects, over
where the rear of the building is, you don’t see it from off the site, and I don’t believe that that
counts as a sign, that requires a variance.
MR. STONE-Where’s the entrance to this building?
MR. LAPPER-At the front corner.
MR. STONE-It is down there. Because I couldn’t tell from the drawing.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The entrance, I have, this diagram would actually be, that’s the Quaker Road
facade, and that’s the only, there’s an entrance to the back for deliveries, but that’s the only
entrance to the building for patrons.
MR. STONE-But this doesn’t have a corner opening, like some of their stores do.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. STONE-Some, they have doors on both sides of the corner, at least the one down in Clifton
Park is that way.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. This is, I mean, that was a few years ago. The picture that I have is one that
Newman Development has done in Vestal, which is a little bit different prototype than either of the
two that we’re talking about, but this is their latest. So that would be the only one door, and that’s
done architecturally to direct you to the door. So I guess there are a number of issues, in terms of
whether the sign in the back requires a variance under the Code, whether that matters, because I
don’t think you see that from anywhere, and then technically whether, even though we could have
one very large sign facing Quaker Road, whether that would be better than what has been
proposed, to have these smaller signs, that technically count as three signs each, even though
they’re smaller, because they’re three signs each.
MR. STONE-I have two drawings here for the freestanding one. Which one are we talking about?
One says “Applebee’s”, and the other has “Neighborhood Grill and Bar” underneath it.
MR. LAPPER-It will have “Neighborhood Grill and Bar”. That was the final one.
MR. STONE-Okay. Will there be directional signs on that Lowe’s sign, the freestanding one on
the corner?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. LAPPER-That has not been proposed, but perhaps that would make sense.
MR. STONE-I mean, somebody coming from the west, how are they going to know that they’ve
got to make the turn right there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It probably would make sense to have a sign that said “entrance”, with an
arrow. The Town permits directional signs.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-But that hasn’t been anything that’s been discussed to date, either at site plan
review or since.
MR. STONE-It would seem to be logical.
MR. LAPPER-I agree. I did mention that I did go back to the Planning Board last month to
receive the site plan modification to change the building from what was previously approved was
actually a 12,000 square foot building, probably for a TBA, and this is only a 5,000 square foot
building. So it’s much smaller.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the justification for the sign in the rear of the building? Why do you
think you need it if you have these other signs on the lot?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that obviously is the least important of all of the signs. They would like that
so that when somebody comes out of Lowe’s, they’re staring at it. So they know it’s there, if it’s
night time.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the only people who are going to see that are people coming out of the
lumber area, if it’s going to be closer to the lumber area. I mean, somebody coming out of the
main entrance to the store is certainly going to see Applebee’s on the Bay Road side, the west
elevation, if you will.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure if I submitted this. It doesn’t seem like a very big sign, or much of an
impact. That’s exactly what it would look like, but all things considered, if it was the pleasure of
the Board to approve it without that, I could accept it.
MR. MC NALLY-That sign is 47.34 square feet, Jon, approximately?
MR. LAPPER-Let me just check my application, but I think that that’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what’s on your application.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because that’s what, all of the Applebee’s signs are all the same size.
MR. MC NALLY-And these signs are all illuminated, I take it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-From the back?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-So we’re talking, on the front elevation, we’re talking how many signs, in your
judgment?
MR. LAPPER-Three.
MR. STONE-Applebee’s, Neighborhood, Grill and Bar?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay, and on the side we’re talking three more?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly the same.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. STONE-Applebee’s, Neighborhood, Grill and Bar.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Now on the freestanding, does, the one that you’ve said is the way, what size is that
square footage?
MR. LAPPER-64 square feet is what’s permitted. I did not request a variance for that, because
that’s permitted as a freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-Right where it is, because it’s fairly close. Okay.
MR. THOMAS-It’s 15 feet back from the property line.
MR. LAPPER-And at 25 feet it’s 64, and that’s what it is, and that’s already there.
MR. STONE-Including the lower box?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. STONE-The two of them?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because each of the users, this does not fall under the Plaza, the Business
Complex, excuse me, which is three or more. So these each are treated as individual businesses.
Just in terms of the number of signs, to comply with the Ordinance, all you’d have to do would be
to connect the signs, and my point is that wouldn’t add anything. It would comply, but it would
make it look worse. It would make it look like a bigger sign, and it would just cover up some
attractive brick with signage. So I don’t see any reason to do that. Only the words themselves are
actually illuminated. I didn’t bring a picture at night, but you can see from the photograph, well,
from this photograph, it’s only the letters themselves that are lit, and the rest of that.
MR. STONE-They’re very tasteful signs. I mean, I’ve seen it in other places.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Lapper? No? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing
to speak opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start
with Jamie.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think, you know, we’ve been through this before, recently, with the Hess sign
variances, as far as the total square footage in smaller signs that exceed the “number”, but I think
Mr. Lapper’s argument is persuasive, in that in this particular circumstance, the fact that they are
three different signs might be actually a positive, as far as the aesthetics of the total signage that
we’re talking about. I know that, I’m relatively new on the Board, but this Board has fought sign
pollution, if you will, very vigorously, and I fully intend to continue that precedent, but in this
particular circumstance, I think it’s completely the opposite. I think these signs are very tasteful.
I’ve seen several Applebee’s myself, and particularly on the brick facade, the way the signs are
broken up is actually the opposite. I think you end up with a tasteful representation that I think
reflects what we’re trying to do in our community, as far as signage. So, I would have no problem
granting this variance for that reason.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I always struggle with these things. Jon, you’ve come back to us a few times
with total square footage arguments, which are good arguments. I always sit there and say, you
know, there’s a question as to the number of signs, too, not just the size of them, but the Code talks
about the number of them. So, I always struggle with that. When you say that these Applebee’s
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
sign, with the apple on top, are 47.34 square feet or so, that’s just the size of the lettering on them,
or is that the total square footage?
MR. LAPPER-That’s everything.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s including the apple?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The Planning Department’s very specific about, over all these years, how
they measure it, and they would actually draw a box around the apple, and include that, so it’s
even slightly bigger than what you see there, but it’s everything.
MR. STONE-They would put a rectangle around it?
MR. LAPPER-Or a square right around the apple.
MR. STONE-Or a square around the apple.
MR. HAYES-So you’d actually lose a little square footage?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-The property is set back pretty far from Quaker Road. I tried to get out on
Quaker this morning.
MR. STONE-You can’t, it’s blocked.
MR. MC NALLY-And I can see the way it’s set up, though, when I was at the end of the road,
how you can’t make a left hand turn onto Quaker. So there has to be some signage on Bay Road,
and I suppose there’s some reason for it. This isn’t a corner lot, is it? I don’t think it really
qualifies as one. That’s kind of a side issue. I don’t think I have a problem with it, and the rear
one I don’t see a need for either, but then, I don’t see how it’s going to hurt the community. So,
overall, I’m in favor of it.
MR. LAPPER-I would, just for the sake of full disclosure, I’d like to respond to what Bob said, in
terms of this being a corner lot. I have just submitted an application for subdivision for this lot,
which I didn’t anticipate. It was never anything that was contemplated during the approval
process, but because of financing, they want to give a mortgage on the Lowe’s separate from the
Applebee’s, which doesn’t change anything on the site, because there’s a reciprocal easement
agreement, so everyone has the right, shoppers, people delivering goods, to use both sites
perpetually, but that would make this no longer a corner, in any case, and so at the time that I
applied, I didn’t know that it was going to go that way. We were still talking about it with the
bank, and just to digress, because I’m applying for subdivision, you always have to assume that
some day they could each be owned by a different owner, and so the Town has to look at it so they
stand on their own for that purpose, and I’ll be talking about that next month, but for that reason, I
didn’t apply for, if this was truly a corner lot, on corner lots, you can have two facade signs and a
freestanding, so I wouldn’t have even needed that variance, but just in case it went that way, which
it obviously will, I didn’t treat it that way in my application.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not based on any premise that it’s a corner lot.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re taking one facade sign and breaking it up, is what you’re doing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-I have seen a number of Applebee’s, and I think the signs are in very good taste, and
I do appreciate the fact that breaking them up is much less obnoxious, if you will, that’s not the
word I was thinking, but it’s much less intrusive the way it is. I do, however, have a problem with
the back one, mainly because I think it can be seen from Bay Road, and, Two, I think it’s
unnecessary for the bulk of the customers who are going to be coming out of Lowe’s. The
particular entrance to Lowe’s which is opposite Applebee’s is for basically people who are picking
up lumber and obviously moving on out, because we argued long and hard for the covered area and
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
the sign for a lumber pick up, and I don’t think they’re going to necessarily going to want to be
going to Applebee’s, and I think these side signs will be very clearly visible from, so I would have
no problem with the front and the side, but I would not like to see the back side.
MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly acceptable to the applicant.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. In the Staff Notes, it says “Given that the proposed building will be on a
corner lot”. Now you’re telling us now that it’s not going to be on a corner lot.
MR. LAPPER-That’s recent news, but that doesn’t affect.
MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s the Staff’s interpretation.
MR. THOMAS-That’s the Staff’s interpretation, but that’s the way it is now, that lot is a corner
lot.
MR. LAPPER-And it is a corner lot at the moment, and subdivision could be denied, but I don’t
expect that.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t expect it either, to be denied. So, really.
MR. STONE-You help me, because you’re more of the expert than I am. How many buildings
could you have on that corner lot, that big corner lot, and have every one considered to be a corner
lot?
MR. LAPPER-Only two, because if it was three or more, it would come under the completely
separate definition of a Business Complex, like the CVS/Hollywood Video across the street, totally
different signs, and then everybody gets one sign on their facade, because that’s a Business
Complex.
MR. STONE-Only the guy actually on the corner, like Hollywood, we granted a variance. We did
grant a variance on that.
MR. LAPPER-That was a variance, yes.
MR. STONE-But we treated that as a corner lot building.
MR. LAPPER-Right, for visibility sake.
MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, Staff is saying that they’re allowed two wall signs, and, you know,
they put up two wall signs, subdivide, and all of a sudden they’ve got two walls signs on a lot
that’s not a corner lot. Now, what do we do?
MR. LAPPER-My cover letter wasn’t read into the record, but even without considering the two
separate signs, just based on the definition of how many feet from the road you’d be able to have a
sign, because you get 100 square feet as the minimum size, and then you get, for every 10 feet
from the road, you get another 10 square feet, up to a maximum of 300 square feet, and what
we’re proposing for the total package, even including the one in the back, which I’m willing to
withdraw at the Board’s insistence, this is all, in total, smaller than what the one massive sign
facing either Quaker or Bay could be, fully in compliance with the Ordinance, without requiring
any variance.
MR. THOMAS-But if this wasn’t a corner lot, you would only be allowed one sign and one
freestanding sign, one wall sign and one freestanding sign.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what my application contemplated, that we’d only be allowed one.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re asking for a variance for an additional building sign, wall sign,
actually three wall signs.
MR. LAPPER-Five.
MR. STONE-He’s asking for five wall signs.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. LAPPER-If we’re denied the one in the back, five, but again, we could tie them all together,
and then it would be two, it just wouldn’t look as good, but we are looking to have both the Bay
Street facade and the Quaker Road facade signed, instead of a massive one on Quaker.
MR. STONE-One could argue, Jon, that the name of the business, not argue, it is Applebee’s
Neighborhood Grill and Bar. That’s their logo.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-That’s how they do business. So, if that were all together, it would be one sign, as
long as it was within the thing, and what you’re proposing is just to break it up into separate
sections.
MR. LAPPER-Just because it’s more tasteful to have smaller signs.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what we’re saying here is that the Applebee’s logo is a sign, along with
the Neighborhood Grill and Bar?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Absolutely.
MR. THOMAS-So the logo is part of the sign.
MR. STONE-No, the logo’s the whole thing. I mean, that’s the name of the business.
MR. HAYES-There’s three signs on each side. That’s six total.
MR. STONE-Yes, there’s six total signs, because he’s breaking it up, only because the boxes
stand by themselves.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and that’s how I think it should be treated.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and as far as that back sign, I think you can see that from a public right of
way, and I don’t see where it would do any good, because coming out of the main entrance of the
Lowe’s, you would see the one on the west side of the building anyway. So we’re all in agreement
that the Applebee’s logo on there is the sign. Okay, and the Neighborhood Grill and Bar are two
separate signs, because they are separated by more than a normal spacing of one word. I don’t
know about this one. I, too, have seen them before, and they are tastefully done, but then again,
too, we could have somebody else coming in and asking for the same thing, that aren’t as tastefully
done.
MR. STONE-Well, we can put that as part of the motion, that because of the sign, the size of the
signs and the tasteful design, of course taste is in the eye of the beholder.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. THOMAS-Taste isn’t in the definition.
MR. STONE-No, I know it’s not.
MR. MC NALLY-We could limit the approval to the proposed Applebee’s use.
MR. HAYES-Everything’s on a case by case basis anyway.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, I know that.
MR. STONE-Well, there is a given. The applicant is asking for a particular size. We can put that
in, that owing to the smallness, if you will, relative to the Ordinance, of the signs, that’s part of our
consideration.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. HAYES-In addition, the fourth part of the test is the effects on the neighborhood and
community. Somebody could, theoretically, be asking for the same amount of relief, but having
much more of a negative impact on the community, and we’re entitled to interpret it that way.
MR. THOMAS-That’s true.
MR. LAPPER-And additionally, the whole thing’s behind the NiMo power line, so it’s really set
back from Quaker Road, and certainly from Bay.
MR. STONE-Is the tree going to stay, on the corner?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Good.
MR. LAPPER-All those trees on the NiMo property, the willow.
MR. STONE-Is that NiMo on the corner?
MR. LAPPER-Actually, see the strip where the green is on the front?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s owned by Newman, and I think that at least one of the trees or two of the
trees are on that green area.
MR. STONE-On that green area.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Well, are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, if somebody would
like to make a motion.
MR. STONE-I’ll try.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 57-1998 NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT
OF GLENS FALLS LLC (APPLEBEE’S NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT)
, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
The project location is currently on the lot which is at the corner of Bay and Quaker. It may not be
on the corner of Bay and Quaker, under future consideration. The applicant proposes placement of
six wall signs on two facade’s of a proposed Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar. The applicant
is requesting relief from the Sign Ordinance Section 140 of the Town Code, for placement of five
additional signs. Currently, the location of the lot, which for the purposes of this motion is on a
corner lot, is allowed one freestanding sign and one facade sign. The freestanding sign is not under
consideration, because that is a given, and it’ll be on the same post as the current Lowe’s sign.
