1998-09-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY
BRIAN CUSTER
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
LEWIS STONE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND AV 52-1998 - GLENN BATEASE TABLED ON 8/19/98
MR. THOMAS-Do any of the Board members have a problem doing that, for Glenn Batease?
Because in August, when he was in here, we asked him for a map, and he had to start from Ground
Zero to draw one up, having it surveyed and like that, and we gave him a 62 day tabling motion,
but we fell, what two days short for the October meeting, for the first meeting in October. So, if
we just extend the tabling for 30 days, just in case something happens.
th
MR. BROWN-To no later than the 28 of October, that would be until the second meeting.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So he’s making the attempt to do what we asked him to do.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TABLING OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 GLENN
BATEASE
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Until the second meeting in October of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. Next, we have a letter from an application we approved
last year in September, and the applicant is asking for a one year extension of the Variance because
Variance
they have been unable to do the project that they asked for the variance for. So that was
File No. 50-1997, Roger & Pamela Whitingthe construction of an attached garage
. It was for
on Dixon Court
, and I think everybody was here for that one. Does anyone have a problem with
extending that variance for one year?
MR. STONE-It sounds fine to me.
MR. THOMAS-Does somebody want to make a motion?
MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1997 ROGER WHITING
, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
For another year, through September 24, 1999, since the applicant has decided to undergo major
house and garage renovations and they will not have time to act on the variance within its lifetime.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A DONNA M. FRASIER OWNERS: R
& M REYNOLDS LOCATION: 65 HELEN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16’ X
32’ INGROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 90-4-134.2 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION:
179-67
DONNA FRASIER, PRESENT; RICHARD REYNOLDS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-1998, Donna M. Frasier, Meeting Date: September 16,
Project Location:
1998 “ Applicant proposes construction of a 16 foot by 32 foot in-ground pool.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from; Accessory Structures and Uses, Section 179-67.
Specifically, the 20 foot rear setback requirement for pools and the 10 foot setback requirement for
pools from a principal structure. Also, the applicant is requesting relief for the placement of a
portion of the pool outside of the permitted yard as outlined in the code. The code requires that the
pool on a corner lot be placed in the yard “….directly opposite the architectural main entrance of
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
said building…”
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Feasible alternatives are limited due to the location of
2. Feasible alternatives:
the existing septic system. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
location of the existing septic system.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or
The requested relief may be interpreted as moderate.
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.):Staff comments:
None applicable Minimal to moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The rear yard area for a pool on this corner
lot is 29.75 ft. by 36.57 ft. The setback requirements decrease the allowable pool area to 6.57 ft.
SEQR Status:
by 9.75 ft., therefore, any significantly sized pool would require relief. Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Donna Frasier, is that you?
MRS. FRASIER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you want to tell us any more about it?
MRS. FRASIER-No, just that we did want a pool. We have one at home. My husband’s self
employed. He works for himself. We really don’t, you know, don’t go to a beach or anything
because he’s always on call. He’s a plumber, and basically, it’s just a luxury for us. We’d enjoy
it and we really want a pool.
MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me, what’s the relationship between you and the property owners,
Richard and Michele Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS-I’m Richard Reynolds.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS-We’re selling the house to Donna and Gary Frasier, and the sale of the house is
contingent on the variance of the pool.
MR. STONE-Contingent on the variance as requested, or on a variance?
MR. REYNOLDS-No, on their request. If they couldn’t get a pool, they wouldn’t want to buy the
house.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-I mean, we could put a nine by seven pool.
MR. THOMAS-Does anyone on the Board have questions for the applicant? It seems very cut and
dry.
MR. STONE-The only thing, as I understand it, the pool is going to be forward of the rear of the
house. It’s going to be closer to the street than the rear of the house, as planned.
MR. REYNOLDS-Right, because of the corner lot with the two front yards. Yes. It comes up
about four feet beyond where the existing fence is right now. It would come about four feet up to
the side of the house.
MR. HAYES-What kind of fencing are you proposing?
MR. REYNOLDS-Stockade, six foot stockade fence. The same thing that’s there now, it just
would be brought up, probably 16 feet, two sections.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. STONE-Not at the moment.
MR. THOMAS-If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this
variance? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. REYNOLDS-What you have in front of you is the adjoining neighbors, and since I gave you
those and we copied them, we also have two more neighbor’s signatures on here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll read them into the record when it comes to correspondence.
MR. REYNOLDS-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and read this in.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “We, the signed below, are the immediate surrounding neighbors of 65
Helen Drive. We are unopposed to the pool variance proposed for this address, allowing a pool to
be built at 65 Helen Drive.” Names: Lois Chase, Mrs. Countryman, Phil and Janet Jackson.
MR. REYNOLDS-Ourselves, because we purchased the property right beside it.