The applicant is asking for wall signs on the front of the building facing Quaker Road and on the
west side of the building facing Bay Road. Given the setback distances, the one sign on the Bay
Road side could be 300 square feet. The applicant’s proposal calls for a total of 138.88 for the six
wall signs. In granting this variance, the applicant would benefit because it would be able to
construct and display desired signage at the preferred locations. The reason for the five extra signs
is that Applebee’s has designed a sign placement involving three signs on each facade, one of
which is in a box which says “Applebee’s”, one in a box that says “Neighborhood”, and a third in
a box that says “Grill and Bar”. These are minimal signs, as far as the Ordinance is concerned,
and in the judgment of the Board, they are not a detriment to the community, as viewed. The
feasible alternatives which might be considered might include reducing the spacing between the
proposed signs or even making them one big box sign at the required area. It might be construed
that five additional signs may be interpreted as moderate, but these are very small signs, and the
way they are placed on the building, per the applicant’s submission, it does not appear to be really
substantial. Certainly, there will be minimal effects on the neighborhood as a result of this action,
because we are dealing with a new piece of property, a large piece of property, and this is a
relatively small building on that property and the signs are relatively small, and while this difficulty
may be interpreted as self created, it is not really a problem as far as this motion is concerned. The
original application asked for a wall sign on the back side, the north side of the building, that side
of the building facing Lowe’s, and this variance does not recognize that request.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. LAPPER-Before you vote, I’m going to ask you to consider, in terms of SEQRA, what the
Planning Board did last time, because this whole project was the subject of a Full Environmental
Impact Statement, the Planning Board made a motion for SEQRA that switching the 12,000 square
foot building for the 5,000 square foot restaurant does not significantly impact the environmental
review that this went through, and that no additional environmental impact review is required, and I
think that, for SEQRA, it would be appropriate to just include that, as well, for the record.
MR. STONE-We have to make a separate motion then anyway, for SEQRA.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because this is an Unlisted Type.
MR. STONE-So we’ve got to make a motion anyway for that, but we ought to have done that
before this.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I haven’t asked for the second. So, would someone like to make that motion
about the SEQRA?
MR. STONE-This action is an Unlisted Type, as far as SEQRA is concerned, but given the
actions of the Planning Board in saying that this project, a full environmental review has been done
on the property for a much larger building, and certainly this building which is more than 50%
reduction would have no additional environmental impact.
MR. THOMAS-It sounds good to me. Do you want that as a separate one, or incorporate it as the
same?
MR. BROWN-I think it’s been covered in the original site plan.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. All right. That takes care of that. No question on the motion.
Everybody understands the motion. Go ahead and second it.
MR. HAYES-Second.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jon, would you convey my feelings toward your client, that I applaud getting this
particular, first of all, reducing the size of the building and getting this particular establishment
there. I think from my experience with them, they’re a good class operation, and I know the one in
Clifton Park, I’ve never seen such attentive wait staff, and I hope that they train the kids up here as
well.
MR. LAPPER-Newman Development was really happy to get the lease from Applebee’s. It’s a
really complimentary use, because there’s going to be a lot of people working at Lowe’s, and
certainly a lot of people shopping at Lowe’s. Thanks very much.
USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A CEA CHARLES F.
BLEIBTREY OWNER: GRACE HANNEFORD ROUTE 9L, SOUTH ON PILOT
KNOB ROAD OPPOSITE WILLIAMSON STORE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 FT. BY 50 FT. BARN AS A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF TO ALLOW A GARAGE AS A PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-13, 179-7
CHARLES BLEIBTREY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 56-1998, Charles Bleibtrey, Meeting Date: August 26, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Rte. 9L Applicant proposes construction
Relief Required:
of an 1800 sf garage on a vacant parcel. Applicant requests relief to allow a
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter
garage as principal structure.
267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack or
return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence?
Owner has stated
2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question
difficulty in selling parcel.
unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood?
The hardship may be interpreted as unique, as the lot is relatively small; 78 x 100 which would not
allow for necessary separation distances between well and septic incidental to a traditional
3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential
principal structure.
character of the neighborhood?
Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action.
4. Is the alleged hardship self-created:
The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance):Staff comments:
None applicable. Minimal
to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Due to the pre-existing, non-
conforming characteristics of this site, the construction of a single family home, with a well and
septic system, would not be feasible. A 100 foot separation distance between a well and a septic
system could not be maintained on this lot. An accessory structure on a parcel not adjacent to a
principal structure may develop complications in the future in regards to selling the properties.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted”
th
MR. BROWN-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12 day of
August 1998, the above application for a Use Variance the construction of a 36’ by 50’ barn as a
principal structure was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No
County Impact.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson.
(DUE TO TAPE RECORDER PROBLEMS PART OF TAPE WAS DAMAGED)
MR. THOMAS-The permitted use is single family dwelling and hunting and fishing camp less than
500 square feet.
MR. STONE-And this lot was a separate lot, long before zoning came in.
MR. BLEIBTREY-I think she said it was around, wasn’t it around 1912 when her mom bought it,
her grandmother.
MR. STONE-So a long time ago, the single lot was substandard for the current zoning.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was there before zoning.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s right.
MR. THOMAS-So, it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Are there anymore questions for the
applicant right now?
MR. STONE-Well, the concern is that we have a statement from the owner of the property, and
that’s where the Use Variance has to be first granted, to the owner, at least as I understand it, who
says no one’s been interested or willing to give a reasonable price. Well, I don’t know what a
reasonable price is. I mean, if she had some offers, if she’s had this property since 1912, or
something like that, what’s reasonable? I mean, $5,000 might be a reasonable price, if anybody’s
offered it to her. Granted, you can’t build a house on it. It’s substandard from those, but I mean,
the Use Variance, of course, is a very difficult one for us to consider. It’s very precise. I haven’t
heard anything yet that answers Question Number One, except difficulty in selling parcel.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed?
Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL DI PALMA
MR. DI PALMA-I don’t know how I got this job. I didn’t want it, but I was not informed,
Michael DiPalma, Queensbury, Ridge Road.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. STONE-You’re the owner of the property to the north?
MR. DI PALMA-Yes, and I have a right-of-way right next to his property. There’s two right of
ways. There’s that neighborhood right of way, then my right of way.
MR. STONE-Are you the Bed and Breakfast?
MR. DI PALMA-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay. That’s what I thought.
MR. DI PALMA-There’s a lot of things I could say here, and I won’t. I shouldn’t be talking
because I’ll get upset and say the wrong things. So I’m hardly going to say anything. All I’m
going to say is, do you have this list?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I do.
MR. DI PALMA-It’s a list of almost every neighbor in that neighborhood that does not want this
there. I have no objection to a house going there. Mrs. Hanneford, many years ago, before she
was friendly with me, spoke to me and asked me to buy the lot. You cannot sell things when
they’re over priced. He ought to know. His house is way over priced, and it’s been for sale for 15
years, and it’s not going to sell until it meets what other houses in the neighborhood are going for.
So I’m just saying, I’d love to see him move. You know that. All I’m saying is, this does not
belong there. It will not, it will change the characteristic of the neighborhood. If you go out there
and look, you will see how it would. The property drops right off in the back. It’s all rock and
ledge. I certainly don’t want it next to my property, and no one else up there wants it, either. I was
fortunate when I came before this Board. I had these people knowing what the correct story was
there when I was going for my variance. You all know that. Most of the people are not on this
Board anymore when I was going for my variance. I get very upset when I even look at this man,
because a lie is lie.
MR. STONE-Basically what you’re saying is that you and your neighbors have signed a piece of
paper that says they’re against it?
MR. DI PALMA-They’re against it, period.
MR. STONE-That’s all you’ve really offered, is that all you want offered?
MR. DI PALMA-That’s all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any
correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s a letter from Bruce Mandolare, 25 Knolls Road, Queensbury “To
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, In 1985 I had an agreement to buy the lot owned by Grace
Hanneford for $25,000, if her dock rights could be shifted from her home to the lot. This was not
possible so as it sits, I offered her $1,000 for the lot. It was so small and rocky that it had no real
value as currently zoned. The idea of a barn has given the lot value, and Grace a chance to receive
a reasonable price for her land. Thank you sincerely, Bruce Mandolare”
MR. THOMAS-When was that, 1985?
MR. BROWN-1985, and I have a petition signed by 20 some odd neighbors. “Michael DiPalma,
Ridge Road, Shirley.
MR. THOMAS-Before you start that is, there a heading on that or a statement?
MR. BROWN-It’s name and address and underline, Disapprove.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BROWN-“RE: Charles Bleibtrey Variance Proposed Boat Storage Town of Queensbury
Name & Address Disapproved” Michael DiPalma, Ridge Road; Shirley & Robert Hausler,
Ridge Road;”
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. BLEIBTREY-Could you just give their addresses, too, because, I mean, Ridge Road is pretty
long.
MR. BROWN-Sure. “2469 Ridge Road for DiPalma; 2125 for Hauslers; Harold Smith, 43
Hanneford Road; W. R. Smith, 171 Pilot Knob Rd.; Tracy Allen, 2464 Ridge Road; Gavin
Rooney, 47 Hanneford; Robert & Margaret Bolen, 2445 Ridge; Edith Rooney, 47 Hanneford Rd.;
Mrs. Jane Peltier, no address; John Beals, 25 Hanneford; John Shaffer, 21 Hanneford; Thomas
Callahan, 2413 Ridge; Robert Nelson, 2428 Ridge; Bob Lance, Ward Lane; Vonda Lance, Ward
Lane; David Hopper, 35 Hanneford; Timothy Bolen, Pilot Knob; Charles T. Gray, Box 40 Alexy
Lane; Ronald Williamson, 2464 Ridge Road; Jane Crannell, 25 Hanneford.” That’s it.
MR. THOMAS-That’s it for correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant concerning this?
MR. STONE-Did you want to put this in?
MR. BLEIBTREY-I do have one other thing I’d like to say, and that is, that is a heavily wooded
piece of land right there, and I’m only going to take out just enough to put the driveway in to the
center of the building, and then just enough to put the building on. I’m going to leave everything
along the road. So it’ll be a buffer zone.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Bleibtrey? Yes, on second thought,
Craig, would you read that letter in, the one from Miss Hanneford?
MR. BROWN-It’s from Grace E. Hanneford, July 29, 1998 “Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals For the last three years I’ve been trying to sell my property on Ridge Road in
Queensbury, but no one has been interested or willing to give me a reasonable price for it. Now
Mr. Bleibtrey wants to buy it with the stipulation that he can put a barn on it. After having the
property for sale for so long, I finally have a buyer for it. If you would please approve the
variance, it would be a great help to me. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely,
Grace E. Hanneford”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Bleibtrey? If not, lets talk about it.
I’ll start with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I start from the premise that on an application for a Use Variance there
have to be hard financial facts in front of us, and that’s the first and foremost criterion. In the
absence of any of that information, I don’t see how a Use Variance can fly. Now, Ms. Hanneford
has given us a cursory letter saying she can’t sell it or get a reasonable return, but apparently there
have been, at least in the last couple of years, offers of $23,000 and $25,000, and I’m not sure
what other efforts she would have made, or did make, to sell this property. The permitted uses are
as a single family dwelling, and for a hunting camp or fishing camp of less than 500 square feet,
and I don’t think the applicant, or the property owner, has demonstrated, with hard financial
information, that there can’t be a reasonable return with the permitted uses as they currently exist.
What information we have indicates that Ms. Hanneford apparently has very little money into the
property, it being given to her. So it’s not as if she’s purchased it for a large amount of money
and has to have a large return. In the absence of that information, I don’t see how this thing can
fly. I don’t see it passing. I do see the neighbors also being essentially residential, and I think
that’s why our Town Board elected to make this zone a residential area. There is certainly a store
across the street, but short of that, I don’t know that allowing an accessory use, like a storage barn,
without a principal residence, is going to be in conformity with the existing character of the
neighborhood. I also don’t know if the problem that Ms. Hanneford refers to, as far as getting a
reasonable return, might not be self created. Again, without her being here, without her giving us
her financial information, without her describing what efforts she’s made to sell it as a small, single
family residential lot, what other prices, how long she’s marketed it, with whom she’s marketed it,
what offers she’s received, you can’t tell. I’ll acknowledge that it seems as if the hardship relating
to the property is unique, but on balance, I’m not in favor of this Use Variance.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I basically feel the same way. The Use Variance criteria are very specific. I mean,
I’ll read them, just so then we’re all on the same page, and Bob paraphrased them quite well, but to
allow a use not otherwise allowed in zoning, an applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship.
Such demonstration includes all of the following for each and ever permitted use. First of all, I
don’t think the right person is before us. We’ve seen this before where perspective buyers have
come before us seeking a Use Variance. It is not in their purview, as far as I am concerned, to be
seeking a Use Variance. They can’t prove hardship for themselves, because they don’t own the
property. The owner of the property is the one who must show hardship, and I think as Bob
correctly states, we need competent financial evidence. The fact that she says, I haven’t been able
to sell it, or I haven’t sold at a reasonable price is a nice statement, but it really doesn’t tell us, very
well, in her mind, why she hasn’t gotten a reasonable return, and failing that criteria, the rest, the
allegedly hardship being unique, requested variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood, and the other three, I’m sorry, alleged hardship has not been self created, really
don’t come into play, because the first one has not been proven in any way shape or form. I mean,
I appreciate your willingness to do what, you want to buy the property, and for you, it’ll be a God
send, but you’re not the owner of the property.
MR. BLEIBTREY-I understand what you’re saying, and I have spoken to people downstairs about
that, and the problem is, she didn’t have it listed with a broker. They said, if you don’t have it
listed with a broker, what have you got? Nothing, and she just didn’t have it with a broker. She’s
been trying to sell it by word of mouth, and like Mike said, he offered it to her.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think I would part with the rest of the Board in this particular case. I think
that, in particular, when it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, I don’t think that you can zone a
property out of any value whatsoever. In this case, I think there is at least evidence on record that
the property was attempted to be sold based on the letter from an independent party, an arm’s
length transaction has been put on the table, which means that there was talk of sale, from a factual
perspective. As far as, you know, getting a real value or return on the property, we don’t know
what was paid for that property in 1912.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Probably $50 or so in those days.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess my point is that the owner damn well need to get $25,000 to get an
overall return on the property, considering the time value of money, and that’s being completely
forgotten in this circumstance, I think. As far as the alleged hardship, I think that that
neighborhood is, I think, an extremely mixed neighborhood. There’s stores. There’s a Bed &
Breakfast, Mr. DiPalma’s. There’s a duplex which we just approved last month. There’s boat
storage facilities everywhere, and I don’t think that, I think that the alleged hardship is not self
created. I think that this lot was created before zoning. I don’t see how that we can interpret this
being a self created hardship. It was created by the fact that Zoning Ordinances were created after
the fact, after the lot was created. So, I mean, I really think this is the case where the property has
no real value as currently zoned in my mind. I mean, if somebody can’t build a house on that lot,
that then lot is worth nothing, except as a pick up for somebody else around it, and I think that’s
when a Use Variance is in order. I think that’s what it’s for.
MR. BLEIBTREY-I do, too.
MR. HAYES-So I guess I would be in favor of this application, as it stands now. I don’t think
that anybody could do anything with this lot under our zoning. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t
approve this lot for a house it is now.
MR. BLEIBTREY-No. When you start putting the water and septic on it, then you’ve got
problems, and this way here, it’ll be a nice.
MR. HAYES-That’s what I was referring to. There’s no configuration, viewed independently, that
I would approve on an Area Variance for a house.
MR. BLEIBTREY-This’ll be a nice, neat quiet operation, just for my own personal use.