MRS. LAPHAM-All right, and Richard and Michele Reynolds, because they would be next door
neighbors, at 63 Helen Drive.
MR. REYNOLDS-I also have Howard and Karen Levine, who live at 74 Helen Drive.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it.
I’ll start with Lew.
MR. STONE-Well, I think as you’ve said, Mr. Chairman, it’s fairly cut and dried. The only
concern that I have is the fact that in granting the variance to put the pool actually more in the front
yard, since it’s going to be forward of the back of the house. We have had situations before where
we have had pools placed away from the immediate back of the house, and we have granted
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
variances. So, I don’t really have a problem. I just wish that we could keep it all in the, back
behind the house. That’s my only concern, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing.
MR. REYNOLDS-Due to the placement of the septic system, you know, we wanted to stay away
from the septic as best we can.
MR. STONE-I’m only suggesting that it be shortened, when I say that, instead of being 32 feet, it
would be less than 32, but I don’t have any violent objections to it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I feel the same way. I grew up on that street. There’s pools in the majority of the
houses. So it’s very consistent. The stockade that’s located along Dixon Avenue is set back in,
because you have the complications of having a corner lot, and you’re complying with that
regulation, which means the pool would have to be more over because of that, too. You’re kind of
being forced into that corner to some degree as it is. So, if you’re going to put a fence that’s going
to provide screening from Helen Drive, I don’t have any problem with it whatsoever.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I have no problems with this whatsoever. I think Lew and Jamie addressed all the
concerns that I have, and it need to be approved.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. I sympathize with the fact that they can’t put the pool along the back
yard, and I understand Lew’s concern, but overall, I don’t think the effect on the neighborhood is
going to be that significant. They’ve got fencing all around the place already, and it’s not as if
anyone’s going to really notice it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-It doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t think it’ll cause any effect one way or the
other on the neighborhood, and if the neighbors don’t object, neither do I.
MR. THOMAS-No. I have no objection to this, because of the position of the house and the septic
system attached to the house, that this is the only feasible place to put the pool. I believe a 16 by
32 foot pool comes in a kit, and I don’t think you can just shorten them by any length, and it is a
corner lot. So I have no problem. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1998 DONNA M. FRASIER
,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham:
65 Helen Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 16 foot by 32 foot in-ground pool at that
location. The applicant requests relief from accessory structures and uses, Section 179-67.
Specifically, she seeks to locate the pool 10 feet from the rear setback, and the Ordinance requires
a 20 foot setback, requiring 10 feet of relief. Section 179-67 also requires that the pool be at least
10 foot set back from a principal structure, and the applicant proposes locating it six feet from that
structure. So she would need four feet of relief from that setback. Also, the applicant is requesting
relief for the placement of the portion of the pool outside the permitted yard, as outlined in the
Code, more specifically, the Code requires that a pool on a corner lot be placed in the yard directly
opposite the architectural main entrance of the building, and the applicant is actually proposing to
locate the pool to the rear right of the lot, as outlined in their survey, and so she would need relief
in that capacity as well. In addition, the applicant needs 7.75 feet of relief from the second rear
yard setback, as outlined in the map that she provided. The benefit to the applicant would be that
she could construct the pool and the current owner could sell the property. The feasible
alternatives are extremely limited, due to the fact there’s an existing septic system, and that it is a
corner lot. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I think it’s moderate. I don’t think it’s
substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community? We have on record support from the
neighbors without any opposition, and I think it will have minimal effect on the neighborhood,
considering there already is a stockade fence in place at the property. Is the difficulty self created?
I believe that it isn’t really because of the existing septic system and the nature of the lot. So I
would move that we approve the variance.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Just so the relief is accurate, if it’s six feet from the house, 16 feet wide, the setback
to the other rear property line would be 7.75 feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Just, if you want to put that in.
MR. THOMAS-What we’re going to call Rear Yard Two?
MR. BROWN-Rear Yard Two, that’s right.
MR. REYNOLDS-May I say something? I think there’s approximately 32 feet across. There’s
about eight feet now from the house to where I had the pool marked off for you, eight feet to the
fence line two, runs between 62 and 65.
MR. BROWN-The survey map we’ve got here shows 29.75 feet from that corner of the house to
the property line. So that’s where I got the numbers. The six and sixteen and then remaining.
MR. CUSTER-That’ll give you more room on the variance. So take it.
MR. REYNOLDS-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Do we have to reflect the fact that it goes forward of the back wall?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, he said that.
MR. STONE-Did he say that? Okay. I missed it.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you be.
MRS. FRASIER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1998 TYPE II WR-1A, APA WILLIAM MASON d/b/a
TAKUNDEWIDE MGMT., GRP. OWNER: JOHN & JO-ANN FORBES LOCATION: 1
SENECA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 556 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE REGULATIONS 179-60;
SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE WR-1A REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF
A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 51-98 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 0.134 ACRES SECTION:
179-16, 179-60, 179-79
WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-1998, William Mason, Meeting Date: September 16,
Project Location:Description of Proposed Project:
1998 “ 1 Seneca Drive Applicant
proposes construction of a 556 square foot second story addition to an existing 514 square foot
Relief Required:
dwelling. Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot rear setback requirement of the WR-1A zone,
Section 179-16. Also, the applicant simultaneously requests 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot
shoreline setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland
Regulations, Section 179-60. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet setback
requirements, the applicant is requesting relief for expansion of a non conforming structure,
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town
Section 179-79.
Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to enlarge the existing
2. Feasible alternatives:
residence in the desired manner. Feasible alternatives may be limited
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
3. Is this relief substantial
due to the size of this pre-existing lot and the dwelling location.
relative to the ordinance?:
Since this requested relief only increases the rear setback violation by
4. Effects on the
means of a Bilco door, this relief may be interpreted as moderate.
neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 54-89 - res. 8/22/89 for relief from
Staff comments:
the shoreline setback requirements. Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result
of this action. The proposed addition does not increase the building footprint other than that of the
Bilco door. The Floor Area Ratio Worksheet has been completed and is in compliance with the
requirements. The applicant has expressed intentions to update the septic system as per code
SEQR Status:
requirements. Type II”
Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 10
MRS. LAPHAM-“
September 1998Project NameOwner
: Takundewide Management Group, Inc. : John and Jo-
ID NumberCounty Project#Current Zoning
ann Forbes : AV60-1998 : Sep98-025 : WR-1A
CommunityProject Description
: Queensbury : Applicant proposes addition to existing
residential structure that is part of Homeowners association. Small direct ownership of individual
Site Location
parcels means applicants cannot meet setback requirements of Ordinance. : seneca
Staff Notes
drive, property is on left. : Since homeowners Association owns surrounding lands
staff does not identify any issues that impact County resources. Associated with project SPR51-
Local actions to date (if any)Planning
98, Agenda itemSep98-018: None provided County
Board Recommendation Local Action/Final dispensation
: No County Impact : Terri Ross
Warren County Planning Board”
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Mason, is there anything you want to tell us about?
MR. MASON-The only, there is a small change possible. The Bilco doors I don’t believe are
going to be allowed by our own Association. So, it would be built without that. That was the one
expansion of other ones I’ve built very similar to this, before, they wanted the Bilco doors, and I
don’t think we’re going to be able to put them on.
MR. STONE-I could show my ignorance and ask what a Bilco door is.
MR. MASON-That’s the metal, to get into a basement.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MASON-That really was all, it shows in the elevations, with an angular, especially in the
right elevation, you can see it, underneath one of the windows. It really wasn’t that intrusive
visually or anything. So I don’t think, we won’t be moving the building footprint at all. It’ll be the
same footprint as exists.
MR. THOMAS-How many of these buildings have you done where you’ve put the second stories
on it? I’m thinking I’ve been here for three or four of them.
MR. MASON-This will be my third.
MR. THOMAS-This will be your third.
MR. STONE-Any on the shoreline?
MR. MASON-This is the first on the shoreline.
MR. STONE-That’s my concern, and this also is the closest property to the lake, isn’t it, maybe by
a foot or two, but not.
MR. MASON-Yes, they’re all, the eight lakefront ones are all very close to the water, as you can
see from the Map 2 and 3 next to it are just about as close, and the neighbor to the south.
MR. STONE-They’re very close.
MR. MASON-They’re on the water. So it really isn’t, it’s not going to affect anybody’s view or
it’s not, it couldn’t bother anybody from that point of view.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-Well, the only concern that I have is from the lake. I mean, that’s one of the things
we have to consider, though, too, is the visual impact from the lake.
MR. THOMAS-You put these second story additions on, the roof line doesn’t go any higher does
it? You just bring the pitch of the roof up.
MR. MASON-On the last one I did, I didn’t move the roof line up at all. On this one I’m going to.
The one I did two years ago, I did move it up. It’s better if you move it up, because it currently is
an eight twelve pitch, which means that to put a second story up there, you have to have a six foot
ceiling, and then you’ll only have a two twelve pitch, because the building’s only 24 feet wide. So
to get some pitch on that upper roof, I like to raise it, what I did on the one two years ago was
raised it four feet. So you’ve got a 12/12 pitch in the center, and a 4/12 pitch on that top roof and
4/12 will shed the water and not get the ice back up and so on.
MR. STONE-But still well within the height requirement.
MR. MASON-Yes, absolutely. It’s well within even the new ones.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, what is it, 28 feet?
MR. MASON-Twenty-eight now, and I believe the most I’ve said is that it would go 24.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You said you were going to go up four, you went up four feet with the last
one. So it was 24?