MR. HAYES-I mean, you’re going to have to get a motion either way, but I would not go for any
commercial use of the property. That would change the characteristics.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. BLEIBTREY-No. I don’t have time to go into anything commercial, really.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I kind of lean toward Bob and Lew’s interpretation there. There is a strict
interpretation for a Use Variance that competent financial evidence must be shown, and if that isn’t
shown, then the other three are really moot points until the financial evidence is shown.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Could I ask a question?
MR. THOMAS-Sure.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Other than having it listed with a real estate agent, what would you accept? I
mean, what do you want? That’s what I’ve been trying to find out, and nobody can tell me.
MR. STONE-Well, certainly, she could show us tax bills for a number of years, that it’s been
costing her X, Y, Z amount of dollars over the years. She could cite, by chapter and verse, the fact
that somebody did make an offer for the property, and it was rejected for other reasons. Those are
at least two things that we don’t have in front of us. I have no idea what this thing, what she pays
in taxes a year.
MR. BLEIBTREY-It’s about $50 a year. I asked her that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BLEIBTREY-I mean, it’s automatic that her taxes have been paid for the last 50 years, or it
wouldn’t be hers anymore.
MR. STONE-All right, but $50 for 20 years is $1,000. So, I am perfectly willing to have you ask
us to table this for one or two months, at which time, so that we don’t have on record that we’ve
rejected it, and come in with at least a better try, have the applicant, or have the owner come in
with a better try to try to satisfy this competent financial evidence. I think this is a, it’s a very
tough one.
MR. BLEIBTREY-That’s why I called many times to the Zoning Board to try and find out what
they want, you know, and nobody has told me, you know, other than if it’s been listed.
MR. STONE-Well, three of us have at least said what you’ve offered is not enough.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got permitted use as a Single Family Residential lot for a camp, and there
are other properties with lots that size that can accommodate those things, and to demonstrate that
it can’t, you’ve got to do more than come in here and say it can’t.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Okay. I’m just trying to find out what you want.
MR. MC NALLY-And to demonstrate that she can’t get a reasonable return, you’ve got to find out
what she’s got into it. Now, I don’t know what she’s got into it, whether she’s got a mortgage on
it, if she’s got anything else on it or whatever.
MR. HAYES-Or what they paid in 1912. I mean, those things need to be.
MR. BLEIBTREY-If you guys will tell me what to bring in, I’ll bring it in, and we could, if you’d
like to table it, I would be glad to.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not our function, really, to say what your proof should be. These things are
suggestions, depending upon the specific lot, and I don’t know what her circumstances are. I don’t
think you do. I would agree with Jamie, if you could show us the proof, that we would be willing
to change the use, but that’s the burden of the applicant.
MR. BLEIBTREY-All I want to know is what you want for proof, and I’ll be glad to get it, if it’s
available, and like Mr. Stone there said, her back tax bills, which I’d be glad to get them.
MR. STONE-That certainly indicates an outlay, whether it’s a lot of money, whether we’re going
to say it’s not very much money, but at least it suggests, doing nothing, it’s costing her X dollars a
year, whether she can’t sell it or hasn’t been able to, but so at least that’s a piece of information.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. BLEIBTREY-Yes, I’d be glad to get that. That I can get, but I can’t manufacture
information.
MR. MC NALLY-But I mean, if it has no history, as far as being marketed.
MR. STONE-Yes, Chris has got.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it comes right out of the New York State Law books. It’s entitled
“Reasonable Return for Nonconforming Use”, the Quality and Quantity of Proof, and Inability to
Sell for Permitted Use. I’ll give you these, and you can have this. You can read it and see what
you can come up with, using these guidelines, and it also gives you some different court cases
where all these decisions were made. So, if you want us to table it for up to 62 days, we can do
that, while you go through and see if you can unjumble this, and, you know, see if you can come up
with what we’re looking for on the competent financial evidence.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Okay. I just, you guys want the back tax bills, though, right?
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll tell you, you know, read this. This tells you, like I said, reasonable
return for nonconforming use, the quantity and quality of proof. That’s what we’re really looking
for.
MR. HAYES-So the tax bills probably wouldn’t be enough quantity.
MR. STONE-Yes, and I will read you, in this book about zoning, as to the financial aspect, it has
been held repeatedly that lack of reasonable return can only be shown by dollars and cents proof.
That’s what the courts have held over the years, in judging how Zoning Boards have functioned,
dollars and cents proof.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. BLEIBTREY-So like I agreed to buy it from her if I can build a barn on it, but if not, then
she doesn’t get that money, right? Is that the kind of proof you’re talking about?
MR. THOMAS-Let me read this. The Court of Appeals has held that an applicant has not shown
that land will not yield a reasonable return when he has failed to prove, One, the amount paid by
the applicant for the entire parcel in issue, Two, the present value of the parcel or any part thereof,
Three, the expenses attributable to maintenance, Four, the amount of taxes on the land in issue,
Five, the amount of mortgages or other encumbrances, Six, income from the land in issue, and,
Seven, other facts relevant to the particular circumstance of the case. It seems clear that the proof
required by the dollars and cents rule is not met by a simple statement on the part of the realtor that
a land will not, at this time, attract a developer for the purpose consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. This is part of a court ruling. It was from Syracuse. So, like I say, I’ll give you that,
and what I’ll do is I’ll make a motion to table. The public hearing is closed.
BOB BOLEN
MR. BOLEN-Can I just ask one question?
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead.
MR. BOLEN-Okay. My name’s Bob Bolen. My folks own the property next to this. Are you
guys saying that this particular lot will never allow a residence? You will never allow a house on
there?
MR. THOMAS-No.
MR. STONE-We haven’t commented on that.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you really can’t, because it’s like the Staff says, you can’t get a well and
septic system on that lot, because you have to have the 100 foot separation, and the lot’s only 100
foot wide and 78 foot deep.
MR. BOLEN-All right. There’s property right across the street, there was a 50 by 100 foot lot,
they put a house on there.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-How long ago?
MR. BOLEN-Five, six years ago, seven. I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t know about that.
MR. HAYES-They’d need some kind of variance, though, to do that on this lot.
MR. BOLEN-Okay. I’m not saying I’m for or against it. I’m just looking for information here.
MR. STONE-That’s part of the thing, I mean, the applicant should be looking into, that it is
technically impossible, that there’s no way at all to do it type thing, you can’t build a house on it.
Anyway. Do you want to table it?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BOLEN-A pre-existing lots, even, way before zoning here, even with an engineered situation,
I mean, can this be done, as far as the residence?
MR. THOMAS-Not as far as I know.
MR. MC NALLY-Can we grant a variance? Suppose someone comes with a small house, they
want to put a camp, John Salvador had that one proposal on the lake, a 15 by 15 structure. It’s a
permitted use, but the distance between a well and a septic might be shorter than it could be.
MR. THOMAS-You’d have to go to.
MR. STONE-Yes, the Town Board, the Board of Health, has granted holding tanks.
MR. THOMAS-Would have to grant a variance.
MR. MC NALLY-So it’s possible the variance from the Board of Health?
MR. STONE-Well, I think they’ve granted them, but I’m not sure they’re legally, according to the
Health Department, they’ve granted them legally, but they have granted holding tank requests.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but they have that power.
MR. STONE-They have that power. It’s in question right now.
MR. MC NALLY-They can’t even shorten the distance. You’re saying they can approve holding
tanks.
MR. STONE-I don’t know whether they can shorten the distance. So, lets table it.
MR. THOMAS-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1998 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-
1998 CHARLES F. BLEIBTREY
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Hayes:
For the applicant to produce some kind of competent financial evidence in relation to this property
that he has a binder to buy. This tabling will go for no more than 62 days.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, there you go. You’ve got the rules and regulations right there.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Okay. Thank you.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-That’s all we can do for you.
MR. BLEIBTREY-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1998 TYPE II LI-1A HUGH SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE 343 CORINTH ROAD CROSS REF. SPR 37-98 APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURE OVER CONCRETE
SLABS AND CEMENT BLOCKS. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND
RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO.
146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-79
HUGH SINCLAIR, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-1998 Hugh Sinclair, Meeting Date: August 26, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ Corner of Merritt Road and Corinth Road
Applicant proposes construction of a 468.5 square foot addition to an existing building which
already has a 120 square foot addition without approval. The building in question lies within the
Relief Required:
75 foot setback of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. Applicant requests 20
feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback requirement of 75 feet Sect. 179-28.
Since the existing storage building is within the 75 foot setback of the TCO, the applicant requests
Criteria for considering an
relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure, Sect. 179-79.
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
2. Feasible
Applicant would be permitted to construct additions in the desired location.
alternatives:
Since the entire storage building is within the 75 foot TCO setback, feasible
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
alternatives are limited. 20 feet of TCO
4. Effects on the neighborhood o community:
relief may be interpreted as substantial. Minimal
5. Is this difficulty self-
effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
created?Parcel History (construction/site
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
plan/variance, etc.):
UV 7-1991 res. 2/20/91 to convert residence into office (approved) AV
118-1992 res. 12/16/92 setback relief for garage expansion (app.) UV 126-1992 res. 12/16/92 to
expand existing non-conforming garage (app.) SP 41-1992 res. 9/17/92 for curb cuts and parking
items (approved) SP 55-1992 res. 12/22/92 to construct a 13-8 x 22-6 shed (approved) SP 13-
1994 res. 4/19/94 to construct fence and place parking signs (denied) SP 19-1994 res. 5/19/94 to
construct fence and place parking signs (approved) SP 37-1998 res. Withdrawn to construct fence
Staff comments:
AV 36-1998 res. 7/15/98 to construct two small additions (denied) Since the
easterly addition has been constructed, impacts related to demolition and removal may be noted.
SEQR Status:
This proposal will require much less TCO relief than the previous proposal. Type
II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Sinclair.
MR. SINCLAIR-I’m Hugh Sinclair from All-Pro Cleaning Service, and I just have to say to the
Board that I really did consider what you said last time, and the biggest thing that really strikes
mind to me is what the lady who sits here said to me, that she was not sold on our first proposal,
last time, and I believe that I didn’t adequately come prepared. All the other times I’ve been before
the Board, things have kind of gone through real easy, and I guess I didn’t anticipate my demise at
this. Our first proposal of two small additions on existing concrete slabs, a total of 340 square
feet, was denied. It really was our best plan, best access, no reason to drive over the leach field,
and our second proposal that we’re proposing tonight, on putting it on concrete and cinder blocks,
is before you, but we find that it’s not feasible. Because of what Craig Brown read to us at one of
our last meetings, is we cannot drive over the leach fields, on one side, and if you’ll remember,
back some years ago, the Board has prevented us from driving in on the Corinth Road. So if we
build a building where we’re proposing it right now, there’ll be no access to it whatsoever. Besides
the next problem is going to be, if there was a way to access it, there’s not going to be any place
for my employees to park, or they’re going to have to drive across the leach field to park. My next
problem is that, to build a building where the second proposal is, right now, the cost is four times
the original cost of putting on a cement slab, and I guess tonight I’m coming before you with my
very best effort to somehow find a way to reconsider the original plan of two small additions.
Number One is that, by accident, we made this 120 square foot space that’s already existing, we
made it 20 feet too big, and for that, we’re looking at, if we don’t get this passed, of having to tear
this back off the building. It’s going to be a terrible imposition, and a hardship for many people,
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
and I’m hoping that, tonight, I can show you this and somehow we can find a way to work through
this. Some of the reasons that I would ask you to re-consider this proposal is, I need to continue to
do business in Queensbury. About 10 or 11 years ago, I was teaching a Sunday school lesson, and
we were talking about where people live and what opportunities are there for them, and one of the
boys that was in the Sunday school class lived on Indiana Avenue, and he looked around the
classroom and said, for the rest of you, that might be fine, but for me, I live in West Glens Falls. I
took that very personally. I told him, here’s what I’ll do, is I’ll move my business to West Glens
Falls. When you want to come to work, you come over, and you wash vans there, and you don’t
have to get into the trouble that you’re talking about. Since that time, I have moved to West Glens
Falls. When I have interviewed people to come to work, of course, there’s some priorities. They
have to be willing to work. They have to be able to work, but the next criteria is, for someone to
be hired, they generally have to be from Warren County. I moved from a very nice facility in
South Glens Falls, where I had three acres that I could have built just about anything I wanted to,
to come across the river, to help out over here. I am also stating that, if we’re not able to get this
equipment under cover, before it snows, I’m going to have two options. One is I’m either going to
need to downsize, about 15%, which means about $45,000 income, which means out of the ten
employees that we have working there, the possibility that eight of them will not be able to work
for me any further. I’ve had offers to move into Saratoga County, which, you know, Uncle Ray
McDonald down there, he’ll get anybody to move down there, and I don’t really want this to
happen. To relocate isn’t my choice. What I’m asking for is for us to somehow be able to work
out a way to build onto the facilities that we have now. Now I could point out to you that the new
proposal that we have before the Board, if we put it up, there is no way to get to the equipment in a
manner that is productive. Out in the van right now, I have one of those pieces of equipment, and I
would defy any of you to try to lift it or drag it by yourself. It can’t be done, and the small space
that we would have to bring this equipment through, two people and the equipment can’t fit
through that space. What is the negative effect on the Town of Queensbury compared to the
negative effect if we were to relocate? I brought several people with me this evening, and I
apologize if they have to stay up this late, but this is so very important to me that I just want to
make sure that all of us understand what the few options are. The loss of revenue of my business,
just on the Corinth Road, would be considerable. When I moved over to Warren County, I made a
commitment that I would do business with vendors in Warren County, and I think you could go
around this Town and find that I have accounts at probably 40 to 50 different businesses, and
every one of them could look in their books and say, you know what, Hugh Sinclair is the one
person that I can count, that check’s going to be there whenever we say it’s due. If it’s due on the
th
15, the check’s there, even if we have to drive it. In over 1,040 pay periods, there’s never been
one of my employees that didn’t get paid, even if I did not get paid. If I had to go to the bank and
take it out of my personal account, I did that. I guess the question comes up, is this a self imposed
problem, and I don’t really believe it is. I believe it’s, it’s pretty much out of the goodness of my
heart that I moved across the river. It’s really a pretty good location. We’re close to the
Northway, but I have to tell you that my other property was the same distance from the Northway,
in South Glens Falls, and the problem comes up that I mentioned to you last month, that we’ve
made a commitment to serve this community, and with five cleaning companies going out of
business, and taking all their equipment with them, it has put a tremendous influx of business that
we need to take care of. I don’t know if you could really believe this next statement that I’m
willing to tell you, that there are only three companies that do this kind of work. There’s only two
companies that are really capable of providing the equipment, having the manpower on almost 24
hour call. If a water loss happened Saturday afternoon while the Yankees were beating the
Rangers, I’d be able to call two people and they’d show up and take this equipment to them. Just
this year alone, we’ve responded to over 100 losses, that people needed response just like this. If
you can’t show up and the hot water heater is pouring hot water all over someone’s floor,
hardwood floors or carpeted floors, or the sheet rock’s getting wet, or these people cannot wait,
and if we have to drive to another location to get this equipment, by then, we have just cost the
homeowner and the insurance company thousands of dollars. I’ll tell you about an example, that I
was driving home at six o’clock, and I, besides all the other payments I make, I make a lot of
payments on telephones, because I have five telephones that I can be reached at any point, and I
was called and a store in the Mall had hundreds of gallons coming out this broken pipe, and they
needed someone to respond right away. I was able to get a hold of three people, instantaneously,
from my car phone, get a hold of them, they had the equipment, and we all met in one spot. The
insurance company sent me a note saying that we saved them $80,000, by being able to respond. I
have looked over this New York State Planning Federation Area Variance criteria, and I weighed
this out, of what we’re looking at, if I don’t have the storage space to build and accommodate this
equipment. I don’t see anything on here that is so much more important than 10 people being able
to work and serve our community. The increase in our business is not necessarily because I’ve
increased advertising. I think the increase of business has become, I think most of it’s come
because people understand what’s inside of me, that not only are they going to get somebody to
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
respond, they’re going to get somebody to respond right now, no matter what time of day it is.