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-Bill Saklo’s house has the addition also, right?
MR. MASON-No. That’s Number Three, and they have satellites. No, they don’t have.
MR. CUSTER-Okay.
MR. MASON-It’s Number Nine that was, and that is, I said that’s not a lake front, but that really
is.
MR. HAYES-Yes, just further away from the lake, that’s all.
MR. MASON-It’s just a little bit back, but you see it very clearly from the water or they see the
water very clearly from there. That was Hickeys.
MR. HAYES-If you’re looking at lake, like this is over to the right, kind of back up.
MR. CUSTER-Inside of it, it’s a cathedral, then, in the living room section?
MR. MASON-Saklo’s is, yes. You remember that? That was so long ago I built that.
MR. CUSTER-I have a memory like an elephant.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Mason?
MR. STONE-The question, it says applicant has expressed intentions to update the septic system.
Where is the septic system, and what’s installed?
MR. MASON-This is the same thing I dealt with on the last one I did for the Lightbodys. The
building, Dave Hatin has told me that I will need a septic system, a new septic system permit when
I apply for the building permit. The intentions I have, he has an easement on all of the property
directly behind it. So I will fit it directly behind the Takundewide Homeowners Association
property. It can’t fit within his own property and be 100 feet back from the lake. The current
system, I’m sorry, to answer your question, is a cess pool and a grease trap that is right behind the
cottage, working fine for a two bedroom, seasonal dwelling, but under current regulations, and
with this expansion, there’s no way.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-So it’s going in that little wooded area behind there?
MR. MASON-I think that that’s where I want it. I think I can carve, right next to the parking lot,
so just to the south of where it says parking on the map, at 200, 250 feet drain field right in there.
If I had to, I would go across Seneca Drive and into the grassy area, but I don’t want to go that far,
if I don’t have to. I think that we’re going to be able to put it right in there in that wooded area that
you noticed. There’s only one tree that may have to come down, and it’s not much of a tree. The
rest of it’s all scrub and brush.
MR. STONE-Yes, I saw that.
MR. MC NALLY-What ever happens, you plan on updating the septic system to meet the current
Code requirements?
MR. MASON-Absolutely. It would have to. David won’t issue a building permit without that.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Mason? If not, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wish to speak
opposed? Opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident of North Queensbury. Might the
upgrade of the septic system include the use of a holding tank?
MR. STONE-Are you asking?
MR. THOMAS-In a Waterfront Residential, I don’t think you can install a new holding tank
without a variance.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s my considered opinion that holding tanks are not allowed for the type of
dwelling that it being contemplated here.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Mason said he wasn’t going to put in a holding tank. He was going to be
200, 250 feet of.
MR. SALVADOR-He said he was going to bring the septic system up to current standards, Code,
whatever it is. Our Code allows holding tanks.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t think they’re allowed in a WR-1A zone, holding tanks.
MR. STONE-Without a variance from the Board of Health.
MR. SALVADOR-We are putting them in without variances from the Board of Health, okay.
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s an enforcement issue. That’s not our problem. We have enough of
our own.
MR. SALVADOR-All right. I would like to suggest that you table this application pending the
determination and the outcome of how the wastewater is going to be handled from this dwelling. In
addition to that, when I hear Shoreline Regulations my ears perk up. The applicant is asking for a
10 foot shoreline setback relief, and my question is where, from whence is that measured? What is
the definition of the shoreline in this property?
MR. STONE-You’re the expert on that, John. You’ve said that, well you’ve told me that in some
cases, some people say the mean high water, which has not been determined, but the mean low
water is something that you have quoted extensively before this Board.
MR. SALVADOR-In my opinion, yes.
MR. STONE-As 317.74.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. SALVADOR-As I read it, the demarcation between public land and private land is at
elevation 1.81 on the Roger’s Rock Gauge or 317.74 above mean sea level. Our Town Ordinance
does not use that location. Our Town Ordinance refers to 320.2 as the shoreline. That’s the
definition of the shoreline.
MR. STONE-Where is that contained? In here?
MR. SALVADOR-Some place in there.
MR. STONE-I’ve not seen that. I don’t know.
MR. BROWN-It should be in the Definitions.
MR. MASON-Regarding this application, though, the applicant proposes not to go any closer nor
any further. The applicant recognizes that they’re within 50 feet of the water, but the water, no
matter what time of year, because it’s steep enough there, that I know we’re within 50 feet. So
we’re not asking for anything except to be allowed to build on the same spot. Otherwise we’ll have
to, because of the other setbacks, we’ll have to curb away.
MR. SALVADOR-But the amount of relief you’re granted is fixed. That will be fixed, and if that
shoreline, some day, is determined to be in some other place, then you can ride with that relief.
Okay.