They’re going to get somebody to respond that knows what they’re doing, and somebody that’s
trying to be honest all the time, and I’m asking the Board to find some way that we can do this
without moving on, because there is not one inch that, we can’t put this equipment in the bathroom.
We can’t put it on top of Joanne’s desk, and they refuse to use it as a table to eat off of. There just
isn’t any place else, and this is absolutely the most feasible area that I can see, and I’ve been all
over it. It just was consequently that this was mailed to me this morning, and I think all of you
who were listening to the weather station can figure out that this is the kind of thing that’s
happening more and more, that there are disasters, and most of you have no idea what.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what you’re asking us to do is really reconsider Area Variance No. 36-
1998, the first one that you submitted?
MR. SINCLAIR-I think that’s the only one that can be, because any place else I build is not going
to work, because of the outline of the leach field, the way you have me blocked off on the Corinth
Road. I really tried hard to abide by that, and the few mistakes I have made, they’re out of total
ignorance, and not out of arrogance.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and on this application you have here, this 588 square foot addition you
have on the back there, you said it would cost you four times what it would if you put the additions
on these two slabs?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-And you say you wouldn’t have any access to it anyway because of the leach field
on the end, you couldn’t go over it?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right. At the end of the second garage we have there is the septic tank and
the leach field reach out around the birch tree through that open corridor there. There is absolutely
no way to get back there without probably causing more damage.
MR. THOMAS-If you put that addition on the back of the garage, could you get access to that
addition through the garage?
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, I think the problem then there is the additional expense. We already have
the foundation there. We’ve already got one wall . We don’t need a fire wall. Just the minimal
space I’m looking for is going to keep the price down the most, and what I’ve done is I’ve invited a
couple of gentlemen that have been working with me on this project, and it was kind of pointed out
by them that, you know, you can build the space, Hugh, but you’re not going to be able to use it
unless you’ve got a helicopter.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, we’ll go back to the Staff. Area Variance No. 36-1998 was denied
once.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-What can we do? Can we re-open it? No, we can’t.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so.
MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t believe so. The only way we could probably do that is whoever made
the motion, is to withdraw the motion. I believe that’s probably about the only thing you could do.
MR. BROWN-Even after it’s been voted on and passed?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t know if you can do that or not. Do you know what we can do and
can’t do, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-In this particular instance, I don’t know if we can re-open that first one. I can
look into it, but I don’t know. I wasn’t here for that first one, either.
MR. SINCLAIR-I believe you were here.
MR. STONE-According to the motion, he was not.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. SINCLAIR-Okay. Maybe it was somebody else.
MR. MC NALLY-I was here last week, and we agreed to re-hear your amended application, but I
read your minutes from the first application, sir, and I wanted to understand a couple of things.
Your current application that you changed, so that we would agree to re-hear it as a separate and
distinct application, you were going to add the addition to the back of the existing garage?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, to kind of the side of it.
MR. MC NALLY-And as I understand it, there were two additions that you built without approval
and without permits, prior to making that application?
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. One of them was almost by accident, that it’s 20 feet too big.
MR. MC NALLY-For whatever reason.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re telling us tonight that you can’t access the addition to the back of
your garage that you’re proposing because these other additions that you made, without permits,
prevent you from getting back there?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. One of the additions is a new garage, and I believe that one there has passed
through, I think, and so now that garage is here, but no matter how we go around this, whether it’s
the old garage or the new garage, any way that we try to access the back of that property, we’re
going across a leach field.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but when Chris asked you how come you can’t cut a door from the
existing garage to the addition that’s to be attached to the garage, and you’re telling me that it’s too
expensive? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, we’ve looked at the other, you know, opportunities or options.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, my question’s very specific. I mean, here you’ve got a wood frame
garage. You’re going to put a wood frame garage in it, an addition attached to it . I don’t
understand how come you can’t go in the back of the garage and make a door into the addition.
Are you saying it’s too expensive?
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess, you know, I hadn’t really thought of that, but one of the problems that’s
going to be is there’s always going to be two vans in there that have to be heated. So when it’s,
you know, 25 below zero or something, we take those vans out, which they’re not heated just
because we want to keep them warm and comfortable. They actually have equipment in them that
are for extracting water. Any of those lines freeze, we’re kind of up a creek.
MR. MC NALLY-When we were here last week, all right, I mean, we sympathized with you and
let you make this application over again, because we thought that as long as you complied with the
existing setback and the Travel Corridor Overlay, that, hey, just build the addition and in
accordance with the law.
MR. SINCLAIR-And I don’t think we had all of the, we didn’t have all of the figures in, yet, on
what that building was going to cost, you know, to have an engineer come, and just figuring out the
roof line is a tremendous nightmare, you know, just how are we going to tie in the roof line, so all
the water’s not running back on the building, or I guess the next thing was, we already have an
existing concrete slab, to lay the footings and pour the cement. It seems like a lot of expense to
build and house this equipment.
MR. MC NALLY-But it’s within the Travel Corridor Overlay, that’s the problem. You want to
build a house, you’ve got to build it beyond that area. What would it cost to put a door in to the
garage between the old and the new addition?
MR. SINCLAIR-Maybe I don’t understand the, there’s two garages there. They’re completely
filled. There isn’t any room to go through there. Now, if we build something on the back of it, are
you saying?
MR. STONE-Yes, and move things to the back of the, or you can’t get to them.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. MC NALLY-Aren’t you going to have the same problem with accessing the structure on the
existing concrete slab?
MR. SINCLAIR-No, and we’ve thought about this. What we have is we have a storage space
where we’re going to build on to. What we’re going to do is we’re going to build at the same
height as the other one, and we’re going to be able to roll the equipment right across the floor, and
right to where the van is going to be backed up to our building.
MR. MC NALLY-So you propose building an addition, and you’ll have an opening between the
old and the new?
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Now how is that different between your amended plan, if you just put a door
between the old and the new where you proposed it now?
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t think it’s that much different. The thing I didn’t realize, and I have to tell
you that one of the reasons for making the second proposal is, I’ve already got one building on
there that I thought the last time we should have divided up and said, well, this thing’s already
built. Could we give him the okay on this, and somehow, you know, not really knowing the
proceedings as well as I probably should, I should have asked for that, can we vote on one and then
can we vote on the second one and see if that is a workable. Right now, we’re at a point that if we
have to tear off the 120 square foot section, it’s a nightmare, and you’re right, it’s my fault. I
should know these things. I should have, but I didn’t, and I’m just saying that the consequences of
not being able to have the storage space are greater than building on something and the promises
that I’m willing to commit to, I called our neighbors, and some of them hadn’t received their
notification of this, but I called each one of them that I could get a hold of, and I told them, if I get
this, I will clear out everything that’s in that yard. It won’t take me more than three days to take
all those building materials out of those trailers, everything else. I’ll make this thing the way the
neighborhood wants it, and I believe the Town wants it, but if I can’t have that storage space, I’m
certainly not going to put $14,000 into it when I can go to another township, and they have other
offers for me that are sweeter, but I don’t want to use that. I want to stay right here.
MR. HAYES-You realize you are using it, though.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, I don’t mean to, though, and here’s one of the things, though, that I think I
could say that I don’t think anybody in this room knows, is I’m out every day meeting people, and
if I know of John’s Window Business over here, and John does a good job, I don’t only tell the
people about me, I tell them, you know, what you’re using our service, why don’t we use John’s
Window Service to put these windows in, or if it’s another company or another company or
another company, I network with hundreds of people. On a weekly basis, I probably meet over
100 people, telling them about our services, and by the way, do you need this, this or this. These
are other people you can use. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard this, but a lot of people tell me
that it’s really hard to do business in Queensbury. One of the reasons I have not moved out of here
is because I want to prove that it’s not hard to do business in Queensbury. When I go to the
Chamber of Commerce, I want to be able to say, you know what, these guys broke their back for
me. They bent over backwards. They did something that maybe they wouldn’t normally want to
do. I can prove that we can do business in Warren County, right here in Queensbury.
MR. HAYES-I think you’re kind of making that argument you don’t want to make again.
MR. SINCLAIR-I know, but I don’t know if you guys have heard this, but I hear it all the time.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Sinclair, I can vouch for your personal reputation through associations of yours
that are common, but I have to tell you that, I, myself, have a business in West Glens Falls that
outgrew it’s current space, and we stayed in West Glens Falls, but if your volume is growing, as
you say that it is, or the opportunities for your volume to grow are there, that that’s part of
capturing that extra business is providing yourself with a facility that can do that, as far as total
square footage or usage or accessibility, as did we, and we moved our business to what, we kept
our business in West Glens Falls, as well. That’s what businesses do. They move on to facilities
that are adequate, if the financial aspects of it justify it, and I also feel very strongly, and ultimately
it’s the Chairman’s call, that I don’t think that we can entertain changed motions on motions that
have already been denied, based on the fact that everybody could simply just keep coming back for
the same variance, as you are tonight, even to the point where they could be looking for a different
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
composition on our Board, as far as voting. I mean, that’s a possibility, and I think that it sets a
precedent, that could make our agendas unbelievable in the future, I really do.
MR. STONE-You, also, I mean, I empathize with you, I sympathize. I know all these things, but
in a sense you came before us tonight with false pretenses. You came last week, and you argued
for a new plan. We agreed that it was a major difference, is the only way we could even allow you
to come in, because we had already denied your original request. You made some major changes.
We looked at them, and we said, they are major, and we are willing to consider your new
application.
MR. HAYES-Unanimously.
MR. STONE-Unanimously. Now tonight you come in, and you say, well, I was only fooling,
guys. I really can’t work with last week’s thing, so I want to open the whole thing back up again,
and frankly, well, I certainly agree with Mr. Hayes here that our hands are tied. I mean, the only
thing that I can see, in the book that we use, is an Article 78, going to the courts to appeal a
decision that we have made. We cannot, I think Jamie said it very eloquently, we cannot sit here
and say, well, we’ll reconsider, we did something wrong the last time. We made the decision,
based upon the evidence that we had, our interpretations, and I agree, they are interpretations. It’s
a balancing act. I made, it very clearly in the motion, I was just looking at the motion, because I
made it, it was a balancing act between your benefit and the detriment to the community, and we
came up, most of us came up short. It wasn’t a unanimous vote, I agree, but the majority came up
short in saying that it was more of a detriment than it was to your benefit, and I just don’t think, I
have a real problem with even thinking, taking the time that we’ve taken to hear what, to me, is a
wrong application, if you will.
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, you know, when I drew this thing out, and it looked like it, we didn’t have
the prices back of what it was going to cost, and we didn’t know that we weren’t going to be able
to access the building by, there isn’t any way to access it.
MR. HAYES-That’s your responsibility, though.
MR. SINCLAIR-We can’t do anything about the Corinth Road. You give us access through the
Corinth Road, that we can make a left hand turn there, and maybe we could do something different,
but there is no other place to put this thing, now.
MR. HAYES-In your own testimony, you referred to Mrs. Lapham, and she, in her vote, felt that
you did not meet the test. She’s not here tonight. Now would we possibly override her vote, with
her not being here now?
MR. SINCLAIR-No. The point I was making was that she wasn’t 100% sold. If I would have
had this presentation saying, there isn’t any other place to put it, these are the conditions, I think
the vote would have been totally different.
MR. STONE-Well, the thing is, though, and I wasn’t going to say this, but I will, because I’ve said
it at another Board that I sit on, you’re threatening us, in a sense saying, guys, if you don’t give me
this, I’m going to leave Queensbury. That is not what we’re here for. We’re here to look at the
benefit to the community, your benefit, versus the detriment to the community, not the benefit to
the community. This is what we have to match. Obviously, to have you in business in Queensbury
is a benefit to the community. There’s no doubt about that, but that is not what we have to
consider here.
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t know. I would just think that the benefit of 100 calls coming from our
residence, to have somebody that’s here, that can handle it, is a benefit to the community.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but that’s presuming that you can’t do that from another location, in
Queensbury. I mean, that’s an assumption that you’re leaping to, that we’re not accepting. I
know, personally, I’m not accepting it, because I had to pull out the dollars to get a bigger
warehouse when your business grows. I mean, that’s part of doing business in any community.
MR. SINCLAIR-I don’t know what we’re going to do about it. I guess, what about.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you withdrawing your amended application?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. SINCLAIR-No, I don’t think so, because I’ve got to do something. I’ve got to do something
here.
MR. MC NALLY-Would you like us to pass on, either to deny or approve your current pending
application?
MR. HAYES-Well, we’re not even sure what that is.
MR. MC NALLY-The one that we’ve got in front of us.
MR. STONE-We have one in front of us, that I thought Mr. Sinclair was going to make better, if
you will.
MR. HAYES-I was certainly prepared to approve it.
MR. STONE-Yes, so was I.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, if we approve it, then it’s up to Mr. Sinclair to build it or not
build it. He’ll have the permit and the right to build it. Whether he builds it or doesn’t build it,
that’s up to him.
MR. SINCLAIR-Well, you know, and that’s one of the reasons for bringing back the proposal.
We’ve already got one storage shed there that I need to have approved, and that’s the reason for
doing this, and I really looked at the cost of this thing, and saying, you know, can it be done or not,
and I don’t see it, I don’t see us being able to build it. I just see, I see the negative side of us not
being able to use that space that’s there. I’ve had every neighbor come over and look at it, and
they say, that’s certainly not going to be an eye sore to us or be a problem to any of my neighbors,
and Stan, who spoke up last time, Mr. Batease who spoke up last time, said, Hugh, I’d be glad to
come up there, but I’ve got my grandchildren with me tonight.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but in his testimony, he was not entirely in favor of the whole thing.
MR. SINCLAIR-No, he wasn’t, but this time, you know, after talking with him, and he and I.
MR. HAYES-But that’s hearsay.
MR. STONE-Well, no, but wait a minute. Are we talking, right now, about this proposal? I
mean, this is what Mr. McNally just asked you. If you’re willing to have us consider this, I think,
on the basis of what we heard last week, that we’re favorably disposed. We’ve got to hear all the
facts, but I think certainly we thought it was enough difference, and we thought there was a
possibility that it’s something that we could grant. If you’re willing to have us consider this, as
Mr. Thomas says, if we give you the variance, then you have two options, build or don’t build.
Right now, you can’t do anything.
MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right. I’m up a creek.
MR. STONE-I mean, if you’re willing to say, consider what I said, what I just put in, this not
revised, this is a new application, the one that you asked us to look at last week, in terms of, was it
enough different, was it different enough from the original one to say that we could now consider it,
then I’m perfectly willing to consider it, more than consider it, in all probability.