MR. STONE-But the house is currently, there’s no plan, as I understand it, to change the location
of the ground floor. Putting a basement in underneath will be done.
MR. MASON-I may move the building, but I will put the building exactly where it currently is. It
has to go there, not only for this body in the Town, but also for the Homeowners Association. I
can’t start moving buildings around up there. I’d have a heck of a problem. So we’ll be very
careful.
MR. STONE-Now, in going up, just to follow along though, in going up, will the overhang be
greater than it is now?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the eaves will be exactly the same as they are now.
MR. MASON-The eaves will be the same. The roof pitch will change, but the overhang will
remain the same.
MR. SALVADOR-If you grant 10 feet of relief, setback relief, that 10 feet is fixed in time, and
that’s 10 feet of relief that this dwelling gets from now until the end of time. Now, if the shoreline
location changes, for some reason, this dwelling enjoys that relief, because it says shoreline
setback. It doesn’t say setback from some point that can be ascertained and fixed.
MR. THOMAS-How do we know the shoreline’s going to move or change?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, right now, I’m saying that our Code is using 320.2 above mean sea level.
I don’t think that’s correct. I think the shoreline is 317.74, and some day I may make that point.
MR THOMAS-Well, when we do, we’ll call is the John Salvador, Jr. Law, in the Town of
Queensbury, is 317.74.
MR. BROWN-I think if you grant the relief to the shoreline, and the shoreline’s defined as the high
water mark, then in effect, your relief is to the high water mark, and that’s not going to change. If
the shoreline changes to 317.74, the relief is still to the high water mark, as defined what the
shoreline is.
MR. SALVADOR-All right.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll read the definition in the Queensbury Code for Shoreline Building
Setback, “The shortest distance measured horizontally between any point of a principal building or
accessory structure in excess of 100 square feet in size, except docks and boathouses, and the
shoreline of any lake, pond, river, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
Classified Wetland or Stream.” This was amended 7/29/91 by Local Law No. 14-1991. It doesn’t
even say mean high water mark in there.
MR. STONE-Well, the shoreline does, the high water mark.
MR. BROWN-In the Definitions.
MR. STONE-“Which land adjoins the waters of lakes”, just above it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
nd
MR. STONE-The question is, in the resolution of 54-89, which was adopted on August 22, do
we know what that relief was? Because it was obviously around, approximately 40 feet, and at
that time the law was 50, I believe.
MR. THOMAS-No, I think back then it was 75, back in ’89. It was 75 feet.
MR. MASON-I don’t understand what the question is. This one hasn’t had a permit like that.
MR. STONE-Well, according to Staff Notes, there was a Site Plan 54-89, which was voted on in
8/22/89, which gave relief from the shoreline setback.
MR. CUSTER-That’s probably when you were cutting it up, Bill?
MR. MASON-Could that have been the dock.
MR. BROWN-No. That relief was for a side line setback to the dock.
MR. CUSTER-The dock. Okay.
MR. MASON-’89 the dock was built.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the cottage has been there for much longer than that.
MR. MASON-Since 1952.
MR. STONE-’52.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is that all you have, John, or is there anything more you want to add?
MR. SALVADOR-Again, I would recommend that if you grant setback relief, that you define from
where, and you could simply do that by saying 320.2 above mean sea level, and that fixes it. It’s
not a shoreline setback. It’s a 320.2 setback, which is what the Code says the shoreline is.
MR. THOMAS-No, our Code doesn’t say 320.2.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t say it here, John.
MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t say. It doesn’t give a number.
MR. BROWN-It’s defined as the high water mark.
MR. STONE-It just says high water mark, John.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s the shoreline. That’s what that Code says.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it doesn’t give a number for the high water mark.
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t in the Definition. It says the high water mark.
MR. THOMAS-It just says high water mark.
MR. SALVADOR-Under your Shoreline?
MR. BROWN-In the Shoreline Section. I’m in the Definitions.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. THOMAS-“Shoreline - The high water mark at which land adjoins the waters of lakes,
ponds, rivers and streams within the Town. No mention of any numbers.
MR. SALVADOR-Some place in there is a number, believe me.
MR. THOMAS-Not in the definition there isn’t. There may be in here somewhere else, but not in
the definition.
MR. SALVADOR-Shoreline Regulations for Lake George, 320.2.
MR. STONE-Well, lets go to 179-60 and see if there’s anything in there under Shoreline. There’s
nothing in 16.
MR. THOMAS-No, it’ll be in 60. That has to do with shorelines.
MR. MC NALLY-Whatever relief we grant is relief from the restriction as defined by this Code.
So it’s 10 feet of relief as Queensbury Town Zoning Ordinance now provides, whatever the Zoning
Code is.
MR. BROWN-The current requirement. You’re giving relief from the current requirements.
MR. MC NALLY-Exactly.
MR. SALVADOR-So it’s 320.2, is my point.
MR. MC NALLY-You would argue that today it’s 320.2 and it’s 50 feet from there.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Whatever the mean high water mark actually is, is what it is.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it’s not the shoreline, though.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, what the shorelines were is defined as the mean high water mark. You
just don’t agree what that mean high water mark is, whether it’s high or low.
MR. SALVADOR-No. It’s clear to me. It says 320.2. The other half of this argument is that
there’s case law that will show that that 320.2 has never been established. It’s a number that’s
been pulled out of the air, and this centered around a case involving the APA and Mr. Tyler, way
back in 1976, and that case turned on the fact that the mean high water mark of Lake George has
never been established. That turned on that, and Mr. Tyler was allowed to keep his house, within,
what was it, 28 feet or something like that, of the shoreline.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand what you’re saying. Is that a problem for our Town Board to
resolve?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, they’re the ones that make the law.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and the Town Board has scheduled public hearings to amend their
shoreline regulations. They were scheduled for this coming Monday, and it’s been postponed, as
I’ve heard, but everything is in a state of flux, okay.
MR. STONE-But if we give it from the shoreline as defined in our Code, that’s the best we can do,
because we have no other number here.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. BROWN-In the Definitions, you’ll find under Mean High Water Mark of Lake George, the
fixed annual mean high water elevation of 320 and two tenths feet above mean sea level, in the
Definitions.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Page 17930.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-Okay. Right here.
MR. BROWN-And if you define shoreline as the mean high water mark, then you’re.
MR. SALVADOR-The only other point I’d like to make is that the, and I notice this is an APA
designated project, the Adirondack Park Agency is about re-mapping wetlands, and I think the
Town is aware of this, and one of the things the APA is doing is they are declaring a new kind of
wetland, it’s called a deep water marsh, and they are mapping the near shore areas of all lakes up
to two meters and calling them deep water marshes, and I suspect some day our shoreline
regulations are going to reflect this. How it bears on this project is the APA requires 100 foot
setback from wetlands.
MR. THOMAS-Right now that’s not a wetland.
MR. BROWN-I believe in the file there’s a non-jurisdiction letter from the Park Agency, in the file
some place.
MR. MC NALLY-These are proposed regulations?
MR. SALVADOR-They’ve had public hearings on them. We’re getting a visit. We’re getting a
th
site visit from the APA on the 7 of October on this issue. It’s because of this wetland.
MR. MC NALLY-But there’s no prohibition because of deep water wetlands within 100 feet as it
currently exists. This is proposed you’re talking about.
MR. SALVADOR-The APA Regulations, I believe, require, and DEC, require a 100 foot setback
from wetlands
MR. MC NALLY-But the deep water wetlands that they’re now exploring.
MR. SALVADOR-Is a particular type of wetland.
MR. STONE-Right, but they haven’t defined how they’re going to interpret that, though, have
they, John?
MR. MC NALLY-For the future, you’re talking about.
MR. STONE-For the future. I mean, right now we have a house that’s there, it’s non conforming.
No question about it it’s nonconforming
MR. SALVADOR-In any case, I would recommend that you table this pending clarification of
how the wastewater is going to be managed from this dwelling.
MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Okay. Go ahead and read the
correspondence.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. There’s a letter from the APA, September 8, 1998, Mr. Christopher
Round “Dear Mr. Round: Thank you for the referral of the Mason variance application, received
here September 4. It appears that the second story expansion would not encroach further toward
the shoreline, in which case the approval of the variance would not be subject to Agency review, as
the Agency does not require a variance in such cases. Please confirm whether we have interpreted
the materials correctly, as the map does not distinguish between new and existing construction.”
thrd
And do you want the rest of it, because the last paragraph just refers to the 16 and the 23
agendas.
MR. THOMAS-You might as well read it in there.
MRS. LAPHAM-All right. “From the remainder of the September 16 and 23 ZBA agendas, it
appears that the only other item inside the Adirondack Park is the Long variance, from the
September 23 agenda. Assuming no wetlands or shoreline variance is involved, this case also does
not involve the Agency. Please let us know if you have any questions on the above. Sincerely,
James W. Hotaling, Chief Local Government Services”
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you want to add to that, Mr. Mason, anything else you want to
say?
MR. MASON-Unless you have questions, there was one thing I meant to give you, the original
signed authorization form. I had told Mr. Round that I would bring this.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, just throw it in the file here. All right. Anything else, is there anything
else, Bill, you want to say?
MR. MASON-No, not unless there’s any questions for me to answer.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions from the Board to Mr. Mason? If there are
no further questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Jamie.