MR. SINCLAIR-Is this the only way to get that first addition passed, by having the proposal for
this?
MR. THOMAS-Well, if we grant this variance, as you have it drawn on here, I don’t believe you
have to build the entire thing. Is that true? This is what we will grant you, and what you build is
up to you, as per your drawing here.
MR. HAYES-He can always use less relief.
MR. STONE-The only thing that we’re talking about is the 20 feet relief from the TCO on Corinth
Road, right for that most front part of the building?
MR. BROWN-To the existing 10 by 12 structure.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. THOMAS-The existing 10 by 12 that doesn’t have a building permit for it. If we passed the
variance tonight, you’d have that. Whether you build that other addition, that’s up to you.
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess, that’s the least I’ve got to have. I just can’t see tearing that thing down
and not having any space at all.
MR. STONE-Well, you can build more than just that space, too.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you don’t have to build the entire 588 square feet on the back of that garage.
You could go another 120 square feet, like you wanted to put on the other cement slab. So it’s up
to you what you want to build, but what we’re going to grant you is what you’ve asked for, or
what we may grant you is what you’ve asked for. I can’t say one way or the other right now.
MR. SINCLAIR-Of course, you know, it isn’t so much the size of the building, but where it’s at
that makes the biggest difference to me, and I haven’t figured out a way that we would access that
if we built it. There’s too much equipment in the way to go through the garages. You can’t come
across the leach field. You can’t come across the Corinth Road, and it won’t fit through the space
between the existing building and the garage.
MR. THOMAS-It won’t fit between the existing addition, the 120 square foot.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. This equipment, no one person could lift it. It takes two people to go
through there, and we’ve already measured through there. It’s not going to fit through there.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what we’ll do is we’ll, you’re asking us to go forward with it, because the
least you’ll get out of this is the 10 by 12.
MR. SINCLAIR-I guess so.
MR. THOMAS-And if you want to build that 588, that’s fine. If you want to build 120 square
foot on that, that’s fine.
MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. Even with the 120 square feet, I’m probably still not going to be able to
access it, because I can’t drive across the leach field, and I can’t come the other way, either.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, like I say, you know, there’s always the thing of going through the
garage, because don’t you use those vans to haul your equipment?
MR. SINCLAIR-Those two vans are not, they have truck mount units in them. We have empty,
but there’s also a lot of, I mean, there might be some room to move some stuff, but those trucks
are, in the winter time, they have to be inside. You know, we won’t even let the oil be changed in
them, without the service station know, you have to keep this thing inside all day long until we
come and pick it up.
MR. STONE-This thing that we have here, the drawing that we have here, is the leach field exactly
where it says on here? I mean, it looks to me you could come around and get some access just in
front of the leach field, at least to have that door there.
MR. THOMAS-Well, you’d still, it’s still four and a half.
MR. SINCLAIR-I’m not really sure about that, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-It’s four and a half.
MR. SINCLAIR-We had, the guy that put it in is Frank Shaw. I had him come down and look at
it, and I said, Frank, how would we get a van across it. He said, if it’s against the law, you’re not
going to get it across there. I have to say, we have drive across it a few times, and I’m a little
concerned about the, it’s all sandy there in the bog in down there.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the Distribution Box you’re talking about.
MR. THOMAS-No.
MR. SINCLAIR-No. The box is out there in front of the, right out in front of the garage. I think
the leach field runs from.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. STONE-I see these 45.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Those are the lines going.
MR. STONE-Those are the lines coming out of the.
MR. THOMAS-Is that a Distribution Box, where it says leach field?
MR. STONE-I mean, if that’s the Distribution Box, that’s one thing. That’s the septic tank, which
then feeds to the leach field, which, well, feeds to the Distribution Box, which feeds to the three or
how many radials there are.
MR. THOMAS-Craig, doesn’t that septic line run out of where it says, where the existing storage
is? Doesn’t that run right straight south, out to where it says leach field? And that’s why this
building was going to be put up on blocks, or on a frost wall, because of that line?
MR. BROWN-That I don’t know. Maybe Mr. Sinclair would have that answer.
MR. STONE-Well, what you’re doing with the addition, that back addition, to the south, has
nothing to do with this Board. I mean, we can give you relief to make you legal, so to speak, on
the already constructed addition, and then you can play with where else you can put an addition on.
Is that right, Craig? Within the setbacks, whatever that is, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Are we ready to proceed?
MR. HAYES-Is that what Mr. Sinclair wants? Is that what you want us to proceed with?
MR. SINCLAIR-I think that’s what we need to do. I need to get this one building in, and whether
I can construct the other one or not, I guess that’ll have to be seen. There’s going to be some
engineering things that have to be worked out, and there’s a lot of things here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, are there any more questions for Mr. Sinclair? All right. I’ll open
the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENNIS BROWER
MR. BROWER-Thank you. Dennis Brower, Queensbury. Mr. Sinclair gave me a call and asked
me to come over and take a look at his situation, and I wasn’t aware that this had come before the
Board and been denied previously, frankly, but also, frankly, I didn’t see any problem with what he
was proposing to do, because the existing business parallels Corinth Road, and it’s a pre-existing
structure, the house that is converted to a business, and there’s a slab at the very end, which is at
the very end of the wall that exists currently, and it probably goes out about 10 feet, and that’s
where he wanted to build this addition. Frankly, I’m not quite sure how he was going to access it,
you know, sitting here right now, but certainly, it would blend in with the current building. The
roof line would just be extended, and it seemed very natural. I’m sure if this Board had had an
opportunity to actually visit the site, you might also concur that it might be the actually best
benefit, and the best looking addition to the area. I did speak to his neighbor this evening. His
neighbor came over, Stan Batease, and Stan’s principal concern, frankly, he had no real concern,
except for the fact that his well is not too far from Mr. Sinclair’s property, and he just wanted to
make sure that wouldn’t be affected, and frankly, the addition to his initial application would have
the least impact of all to his neighbor, and that’s the only neighbor that would principally be
affected, by any addition, change or whatever, and Mr. Sinclair was considerate and indicated to
him he would clean up the back yard, and get rid of some of the things that were in his back yard,
and his neighbor was thrilled with that. So, again, I understand where you’re coming from. I
know I’m talking about the previous application, at this point. However, since Mr. Sinclair would
like to consider his new application, and so would the Board, I would, I guess I would favorably
consider this application, but I really think the previous application is a better solution to the
problem, and I think you would all agree, if you saw the site.
MR. HAYES-You realize, of course, we’re required to go to each site.
MR. STONE-We always go to the site.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. BROWER-You did go to the site?
MR. STONE-We go to every site, every time.
MR. BROWER-Good. Okay. Well, not every Zoning Board does.
MR. STONE-Every member of this Board does.
MR. BROWER-Well, you’re to be commended, because I’ll tell you, that’s a lot of additional
work and time on your behalf, and as a strictly volunteer Board, that’s wonderful.
MR. STONE-The truth is, we do get paid.
MR. THOMAS-For expenses.
MR. STONE-For expenses.
MR. THOMAS-Reimbursed for expenses.
MR. STONE-Is that what it’s called? How come I have to pay taxes on it?
MR. BROWER-Well, when I was on the Glens Falls Zoning Board of Appeals, we didn’t always
have the luxury of seeing the sites before they came before us, and we weren’t reimbursed. No
doubt, you know, I know there’s no doubt on behalf of this Board of Mr. Sinclair’s integrity and
honesty, and the fact he is a small businessman making a go of it in our area, but that’s not really
the point. The point is, if he can build an addition that will meet your criteria, and not harm the
neighbors or be a problem to the neighbors, then I see no problem with him doing that, and I want
to continue to urge you to grow, Hugh, and good luck.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Brower, were you aware of the fact that, counting tonight, that this is Mr.
Sinclair’s tenth activity with the Community Development Department, as far as zoning or site
plan for review?
MR. BROWER-Honestly, no. I had no idea, but by the same token, I give you credit for
persisting, Hugh.
MR. STONE-Well, most of them have been approved, you have to understand. These are all
separate applications, for different things.
MR. HAYES-I guess my point is, there has been some accommodation, in regard to the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. BROWER-Right, well, and also even your, I appreciate your demeanor this evening relating
to the application. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-As far as the first application, 36-1998, that’s a moot point now. It’s been denied.
The only way that can re-surface is by an Article 78. We can’t re-visit that application. I just
looked it up in the book. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MR. BROWN-No.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Sinclair?
MR. STONE-As long, if we were to, no, I have no further questions, forget it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, then lets talk about it. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I really don’t have any problem granting this relief. I think it’s a more reasonable
proposal. I think Mr. Sinclair is a very reputable businessman in the Town of Queensbury. He’s a
benefit to our community, and I think this is a very reasonable proposal, and I would be in favor of
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
it. I think we asked him to come up with a little less relief, and he did, and I think that merits our
approval.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Jamie’s points. Mr. Sinclair’s been here two occasions that I’ve
spoken with him, went over the facts. We’ve been over the setbacks. We’ve gone over the
property. We’ve gone over the explanation as to why the buildings were constructed without
permits. With this Travel Corridor Overlay, he can build his addition in another place on his lot,
satisfy the existing Town Code, and his neighbors, and we would give him retroactive relief with
respect to that 120 square foot addition. Given all these factors, I’m in favor of it, of his amended
application.
MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s the application that’s before us.
MR. MC NALLY-The application in front of us tonight.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, which is a new application. Lew?
MR. STONE-Basically, I feel the same way. I appreciate the difficulty in trying to live with the
minimum relief that we’re granting, in terms of what you need, but at the same time, we are
granting you relief from something which you do need, which is existing, and I hope, and I’m sure
there’s a way, to access additional buildings somehow, whether maybe it’s just some pressure relief
on the ground, where you can get yourself into this thing without disturbing the Distribution Box or
something like that. I’m an engineer, but not that kind of engineer. There’s got to be some way, I
think if you talk to somebody, but I’m certainly in favor of granting the relief sought in 54-1998.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t have a problem with this variance. I was in favor of the previous variance,
because I thought that was a more applicable use of the existing cement slab on there. That way
there was no additional green area being taken up with the building on the existing cement slab, but
I have absolutely no problem with this application, either. So, having said that, I would ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1998 HUGH SINCLAIR
, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
Corner of Merritt and Corinth Roads in West Glens Falls. The applicant proposes construction of
a 468.5 square foot addition to an existing building which already has a 120 square foot addition,
without approval, and requires an additional eight feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay.
The building in question lying within this 75 foot setback of the Corinth Road Travel Corridor
Overlay Zone. The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the Overlay Zone setback of 75 feet in
Section 179-28. Since the existing storage building is within the 75 foot setback, the applicant
requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. In considering this
variance, we consider the benefit to the applicant, in that the applicant would be permitted to
construct addition to the desired location and also to make the already existing addition legally
permitted. Since the entire storage building is within the 75 foot TCO setback, feasible alternatives
are quite limited, as evidenced by the testimony we heard this evening. It might be considered that
the relief of 20 feet versus 75 feet is substantial relative to the Ordinance, but there will be minimal
effects on the neighborhood, as this current project is designed, and while this difficulty may be
interpreted as self created, it certainly shows the willingness of the applicant to expand his current
property in the Town of Queensbury, in order to maintain a viable business in the community.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-So you can keep the 120 foot, and you can build up to whatever you want in the
back there, whatever the Building Department will let you.
MR. SINCLAIR-Thank you very much.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 TYPE II JOYCE BEARSS OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE 47 HERALD SQUARE APPLICANT PROPOSES DUPLEX ON AN
UNDERSIZED LOT. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 125-9-20 LOT SIZE: 0.52
ACRES SECTION 179-19
MICHAEL MULLER & JOYCE BEARSS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1998, Joyce Bearss, Meeting Date: August 26, 1998
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
“ 47 Herald Drive Applicant proposes to
maintain an existing duplex on a 0.52 acre lot in an approved subdivision; Herald Square. The
building in question received both a Building Permit, 92-373 and a Certificate of Occupancy for a
Relief Required:
single family dwelling. Applicant requests 1.48 acres of relief from the
minimum area requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-79. The SR-1A zone requires 1 acre
of land per dwelling unit. This parcel is 0.52 acres while the density requirements of this zone call
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
for 2 acres for a duplex.
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to maintain an
2. Feasible alternatives:
existing duplex. Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of
3.
interior to eliminate two complete sets of living facilities and acquisition of additional property.
Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
1.48 acres of relief from the 2 acre
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
requirement may be interpreted as substantial.
5. Is this
Moderate effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
difficulty self-created?Parcel History
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 92-373 – 6/25/92 Single Family Dwelling BP 93-
Staff comments:
509 - 9/1/93 Porch Addition Moderate impacts in the form of additional
SEQR Status:
requests for similar relief may be anticipated as a result of this action. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before you start, I did open the public hearing on this last week. The
application was read into the record. There was input last week, and the public hearing is still
open. Okay.
MR. MULLER-I guess. Can you tell me what the public input was?
MR. BROWN-Do you want to read it again.
MR. MULLER-Maybe a synopsis.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. STONE-Generally negative.
MR. MULLER-Okay. I’ll take it. That’s fine.
MR. BROWN-Just so you know, there’s more public comments, if you want to do that at some
point.
MR. STONE-There’s a lot of the people here again tonight.
MR. MULLER-For this record, my name is Michael Muller, and I represent Miss Bearss, and
she’s seated right next to me. This is a difficult application, and it does not come easily for Miss
Bearss to make the application, but it cannot fairly be characterized as self created, and I’ll go
through this and tell you how it came about, and I basically know this only from looking at the
documents. Okay. I did not represent Miss Bearss at the time she purchased this house. This was
a lot in the Herald Square subdivision, and my understanding of those lots is that they’re intended
for single family dwellings. I have, and you should, as well, and certainly the building inspector’s
office does have the whole scenario, chronologically, for when a building permit application was
applied for, and by the way, not by the applicant here, but by her builder, Guido Passarelli, and
Mr. Hatin signed that on June 25, 1992. So presumably that’s the date of issuance, and I did not
make, as part of your packet, nor do I have it, but there’s presumably an application that Mr.
Passarelli also presented to receive this single family dwelling building permit, and if I can take it
all the way up to then, eventually, in September, September 24, 1992, the Town issues a
Certificate of Occupancy to Guido Passarelli for Herald Square subdivision, that particular lot, a
single family dwelling. I have documents, and so do you, that show that when Miss Bearss and a
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
co-owner, Miss Vanais, sat with the builder, the builder’s representative was Mike LaMott, and
from the get go, this was an application to build a two unit, two living unit improvement, dwelling.
That is that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever by Miss Bearss or by the co-owner, and
how I’ve been able to piece it together, and how I see how it happens is there’s definitely deceit
here, and it’s not the applicant’s deceit. That is that this is basically a plan that I’m sure the
building inspector’s office has as well, and it’s dated as a plan for 3/20/92, and there were some
revisions made to it, and those revisions eventually brought about a seal. This is the actual, this is
a photocopy of actually what comes out of the building inspector’s office, a revision of 6/9/92,
which gets the engineer’s seal on, a licensed professional engineer, on 6/17/92, and that’s basically
showing a one family house. Joyce has a contract with Herald Square Village Incorporated, and in
the give and take, and Mr. LaMott is the authorized signature for the contractor, on an agreement
dated 6/13/92, which is prior to the issuance of a building permit, prior to the engineer’s seal
showing a single, one family dwelling. She agrees to pay $182,900 for the package, and that
package, I’d like to go over and tell you, includes things like a galley kitchen over the garage.
Basically, when you look at the items that are on this list, you can see that there’s insulation that is
under the master bedroom area, or so called over garage areas, at that time representing that there
were basically interior habitable spaces, but the builder was misrepresenting this thing. The
builder was misrepresenting this thing in two directions, one, to the building inspector’s office, and,
two, to the homeowner that had agreed to buy this place, and unfortunately, I don’t know if I could
have caught it. I’m not going to say that I’m the world’s top notch lawyer and on my toes at all
times, but Joyce was then represented by John Washburn. John would probably cringe if he heard
this, but he’s elderly. He’s older. He’s slipping, and he basically allowed the package to be
acceptable as far as a closing was concerned. That is that ordinarily, and I know that Mr.
McNally knows what I’m talking about on this issue, that is that the buyer’s attorney receives a
title package from the seller. With Herald Square, they don’t give you an abstract of title, and they
basically make all the representations in a big package, and that big package better have within it
the CO. It better certainly have all of the lien status, and that all of the approvals are in, that
there’s subdivision approval, that there’s a building permit that’s been issued, that the CO is all in
conformity, that the inspections have all been done, and John Washburn allows Joyce and her co-
owner to proceed to a closing, and they basically, at that point in time, have closed on a incomplete
house, which would never be done, ever. Okay. The misrepresentations had to also have been
made to the lending institution, because basically they’re looking for a CO, but they’ve got a CO,
and I said to Joyce, how could this happen, Joyce? How could there be plans and that, you know,
the plans that everybody else has, and the plans that you have are different? She said, Michael,
here it is, she said, this is what Mr. LaMott and the builder drew for me. She said, please don’t
lose this piece of paper. So under the pain and penalty of death, I have this thing here. I’m not
supposed to lose it, and what it is, is that they take this thing, and they put it over the plan that the
building inspector has, and they just do 180’s with this thing, trying to fit it inside the house and
outside the house, and eventually, they put it on a plan, and they build it for her, but they build it in
one continuous fell swoop, after the closing. They just continue to do it, and they’ve already been
paid. I think there’s the misrepresentation and the deceit. She doesn’t have a clue about this thing.
This is not the sum and substance of what she does for a living, and she’s got able counsel
supposedly protecting her. To show you how naïve she is about it, she gets her first tax bill, and
rightly so, the Assessor comes forward and, I’m sure the Assessor’s counting meters, because there
are two, takes a quick look at that and says, there’s a two family residence there. Well, Joyce,
innocently enough, takes this and says, there couldn’t possibly be a two family residence. All that I
ever asked for was what Mr. LaMott told me they could build, which is a single family residence
with a mother-in-law apartment attached to it. So that you understand what’s happening here is
that Joyce is actually the occupant of the apartment, and that the principal area, that dwelling that
is represented as the single family residence, is occupied by the co-owner. That’s exactly what
precipitates the whole thing, that is that Joyce herself launches the investigation to find out, why
does the Town of Queensbury think this is a two family, and the answer comes from John Goralski.
John sends here letter, in January of 1997, and I don’t dispute a thing about it. Then, as Code
Compliance Officer, John says to her, well, basically, here’s the problem, that is that it’s been
represented to us as a single family residence, and you actually have two living units there. At that
particular point in time, I guess it would be fair to say that also the relationship between the co-
owners is beginning to unravel, so that one of the co-owners wants out, and one of the co-owners,
Joyce, wishes to stay. So, because they are co-owners on the deed itself, that needs to be unwound,
and they each get their separate attorneys, and in the art of negotiating, how do we get one out and
keep one in, the obvious answer is, well, lets get this thing refinanced. Lets, you know, basically,
go to a new bank and buy out the other owner, and in the effort to do so, and rightly so, finally a
title company says, looking at the tax bill and getting a straight answer from Joyce, who now
knows she has a two family and wants to just get a closing, that this thing doesn’t comply with the
Zoning Ordinance, okay, and it never can, and the compliance opportunities are, I suppose, you
could saw a hole in a wall and put a door in, and then close the door and lock it forever, but I think
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
that’s a little dishonest. That’s kind of deceitful like Mr. Passarelli has been. The house still has
two separate wiring systems, two separate utility systems, so to speak. It is set up as a separate
two AB units. Call it what you will, duplex, mother in law, two family, it’s there, and I know that
you’ve indicated, and you do, go out there and see these houses for the application. You looked at
it. It looks like a big house. That’s what it looks like, okay. There’s nothing real obvious about it.
What gets really scary about this is that I think Mr. Passarelli has done it to more than one house.
Okay. I’m not here to do your investigation, but I can tell you that when I started to pour through
what was going on out there, I found that there’s other houses that are listed for sale, through
realtors. So, again, I have no first hand knowledge, but they’re basically on the same street, and
they feature a mother in law apartment. You tell me what it is. I don’t know. It sounds like a
separate living area. So, what we have is certainly a request for an Area Variance. If you really
think that, based on that set of facts, that’s self created hardship, I think we misunderstand the
concept. I just don’t think that Joyce participated in this thing knowledgeably. I think that she and
her co-owner, Lucille Vanais, basically went into this thing thinking they had every right to buy
what they had set out to buy. I think the misrepresentations that have been made to them and to the
Town of Queensbury have been made by Michael LaMott, the realtor, Mr. Passarelli who’s the
subdivider, and Mr. Cerrone who was the builder. I know that the neighbors should be upset and
concerned, and not delighted by the scenario that we bring them, but we don’t bring this thing to
them prospectively. I think that you people would deny this thing prospectively. We bring the ugly
facts to you as they presently are, and that the feasible alternative is not to get in there and pull this
thing apart. That’s thousands of dollars, if, of course, the character of the neighborhood is
substantially protected, and it is. That is that the tenancy that is in there invites families, and that’s
what it is, a family neighborhood, and quite frankly Joyce has a prospective tenant that is a family,
husband and wife and kids, and a dog and a cat. That’s exactly what you would expect there.
She’s, in a sense, the odd person within the dwelling facility, and she’s not a mother in law, so
she’s the duplex occupant, I guess. We really need an approval on this thing. Something ought to
be done about it with respect to what Mr. Passarelli and Mr. LaMott and Mr. Cerrone have done to
my client. We may do something about that, but we need to take all possible avenues of relief
before we just flail out here. I think what we need is to try, hope in earnest, that we can prove to
you that a CO is appropriate under the circumstances, the lousy circumstances, and that we then go
to a site plan review, which, by the way we make a presentation there that we’re not changing a
thing. It looks like it looks, and then we go to a bank, with a CO in hand that says that it is a two
unit complex, get it refinanced, get the co-owner out. I don’t know what more I can say, other than
it’s a very, very tough situation to be in, and it needs to be addressed, and we would never have
done this with knowledge. I don’t think that’s an honest disputed issue. I really don’t. We stand
on the record that is in the building inspector’s office, and it’s ugly.
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. My first question is, the detached single car garage, where did that
come from? When was that put up?
MR. MULLER-I think it was Craig who told me that it was built without a permit. Joyce only
paid for it.
MISS BEARSS-It’s from Garden Time.
MR. MULLER-What size is it?
MR. STONE-It’s certainly a one car garage.
MR. THOMAS-It’s got to be at least 200 square feet. It’s got to be 10 by 20.
MR. MULLER-I guess it’s one that rolls in, like it’s not attached to the ground, but now it’s an
improvement. Yes, I understand it. I don’t see it on the plans anywhere, and we have to get, I
think, we have to get a building permit for it.
MR. STONE-Does that go back to when you first moved in?
MISS BEARSS-No, it was in the first year that we had moved in.
MR. MULLER-But what I want to say is, I don’t think it’s as built on the site. It rolls in, you buy
it.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MISS BEARSS-Yes. It was purchased as a shed.
MR. MULLER-It’s not on any of the plans, and there is no building permit for it, and obviously if
it’s bigger than 10 by 10, there needs to be one, but it was not constructed, as opposed to being
purchased in a lump.
MR. STONE-The CO was granted before you completed the deal with Mr. Passarelli, or is that
9/24.
MR. THOMAS-I think it’s 9/24.
MR. STONE-I still, I had, this deed is the first day of October of ’92. Okay.
MR. MULLER-October 1, 1992 is when they closed, and it’s still under construction.
MR. STONE-No, the CO was given September 24, 1992.
MR. MULLER-Right. I see the chronology there. That’s how you get a closing. That is, you
have to have a CO, then they started calling up Mr. Washburn probably and said, we’re all set.
Here you go. Here’s the title policy, and we’re ready, and Joyce is busy actually paying up on the
contract. She’s pre-paid at this closing, and you can see, that’s a pretty unusual deed, too. It
actually has the actual consideration on that deed, which you usually see just a dollar, and I can
show you with all of those change orders, all of those things that include separate living situation.
Her contract price is $182,900. So it’s really close. There must have been some other little extras
in there. So she, from the get go, I want you to know that, said, I’ll pay, what does it take to build
this thing, and the answer was, it’ll be $182,900. There was no, build it for me and then we’ll add
to the contract.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Muller?
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a copy of the contract?
MR. MULLER-We don’t have a copy of the original contract. We have a copy of the change
order.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that what you just?
MR. MULLER-Yes, I have a copy of the change order that’s actually dated before the building
permit is issued.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that part of our application?
MR. STONE-That was part of what we had, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the deed is part of the application.
MR. STONE-The tax bills, the deed, the CO.
MR. THOMAS-A letter from John Goralski.
MR. STONE-And a letter from Craig.
MR. THOMAS-And the letter from Craig. Does anyone else have any questions?
MR. STONE-This, as you understand it, Craig, I’m looking at the definition of Dwelling Unit, “A
building or portion thereof providing complete housekeeping facilities.” Do we define
“housekeeping facilities”?
MR. THOMAS-No, but if you look under “Multiple Family Dwelling”, you’ll get the definition,
17931, in the Definitions.
MR. STONE-“Any building used or designed as a residence for two (2) or more families, living
independently of each other and doing their own cooking therein, including but not limited to
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
apartment houses, townhouse developments, certain condominium developments and the
conversion of existing single-family dwellings.” So cooking is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, cooking facility is the determining factor. If it didn’t have a kitchen in it,
then it wouldn’t be.
MR. STONE-What if it only had a microwave, freestanding microwave, I’m just curious.
MR. MULLER-It’s got a whole kitchen in it.
MR. STONE-I understand it does. I’ve seen it. I’ve been, Mrs. Bearss was very kind to invite me
in to look at it.
MR. MULLER-She’s very proud of her house, and thought she was doing the right thing, and I
think she really got snookered by this contractor.
MR. STONE-Well, certainly the fact that the stairs are interior to the garage, strikes me kind of
odd, when I saw it.
MR. MULLER-I think that was always original, though.
MR. STONE-It always was original? The second way, you mean, like an old fashioned back
stairway to the upstairs? I didn’t think we built them that way anymore.
MR. MULLER-Yes. That was from the original plan.
MR. STONE-Interesting.
MR. MULLER-Even if there were no separate living quarters up there, there was a staircase.
MR. STONE-There was a staircase. Okay.
MR. THOMAS-That’s probably because they could have used it for storage up there.
MR. HAYES-Or an office or something.
MR. THOMAS-Or an office.
MR. HAYES-I have an office over my garage, but no back stairwell.
MR. MULLER-Well, the builder in the plan that I think the Town has wrote on there
lounge/exercise room, vaulted ceiling.
MR. THOMAS-And it does have a vaulted ceiling in it?
MISS BEARSS-Yes. I had asked for a cathedral ceiling, and they gave me a vaulted ceiling.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you could come in, go to your exercise room, without having to mess up
the house. I just found it interesting. If it was there, it was there.
MR. MULLER-I don’t think it’s a simple one of you telling me, Mike, have you client cut a
doorway in, like those hotel rooms, and then put a lock on it. It really has separate facilities.
MR. STONE-Well, it does have that double door, though. It does have a suite type door at the
head of the stairs, regular stairs.
MR. MULLER-Yes. That doesn’t render it a single family.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions? If not, I left the public hearing open.
Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOEL FITZGERALD
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. FITZGERALD-My name is Joel Fitzgerald, and I’m a resident of Herald Square subdivision,
and I’m opposed to this on the facts that it violates, one, the covenants and restrictions which were
given to us all when we purchased our houses, stating it’s a single family subdivision. All lots will
be used for single family homes, exclusively. No temporary structures of any type whatsoever are
permitted, such as the fact, the temporary garage that rolls in on wheels. You cannot park your car
on that. That’s a violation, too, of these, and if the Town approves these, these should be followed
through. I think that somehow, we’re all familiar with the Smoke Ridge section of Sherman
Avenue. Those are typical two family houses. We don’t want our neighborhood to go to look like
that. The property value could depreciate substantially if we have transient people moving in and
out, and if Miss Bearss gets this approval and decides to sell the house, who’s to say who could
buy it and turn it into a rental property for mere monetary reasons. Nobody’s to stop that. As far
as, if the house was still under construction after the CO was issued, I believe that the owners
might have actually willingly participated in the deception to the Town Board, and Building and
Codes Department, in the building of the house. Who’s to say? Everybody can sit here and point
fingers all night long, but if there was deception, it shouldn’t bear down on us. We bought our
house as a single family subdivision, and that’s the way we want it to stay, and that’s all I have to
say.
MR. STONE-Are you talking the covenants dated June 18, 1990, as recorded? Because it says
covenants and restrictions were recorded with the Clerk’s Office. Is that the ones?
MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-How many covenants are there?
MR. FITZGERALD-Twelve, on this.
MR. THOMAS-Just 12. Could you tell me where you live in comparison to this house?
MR. FIZGERALD-Right around the corner, on Wayne Court.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, because I’m keeping track of all this.
MR. FITZGERALD-I sent the Town a letter. I don’t know if, you must have gotten it.
MR. THOMAS-Over there, there’s a bunch of letters we’re going to read. We’ll read it, because
we read the correspondence after everybody’s spoken.
MR. FITZGERALD-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Fitzgerald? Okay. Is there anything
else you want to say?
MR. FITZGERALD-If I do, I’ll come back up. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Next.
BILL LANZISERO
MR. LANZISERO-Good evening. My name’s Bill Lanzisero. I’m at 28 Herald Drive, just about
a block down from the area that’s in question right now. I feel the same way. I invested my
money. I retired. I’ve invested my money up here for the purpose of one thing, to live in a single
family environment. I came from New York City. I know what it’s like living in an area where it’s
all apartment houses, two family houses, whatever you want to call them down there, and I’m
telling you, as Mr. Fitzgerald here said, if the lady in question here ever decides to sell, you don’t
know who’s going to move in, how they’re going to take care of the house, or if she does rent it out
to tenants, how they’re going to take care of it. It’s not theirs. They’re just tenants. They don’t
care. I’ve seen neighborhoods just go to pot like that for over 30 years. I’ve seen it, and I don’t
want to see it happen up here. It’s been designed. I invested my money. We all invested our
money for the purpose, in writing that states single family ownership, and this is my opinion why
I’d like to see it stay that way, as a single family ownership, not going into two and three families,
because if so, that means all these papers that are down here don’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
a hill of beans, and if they want to make a two family out of it, a three family I want to do the same
thing then, because no one here means anything then if it’s not written down on paper. This is the
pretense. I signed papers when I bought my contract with Mr. Passarelli. I have no problem. I
had no problem with Guido Passarelli, nor Mike LaMott. My house is beautiful. I love it. I just
don’t want to see, now, we signed these papers, and they had all sorts of rules and regulations on it.