MR. HAYES-I guess Lew kind of started in the area that I felt. The house has been there since
1952. Eliminating the Bilco door, you’re not expanding the footprint at all, and at the same time,
you’re going to completely update the septic system to current Code, which I’m assuming that our
Departments know what they’re doing, so that’s adequate. I’ve looked at, in fact, I was part of
approving the last one you did to go a second story, and I looked at that and it’s something that I
don’t have any reservations about. I mean, you’ve done it in a tasteful way. It looks like it’s part
of the development. It’s even decorated the same way with the same shutters and everything else.
So, I mean, I have a great deal of confidence that you’re attempting to provide the continuity that I
would like to see in a development that’s full of continuity. It’s kind of ironic, but to me, it’s a
project that I can live with, and if these people want to get a little more square footage in their
camp, and they’re not going to expand their footprint, I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-My history with the property goes back quite a way. I used to be the insurance
agent for the applicant, and I was involved during the process when this parcel was subdivided to
make the Homeowners Association, and I can remember how stringent that Association initial
committee was in maintaining the flavor of the community, the upkeep and all that thing, and I
think that this project speaks volumes in continuing that ethic and that desire to have that
continuity. Also, it’s my understanding that the Mason family still owns individually a couple of
those units up there, and addressing Mr. Salvador’s point about tabling the issue relative to the
septic treatment, I think that is an important comment, John, and I normally would say maybe
tabling it until we had a better understanding might be something that’s worth investigating or
visiting, but knowing you have your families there, I’m sure you want to put a septic system in
that’s going to work, so that it’s not leaching into right there where you swim and everything else.
I’m willing to assume that you will do that, and my concerns are addressed with those comments.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree. It’s difficult to see how this proposal is going to harm Lake George or
harm the people of the Town of Queensbury. The proposed addition is relatively modest. The roof
line goes up a bit. It remains in the same footprint. Given the actual ownership of a minimal size
lot around each building, there’s no other way you can expand on the site, unless you do go up.
The septic system is always a problem when you’re close to the lake. They’ve got a cess pool now,
and I understand that under our Town Zoning Ordinance, excuse me, Health Ordinance, they’re
going to have to update their septic system anyway, and meet whatever the Town Code is with
respect to the current system requirements, and if they get a variance, well, that’s the decision of
the Town Board, but I understand that they intend to put in a regular septic system, which is
actually an improvement, as far as I can see, over the existing system that they do have. Overall,
I’d be in favor of the application.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the first thing, I hate to be inconsistent, since we were, as a Board,
approved the, at least one other since I’ve been here, and I went and looked at it, and I thought it
looked very well done. The footprint’s not being increased. The only real concern I had was the
fact that it would be more visible, as a two story house, from the lake, than it was as a one story
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
cottage, but when you weigh that against getting a new septic system, and the fact that the
development is very tasteful, I guess that would weigh off and I would not be against it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I’m glad that Bonnie mentioned my concern, the visual effect from the lake,
but listening to everybody, and listening to Bonnie’s excellent summation, I agree that, yes, it’ll be
higher, but I think the whole project there is so tastefully done that I think this will be in keeping,
and the fact that we’re going to upgrade, you’re going to have to upgrade the septic system is
always a plus. Anytime lake property is made to conform to 1998 standards, rather than
something earlier, we’re usually going in the right direction. So, I have no problem.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I don’t see any problem with this.
Looking at the lake side elevation, where the addition is going to go, the addition is going to be
built right into the existing roof, so there really won’t be much more structure that you’re looking
at, except for a few windows, and I assume the chimney’s going to be extended up to.
MR. MASON-Put a new one up.
MR. THOMAS-Or put a new one up.
MR. MASON-Yes, because we’ll undermine the foundation of the chimney when we.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and an overall improvement, and keeping consistent with the existing
structures that are there, on the exterior, and I also agree with the other Board members concerning
the septic system, that Mr. Mason will be putting in a septic system that’s accepted by the Town of
Queensbury per their regulations, and that septic system really doesn’t concern us. That is Mr.
Hatin’s Department to take care of that, and he is known to be very stringent about that. So I don’t
think there’s going to be any problem with the septic system, plus we’re getting a new one and
getting rid of a grease pit, what do you have down there, a seepage pit?
MR. MASON-It’s a grease trap.
MR. THOMAS-A grease trap and a seepage pit or a cess pool.
MR. CUSTER-Mr. Chairman, just a question, though. Where the original application asks for
three foot of setback relief for the Bilco doors, now you’re saying that’s gone, so go ahead and do
it without that, then?
MR. THOMAS-Right.
MR. CUSTER-Okay.
MR. STONE-And no external entrance to.
MR. MASON-The basement? No. There will be windows, regular basement windows.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. If there’s no other comments, I’ll ask for a motion.