As far as I’m concerned, if the Board now goes ahead and votes in her favor, then these papers,
everything that we signed for, and the money that we invested doesn’t mean anything. Why do we
even have to come here anymore? And I’d like to see it just stay the way it is, a single family
development, the way it was when we first came here on our contracts, and this is my opinion of it.
I have nothing against this woman at all, nothing against her. I just want to see everything stay the
way it is, as a single family development, and this is my opinion. This is the way I feel. Thank
you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, would you like to address the fact that the Town doesn’t really get
into enforcing covenants and restrictions and deeds? That’s more of a.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, I was going to get into that.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
SCOTT FISHER
MR. FISHER-Hi. Scott Fisher, 43 Herald Drive, Queensbury, two houses south of the lot in
question, the same side of the road. I stated my case last week. So in the interest of time, I won’t
state it again. Basically, I’ll just echo the same sentiments that were just stated, and my primary
concern is the precedence. That’s all I have to say.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks.
SUSAN ZIMMERMAN
MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Hi. Susan Zimmerman, 45 Herald Drive. I spoke last week, too. I just
have a couple of other things. Number One, she co-owned the house with another person. They
separated it. That’s not our problem, and you knew that this was being done in the beginning.
You’re not stupid. I mean, when they built this house, she knew what was going on, and it’s not
our fault. I mean, if it comes down to it, sue the builder. It’s not our fault. That’s all I’ve got to
say.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
LYNN ACKNER
MS. ACKNER-Good evening. My name is Lynne Ackner, and I live on Mabel Terrace in the
Herald Square development, and I just want the opportunity, three points I really want to address.
The first is devaluation of the property. You went to see the property. You know it’s the first
house off Luzerne Road, you go into Herald Drive. It’s the first house on the left. There are other
houses around it, but it’s really like what you call, for lack of a better term, the gateway to the
development. It sets the tone for the development, and this is not the tone we want to set, having
the two family dwelling there, because Miss Bearss is not going to be there forever, and once you
make it two family, it’s going to stay two family. We can have, it could become a slum landlord.
We could have it there, and it’s going to set the tone for the whole development. The second point,
I think Mr. Muller addressed the hardship, and I feel bad for Miss Bearss. I don’t know what she
knew at the time. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what she knew and what she didn’t know.
However, there are other avenues. She can sue the builder. She can sue her attorney, and we
shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of it because she has been duped, as she claims, before us. I have
nothing personal against her. Every time I’ve seen her she’s been very kind to me, but I shouldn’t
have to bear the, if someone’s been deceitful to her, I should not have to bear that. The last is, I
think that if this application gets granted, I think it will have a chilling effect on the whole Town of
Queensbury. No one will be safe because if Mr. Muller is correct and Mr. Passarelli has done this
before, you’ll have everyone that came in that had Mr. Passarelli build their house state the same
thing, try to get a two family, and you’ll be up here doing this again and again and again. Every
house in Bedford Close that’s huge, well, I’m sorry, I’ve got a hardship. I can’t afford it anymore.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
Look what you did over in Herald Square development. It could be an extremely chilling effect on
the Town of Queensbury. Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?
KEN PAGELS
MR. PAGELS-Hi. I’m Ken Pagels. I live on 8 Mabel Terrace, just around the corner from her.
When we, I just moved in there recently, and one of the things we were looking for specifically was
a single family home. I’d like to see that the variance isn’t granted for that purpose. That’s about
it. I’m just strongly opposed to it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else?
DICK GROGAN
MR. GROGAN-I’m Dick Grogan. I live on 17 Vincent Place, in Herald Square. I just moved
there, too. We just built our house last year, and I didn’t know anything about this house that was
there now, being that two people lived in it. We looked at a single family dwelling area, quiet
neighborhood and all that. The street I live on right now only has one other house that’s been built
onto it, and another one that’s on the corner of Vincent and Nicole, and there’s two or three more
lots across the street from me and one right next to me, and if this gets passed, I would think it
would set a precedence for this same development. Why couldn’t I build another two family
duplex here? Now I would have one across the street from me. I’m opposed to it. I don’t want to
see this get passed because of this being a single family dwelling. I don’t know if there’s going to
be problems because of it. I can’t comment on that, but I’d like to not see this go. That’s all I
have.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? All right. Correspondence?
MR. BROWN-Okay. I have a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald, Joel Fitzgerald, 25 Wayne Court, “To
Whom It May Concern: I’m writing this letter in reference to Site Plan No. 46-98 wherein Joyce
Bearss proposes a duplex on existing lot less than one acre. I have lived in the Herald Square
Development for three years and one of the many reasons my family chose to live in this particular
Development is the Covenants and Restrictions governing it, a copy of which I have enclosed for
your reference. The Covenants and Restrictions clearly states “All lots will be used for single
family residential homes exclusively”. This alone should warrant a dismissal of the variance for a
duplex dwelling. I would also like to point out that the Covenants and Restrictions also states “No
structures of a temporary nature are permitted, such as a…., garage….” On the property above
mentioned, there is, in fact a temporary structure being used as a garage which is obviously in
violation of the Covenants and Restrictions and I would appreciate it if this situation could be
addressed at the meeting scheduled for August 25, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. I feel that a duplex in our
Development would greatly depreciate the value of the homes contained therein due to the fact that
more than likely rental property residents have a tendency to limit their concern for the upkeep of
the property because they do not have anything invested in same. Also, rental property has a large
turnover potential for tenants and buyers alike which is what we were looking to avoid when we
chose to live in Herald Sq. In closing, I would like to state that I strongly oppose Site Plan 46-98
for a duplex on the property listed above and would appreciate it if you would take this letter into
consideration for my family does not wish to live in a “rental community”. Thank you for your
time. Sincerely, Joel M. Fitzgerald” A letter from George F. Gohn to Bonnie Lapham, Town of
Queensbury “Dear Mrs. Lapham: I am responding to a notice I received of the Appeal Hearing to
be held Wednesday, August 19, 1998 which I now understand has been postponed for another
week. I reside at 579 Luzerne Road and have been at that address for the past 11 years. It is my
understanding when the subdivision at Herald Square was approved, it was approved on the basis
of one family homes and lot sizes would be approximately half an acre. It is my further
understanding in the SR-1A zone the requirement for duplexes is a minimum of two acres. It was
confirmed to me by the Town of Queensbury that the property belonging to Bearss is on a half acre
lot. It is apparent to me that when the house was originally constructed for Ms. Bearss she was
well aware of the lot size and the requirements for a duplex. I remember this house under
construction and that an apartment minus kitchen was constructed when the house was originally
built. It was my understanding without the kitchen the house could not be considered a duplex and
a certificate of occupancy could be issued. I have now been told that a kitchen does exist in the
house. If that is true, then the kitchen obviously has been constructed since the occupancy. It
would seem to me the owner was well aware this was in violation of zoning requirements and
proper procedures had not been adhered to. I also believe after a certificate of occupancy was
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
granted, a separate outside entrance and stairway were built to service this apartment. I am
opposed to the exception based on: 1. The original application for subdivision states houses
would be one family and constructed on half acre parcels. 2. One half acre, with the requirement
of two acres to be eligible for a duplex does not come close to current requirements. The lot is too
small. What about septic requirements? As far as I know, there is only one septic system and it
was sized for a one family residence. 3. An exception granted for one will result in exceptions
granted for others. 4. A duplex on such an undersized lot will not enhance the value of my
property. 5. Is the owner now faced with the situation of the Town finding out a duplex exists
“after the fact” and is now attempting to obtain a variance? If so, proper procedures were not
followed which, in my opinion, the owner was well aware of. Based on the above the request for
exception should be denied. Sincerely, George F. Gohn” A letter from Gordon and Henrietta
Palmer “To: Town of Queensbury Planning Board: We, Gordon & Henrietta Palmer, who live
adjacent to 47 Herald Drive, on the corner of Herald Drive & Luzerne Road oppose any house in
the Herald Square Development to become a duplex. Houses are still being built and the corner is
congested, at times, now. If there are twice as many families, due to a duplex housing, we will
require a traffic light on the corner to alleviate traffic congestion. Thank you, Gordon Palmer
Henrietta Palmer” That’ it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Was there any additional petitions or anything like that?
MR. BROWN-To the petition, no.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. It was just the one from last week?
MR. BROWN-Just the one from last week.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Thomas, I wanted to read the letter that Miss Bearss gave me. It was “To
Whom It May Concern:” From Robert and Rachel Bedore, “We are neighbors of Joyce Bearss
residing at 1 Mabel Terrace and are acquainted with the court proceedings tonight. We approve of
the variance for the two family residence at 47 Herald Dr. If you would like to ask any more about
this matter we can be reached at 745-8645. Sincerely, Robert and Rachel Bedore” Can I give that
to Craig?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll need to keep it for the file. I’ll close the public hearing now.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now you can go.
MR. MULLER-Okay. Thank you. I wanted to comment on some of the letters, and of course
when you conjure up in your mind duplex, and it sounded like many of those letters had that in
mind, and indeed that’s what the Ordinance does to us. It says duplex, but in fact, a mother in law
apartment, I suppose, I would hope that you agree, means that there is one person in a sub tenancy
within the same building with separate facilities, and that’s actually what is happening there, and,
you know, it just gets heaped on deeper and deeper on Joyce Bearss, in the sense that she brought it
to the attention of the Town, and she has proceeded, forthrightly here, to try to correct this thing. I
can understand and share the concerns of those people who want single family residences to remain
single family residences, but we have an albatross here, and interestingly enough, this is the most
expensive house that’s been built in that subdivision, and yet, we are being told, or I think it’s
being suggested to you, that this $186,000 house was going to run down the values of the houses
that are selling approximately $125. I have an advertisement here for a house that’s very near by.
It’s $125,000, and it features an in-law apartment. I mean, it’s a mess, and the realtors are doing it
out there.
MR. THOMAS-Are you going to give that to us for the record?
MR. MULLER-Sure.
MR. STONE-May I see that? This is Mabel Terrace. So this is across the street and.
MR. MULLER-Miss Bearss said it’s four houses away, and it shouldn’t be there, but I’m trying to
explain that the character of the neighborhood is such that, we’re not out to ruin it. I think that the
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
big problem here is being heaped on Joyce Bearss, since she’s not responsible for the problem, and
she’s certainly not bringing down the values in that neighborhood.
MR. STONE-That’s a finished basement. It’s in the basement, this in-law apartment, if you read
this.
MR. MULLER-Have you seen it?
MISS BEARSS-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Is it a kitchen?
MISS BEARSS-A kitchen in the basement.
MR. MULLER-Kitchen.
MR. STONE-But I mean it’s in the basement in this particular case, yes.
MR. MULLER-Well, that’s where my mother-in-law would live, in someone else’s house.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-What’s the address?
MR. MULLER-4 Mabel Terrace.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-There’s no plumbing in the basement.
MR. STONE-Well, here’s an ad.
MR. MULLER-It’s an ad. I’m not representing to you I’ve ever seen it.
JOEL FITZGERALD
MR. FITZGERALD-What is the legal definition of a duplex? This house isn’t being sold as a
duplex. This one can be, if you granted a duplex by variance.
MR. MULLER-See, that’s where I think they’re being mislead. We don’t want a duplex, but your
Ordinance says duplex.
MR. THOMAS-Well, the Ordinance says Multiple Family Dwelling.
MR. MULLER-Right.
MR. THOMAS-I read it last week. I’ll read it again. Multiple Family Dwelling, “Any building
used or designed as a residence for two (2) or more families, living independently of each other and
doing their own cooking therein, including but not limited to apartment houses, townhouse
developments, certain condominium developments and the conversion of existing single-family
dwellings.”
MR. FITZGERALD-Then, by that law there, an apartment in the basement for your mother-in-law
does not apply to that, because it wouldn’t have a separate entrance.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t say a thing about separate entrance. It says “cooking”. If it has it’s
own cooking, then it’s considered a second residence, a second dwelling unit.
MR. FITZGERALD-Then this one’s in violation, too.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the point I think he’s making.
MR. MULLER-Yes. That doesn’t make our application any better. I’m just trying to show that
they’re running amuck out there with the realtors.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I guess it’s time for the Building Department to go out and
MR. FITZGERALD-Crack down.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. MULLER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask some of the public, I know the public hearing is closed, whether
anybody knows of any other houses in this area that, one, have a second living unit, and, two, did
they know that Miss Bearss, there were two families in this house for the last five years, or six
years?
MR. MULLER-Two years. We closed in ’96.
MR. STONE-’92.
MR. MULLER-It’s getting late.
MR. STONE-For six years, there have been two families in that house.
MR. FITZGERALD-I’ve been building the houses in there for Mr. Passarelli and Mr. LaMott
since 1993, I believe May or June, actually July. I was never let on to believe that there was more
than one large family living in that house, never ever, and if knowing, after getting her tax bill from
1993 or 1994, and knowing that the Town considered it a two family house, when she applied in
’93 for her permit to build a porch, she should have applied for a duplex permit, not a single family
dwelling permit to build the porch on, correct?
MR. STONE-I’m not familiar with the building permits.
LYNN ACKNER
MS. ACKNER-I didn’t know they weren’t related. I thought it was one family living in Miss
Bearss. The other point I’d like to make. I have been in the house at 4 Mabel Terrace. I have
friends there. It was a selling point to call it an “in-law apartment”. Downstairs there is a
bedroom, but it’s not a separate cooking area. There’s not running water down there. So it’s not a
separate cooking.
MR. MULLER-Well, we all know that the relationship of the people within the house is not the
criteria. I mean, if they’re unrelated or related, the law doesn’t make any distinction. It has to do
with that separate unit, and, you know, there are some people here from the public that actually sat
before the Board here and suggested that Joyce Bearss did this with full knowledge and on her own,
and my representation, and hers is as well, absolutely not. That is that this is everything that she
intended to build, along with her co-owner, exactly what they intended to build, and the question
was, how much, and they wrote it up, and they drew it, and they built it, and how they phased it
and how they collected the money, Miss Bearss didn’t know. Now, you know, if I were sitting
there and chaperoning her through this thing, I probably would have freaked out at the closing.
MR. STONE-Okay, but if somebody gives me a counterfeit 100 dollar bill, and I accept it, I’m out
the $100. I mean that sort of counter (lost word) your own argument. I mean, I accepted
something that was bad, and therefore I’m responsible for the bad, because I’m the guy who’s
going to lose if I can’t palm it off on somebody else.
MR. MULLER-Well, hopefully you won’t palm it off on somebody else.
MR. STONE-That’s true.
MR. MULLER-And your probably assuming that somebody passed it to you, you’re going to go
back to that person who passed it to you.
MR. STONE-I may or may not be successful.
MR. MULLER-Okay, but in the characterization of that.
MR. STONE-But that’s what we have here is recourse.
MR. MULLER-You’re absolutely right. So, obviously, I mean, that avenue is always open here. I
have to take every possible path of recourse.
MR. STONE-I understand.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. MULLER-Right. Sure, if you say, absolutely not, this deviates from thus and such, and blah,
blah, blah, please don’t hinge it on the fact that it also violates the Covenants. We already know
that, and I’m not happy about it, and we’ll do something about that, as every one of these people
can do it, too. That’s got to be done within two years. So we’re cooked.
MR. FITZGERALD-Maybe at 18 you could plead naïve, but if you’re even 30 to 40 years old,
and $186,000 at hand, believe me, you know what’s going on. I didn’t spend nearly that on my
house, but I was involved, very much, in every single detail, not just a little bit, not a little bit, the
whole amount. Are you a college graduate? A college graduate, a retired school teacher, believe
me, you have the knowledge to know of what was happening. Don’t play dumb.
MR. THOMAS-The public hearing is still closed. If I think it’s relevant to open it back up, I will,
at this point, I don’t think it is. I have a question, did the applicant sign the Covenants like Mr.
Fitzgerald had to sign one?
MR. MULLER-No.
MR. THOMAS-You didn’t sign one?
MISS BEARSS-No.
MR. MULLER-No. Again, Chris, I was not at that closing, but my understanding of the Heritage
Village closings that I’ve been involved in, the Covenants were just a matter of record. They’re
recited in the deed, and there’s no agreement by signature. That’s a good formal way of doing it,
but not in that subdivision. That doesn’t, I think, mean anything less. I think they’re still
enforceable.
MR. THOMAS-Well, as Mr. Brown stated, that the Town does not enforce Covenants, okay.
MR. MULLER-Yes, we can’t, either. I think maybe Joyce can. Maybe Joyce is the only person,
but those who also are aggrieved within the neighborhood have two years to bring an action, and
more than two years has passed, we may have six.
MR. STONE-Explain to me, what’s the value of a Covenant if the Town doesn’t enforce it, and
somebody moves in, a new owner, a single family moves in and does what they want?
MR. MC NALLY-It’s a torte action.
MR. MULLER-Yes, it’s a breach of contract, and perhaps it’s a torte, but I for sure, for one as a
tax payer in the Town, don’t want to hear about how my Town is using it’s Town Attorney to
enforce private agreements, and that’s what it is, it’s a private agreement. I think that, you know,
it’s all well and good to enforce the Ordinances, or violations thereof, but I don’t want to see the
Town going out and spending money on enforcing private deals, and that’s what a Covenant is.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions, to push this thing along?
MR. MC NALLY-Is there really only one septic tank?
MR. MULLER-In her house? Yes, I believe so. One septic tank?
MISS BEARSS-Yes.
MR. STONE-How large?
MR. BROWN-Yes, the septic system was sized for a four bedroom house, and if it’s two, 2
bedroom units or one 4 bedroom house, it’s still sized for that requirement.
MR. STONE-Sized correctly. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Was there any evidence about, I mean, when you went for your financing, I mean,
that you guys needed to be together to actually get financing on a $185,000, from an approval
standpoint? I mean, you applied jointly?
MISS BEARSS-They had two incomes to deal with, and I wasn’t retired at the time.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
MR. STONE-So the mortgage was based on the two owners contributing to the payments?
MISS BEARSS-That’s correct.
MR. MULLER-The refinancing, for what it’s worth, to allow the exiting owner out, is contingent
upon having an income stream from that house, and the income stream comes from what I think
constitutes the principal dwelling. That is that Miss Bearss is the small occupant.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions? All right, if not, lets talk about it. Lew?
MR. STONE-I have very mixed feelings on this thing. I really don’t know. Obviously, in
considering the things that we have to consider, benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the
community, obviously there is a very great benefit to the applicant in saying that this house can, in
fact, be used to create an alternate income stream. I mean, it’s obvious that Miss Bearss, since she
is retired, and it does have an effect on the amount of income she has, and the whole deal was
predicated on the fact that there would be two incomes coming in when the house was purchased.
On the other hand, we’re hearing almost 95% of the comments that we heard, you provided one
letter favorable, but basically, 95% of the people in the area who have a large investment in their
property, are saying we bought in this property because we wanted a single family home. This is
certainly a two family home. I don’t want to use the word “duplex”, because it’s not, I’m not sure
it’s in the Ordinance. It’s a two family home. There are two complete housekeeping facilities. I,
for one, I guess I’d come down on the side, I don’t want to set a precedent. I think that’s basically
what I’m coming at, is that I hear the neighbors, but the detriment to the community, as perceived
by people who have as much to lose as Miss Bearss saying, we bought there for a certain reason,
and right now that’s kind of compelling, to me. Having said that, I’ll listen.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I, too, have mixed feelings, and Mr. Muller has certainly constructed, to me,
what is a chronological order that I would accept. I mean, I think that there is some extenuating
circumstances here that are important in this balancing test, I really do. I guess on the other hand
would be the obvious concerns of the neighbors, which are here in force, and the effects on the
neighborhood or community, whether setting that type of precedent in this single family
neighborhood would continue to be a major problem. So, I guess right now I’m still listening as
well.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I wish all we had to do was listen and not make a decision. It strikes me that
when we consider an Area Variance, we are considering what is a permitted use, at least under the
Town Zoning Code. Miss Bearss could have had a two family residence in Herald Square Village
under the existing Code. No question. Nothing prohibits her from doing that, except for the fact
that she doesn’t have enough land. So it’s an Area Variance, and we have to balance, using the
five criteria, the public and her own personal interests. I think that the home, when I looked at it,
didn’t look like a typical duplex, in the sense that you don’t see two equal units. When Mike said it
was a mother-in-law’s apartment, the space above the garage is really limited to use by a single
person, perhaps two at most, and the left side of the house, the major portion of the house, is where
a larger family would live. She has a lot of money dumped into this place, and I don’t know how a
person is going to get something like that out, unless they continue to have an income stream,
which renting will bring in. It’s not of the neighbor’s making, but I don’t know that there’s been
any proof tonight that it was of her making. It’s hard to judge. None of us were there at the time,
but from what little I know of this builder, it wouldn’t surprise me that he did things on the sly,
trying to make a sale, without telling a gullible person what his real, what he really should be
doing. There are alternatives, but I don’t think they’re too feasible. I looked around the property,
and I tried to see, is there somewhere else you can buy a chunk of land, and add it to the parcel?
On one side you can’t. On the other side is the people that I guess originally owned all the land,
the Palmers, is that who they are?
MISS BEARSS-The Palmers.
MR. MC NALLY-The Palmers used to own the land, and I don’t know how conducive they would
be to selling. You could sue the builder, but I’m not sure how far you’d get with that either. The
relief is substantial. You need two acres, you’ve got half an acre. I don’t see the effects on the
neighborhood or community to be that substantial. I understand when you buy a house in this
place, you want a one family house, that’s got to do with your Covenants and Restrictions, and
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
what you choose to do on that is your business, but I don’t see it really effecting neighbors. I don’t
see a lot of congestion. I don’t see that if you’re going to put, don’t get me wrong, that you’re not
going to put people who are going to detract from the neighborhood in a $180,000 house. Why
would you do that? You’re just going to tear the place apart and ruin your own investment. It
doesn’t make sense that the kind of people who would be in there would hurt the neighborhood. I
also think that it has gone six years without too many people complaining. So just how much real
difficulty has there been historically, and I don’t think there’s that much. I wish there was some
way we could punish Mr. Passarelli. I wish there was some way that we could bring him into this
picture, but I don’t see that happening. I don’t like the idea, but I don’t think I would step back
from granting this variance, as much as it might cause a precedent, as much as it might cause some
other troubles. This is a time when you do some justice, and I think justice is give her a variance
and see what happens.
MR. THOMAS-I’ve been listening to the other Board members here and to Mr. Muller, and I think
Mr. Muller said it, that she was misrepresented in the dealings on this property, and that she is
coming to the Town and asking us to make up for it, or to give her relief from this
misrepresentation. She did have her own lawyer, who didn’t advise her properly, and that’s not the
Town’s fault, and it seems to be, for a lack of better words, a comedy of errors that have gone
through this, but now she’s coming back to the Town and asking us to grant relief from a situation
that was not caused by the Town. Even the Town was more or less duped in this operation. So, to
me, in good conscience, and from the public testimony, I cannot pass this variance on. So, having
said that, I will ask for a motion.
MR. STONE-I’ll try. Let me just say one more thing.
MR. MC NALLY-Do we need four votes on this?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-We’ll see how it goes, and then we may have to wait until next month, when the
other members are back, and they’re up to speed.
MR. MULLER-Why do I have the feeling I might not get four votes tonight.
MR. MC NALLY-My sense is three, one.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s my sense, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Am I pretty much right on the money?
MR. STONE-I can only speak for me, and, Bob, he was definite.
MR. THOMAS-Well, yes.
MR. STONE-And I basically have gone here because I think Chris puts it quite well, and I think
that if we deny this variance, that it gives the applicant a much stronger case against the builder. I
think it can be, go after him.
MR. HAYES-Has that clock run out, I mean, as far as?
MR. MULLER-No, I don’t think that it has. I think that, as Bob is probably thinking in his mind,
too, that there’s some serious allegations of fraud here, but that clock runs from discovery, and I
think discovery occurred when Miss Bearss sat down with me. It looked like discovery as far as I
saw her facial expression. So, I think we have our actions, and I did not, I certainly want you all to
know this. I did not bring this in anticipation that we need a no so that we can accentuate the
damage. Seriously sought the relief here, and if the relief is not granted, obviously, that has added
to the damage, because what you do here is you create a house that has a marketability defect. It
clearly cannot even be sold, as is. It cannot be financed, as is, and it will require either dollars to
structurally change it, or some relief through the builder, something like that. I mean, we’re
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
exploring all avenues here, but I see this, a no vote here means that we’ve got some serious damage
here. Miss Bearss, just so that you know, I mean, I don’t know where the Town needs to go next
on this, but we want to be honest about it, and I want to be forthright about it. She’ll get a tenant.
I told her to get a tenant. There’s no possible way that she can meet those mortgage payments
without a tenancy. That tenancy pays $1200 a month, which, by the way, is not riff raff that are
going to tear up a neighborhood, and we’re going to pursue whatever opportunities and avenues we
can figure out legally, but in the meantime, I took the position, my legal position was that if this is
not in compliance, the part that’s not in compliance is the part she lives in, and that otherwise the
single family unit, go, rent it, keep paying the bank, don’t get into default. It’s $185,000 problem.
That’s a big problem, and I don’t ever see this house selling for $185,000.
MR. STONE-Not in today’s market.
MR. MULLER-No way, not with the houses in the area, and I don’t belittle those. Those are nice
houses, but, you know, dollars and cents are $125,000 and $185,000, your nuts to pay $185,000.
MR. STONE-What you’re seeing, too, as the Chairman of the Board of Assessment Review, we’re
seeing people want new things. They’ll go out and buy new immediately, and they won’t buy even
beautiful older homes, it seems. I mean, they’re very hard to come by, very hard to sell, which is
not very good for any of us who might want to contemplate selling in the.
MR. MULLER-So we made an honest representation tonight, and you make an honest decision,
and Joyce and I will deal with it. I sense it’ll be a disappointing decision, but we then have a major
problem, and we’ll proceed.
MR. STONE-I’ll do it. I’m going to try.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you going to make a motion to turn it down?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And I’m going to vote no, and you guys are going to vote three yes. So there
won’t be a decision.
MR. THOMAS-That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-Are we wasting our time? Or should we table it?
MR. THOMAS-No, because we can have the other three members read the minutes of this
meeting, come up to speed, find out what everybody has said, and then they can make a decision on
that.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-And then we can have a re-vote on, it’ll be a no vote tonight. It’ll have to carry
over to the next meeting, if it is three to one.
MR. STONE-Or two, two.
MR. THOMAS-It’s still the same thing.
MR. STONE-The same thing.
MR. THOMAS-The vote will have to carry over to the next meeting, but we will have the motion.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 JOYCE BEARSS
, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas:
47 Herald Drive. The applicant proposes to maintain an existing duplex on a 0.52 acre lot in an
approved subdivision, namely Herald Square, which granted half acre zoning in a one acre, SR-
1A, area. The building in question received both a building permit, 92-373, and a Certificate of
Occupancy, dated September 24, 1992, for a single family dwelling. Applicant requests 1.4 acres
of relief from minimal area requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. The SR-1A zone
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
requires one acre of land per dwelling unit. Since this parcel is 0.52 acres, it is 1.48 acres under
the density requirement, which calls for two acres for a two family home. In denying this
application, we recognize that the applicant would be very benefited, if we did grant it, by being
permitted to maintain an existing two family home. The feasible alternatives to this, as recognized,
might include reconfiguration of the interior to eliminate two complete sets of living facilities, and
acquisition of additional property. More importantly, the effects on the neighborhood and
community have been noted in the wide disparity between those people who oppose the variance,
versus the one letter agreeing with the variance, and also the fact that this is a one family
development, one family homes, and that the neighbors are very interested in keeping it that way,
and therefore, this might create a serious precedent both in this neighborhood and in other one
family homes. In denying this, we recognize the complexity of the creation process, whether or not
it was self created or whether the applicant was put upon by parties not privy to this particular
determination.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-We have a no vote. Would anyone like to change their vote? Would anyone like
to change their vote? Would anyone like to change their vote? I guess this will carry over to the
next meeting, and the notes will be distributed to those members missing, and they will be brought
up to speed on the proceedings tonight, and they will be able to make an intelligent vote at the next
th
meeting, which is September 16, when we will bring it up again.
MR. MULLER-Are there two meetings in September, or one?
MR. THOMAS-Did we get enough for two?
MR. BROWN-Probably.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is it possible, could we get a letter from the co-owner, what was (lost
word) at the time, could that be then submitted for the next meeting?
MR. MC NALLY-Sure.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-When would the next meeting be?
thrd
MR. THOMAS-Probably September 16. I think there’s going to be one on the 23.
MR. BROWN-One of the two. There’s two meetings.
rdrd
MR. THOMAS-Do you want to go to the 23? Okay. We’ll go to the 23, then, rather than the
th
16.
MR. MULLER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Hopefully, we’ll have more than four of us.
MR. THOMAS-The next order of business is minutes.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES:
July 15, 1998: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 15, 1998, MINUTES AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. MC NALLY-I’ll abstain since I wasn’t there that night.
MR. HAYES-Does that mean we can’t approve?
MR. THOMAS-That’s right. We’ll have to go to the next meeting for this one.
MR. MC NALLY-We can’t approve even the minutes on a three vote?
MR. THOMAS-No, you’ve got to have four.
July 23, 1998: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND
REGULAR MEETING, JULY 23, 1998, MINUTES AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris
Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
th
MR. THOMAS-Please note, Maria, that the 15, there wasn’t a four vote, so I’ll have to bring it
up at the September meeting.
MR. STONE-I move we adjourn.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/26/98)
54