MR. BROWN-Just so you have the number for the resolution, I think they’ll 10 feet of relief from
the rear instead of 15, because the back of the house is currently 10 feet. The requirement is 20,
whoever does it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1998 WILLIAM MASON
,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
1 Seneca Drive. The applicant proposes the construction of a 556 square foot second story
addition to an existing 514 square foot dwelling. I move that we approve the applicant’s request
for three feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement, and 10 feet of relief from the 20
foot rear setback requirement of a WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. I also move that we approve the
applicant’s request for 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement, Section
179-16, and Section 179-60, Shoreline and Wetland Regulation. Additionally, I move that because
the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, that the applicant’s request for relief
for expansion of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to Section 179-79 be approved. I make this
motion for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to enlarge an existing
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
residence in the desired manner, making the property more usable on a year round basis. Second,
there are very few, if any, alternatives, and this alternative is, of any of them, the best. The
property is going to be essentially identical, with respect to the existing footprint, after
construction, as it currently exists. While there will be slight modifications with respect to the
height of the roof line, even looking from the lake, the property will have a minimal impact upon
the neighborhood and upon the view from the lake. The property owner is also proposing a
modernization of an existing cess pool/septic system to meet the current Town Health Department
requirements. The property is a lovely development, with a large amount of green space between
the units, and this particular unit is on a very minimal lot, such that they can’t expand any other
way. Overall, I think there will be minimal effects on the neighborhood, and I move that this
application be approved as I’ve stated. I’d amend my motion to also include a variance from
Section 179-79 requirements for an expansion of floor area ratio greater than 50%, and I would
ask that the motion be approved with that amendment. That the building on the second floor have
the same square footage as on the existing first floor, that it have the same footprint, and be over
the same footprint.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. THOMAS-Lew and I were just talking about the 50% expansion.
MR. MC NALLY-My understanding was that that was completed. There wasn’t a problem with
it.
MR. STONE-This is well over 50%.
MR. THOMAS-According to the Floor Area Ratio worksheet here.
MR. STONE-It’s almost 100%.
MR. HAYES-It is 100%. It’s 110%.
MR. STONE-No, it’s less because the porch is part of the floor area.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s this in the Staff Notes, floor area worksheet was completed.
MR. STONE-I know, but 179-79A2.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Mason’s got an application before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review,
because he exceeds the 50% expansion.
MR. THOMAS-Well, don’t we have to give relief from the 50% expansion?
MR. STONE-Yes, we do.
MR. BROWN-Probably. Is that 179-79?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Expansion of a Nonconformity.
MR. STONE-Right. Well, a Single Family, not even nonconforming. Yes, nonconforming. I’m
sorry. Yes.
MR. BROWN-I think, did Bob cover that in his?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NALLY-Not specifically.
MR. STONE-But was it advertised? That’s the other question. Well, it says requesting relief for
expansion of a nonconforming, but we have to talk about that. We have to specifically.
MR. THOMAS-You have to mention that in the.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MC NALLY-If that’s how it was advertised, requesting relief for expansion of a
nonconforming structure, pursuant to that Section, it would probably include.
MR. HAYES-Yes, any discussion of that Section.
MR. MC NALLY-As far as advertising.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, 179-79A2, specifically talks about 50% expansion.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you advertise 179-79, that’s a whole Section, you can use that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, that’s included in there.
MR. MC NALLY-If that’s the case then, I’d amend my motion.
MR. MASON-I don’t want to muddy the waters here, but the building currently is 24 feet by 32,
768 square feet, outside dimensions. That’s not what I’ve been using as square feet. I was using
the interior dimensions of each of the rooms, adding it all up, and saying that was the existing
square feet.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s where you got the 514 feet?
MR. MASON-And every time you mention that 514, it keeps coming back to me, because I know
the building, I show it on the plot plan, is measured 24 by 32, and that’s 768. I’ve used that so
many times, and the second floor is the same size, and it’s not, the floor area is not that full 768,
but I don’t want to get, I don’t want to mislead you, and I don’t want to get hamstrung later,
concerning myself that.
MR. STONE-The floor area is internal, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m looking at that right now.
MR. MC NALLY-The upstairs addition that you’re proposing.
MR. MASON-Is the same size.
MR. MC NALLY-Is the same size.
MRS. LAPHAM-The same exterior dimensions as the first floor.
MR. STONE-It’s within the exterior walls.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not the external measurement?
MR. MASON-That’s right. There was no attempt, you know what it was, when I was doing the
worksheet, the worksheet, if you fit into a certain amount, then I don’t know, that meets the target
if it fits under a certain amount, so I was adding it all up and seeing if it would fit, and lo and
behold it did. So I just went ahead with it, but on the plot plan that you saw submitted from me, it
shows a 24 by 32 foot building, and everything on here shows that we’re just taking that same 24
by 32 and adding a second floor to it.
MRS. LAPHAM-And the external second floor measurements will be the same as the external first
floor.
MR. MASON-External the same, right.
MR. STONE-Well, it says floor area, gross floor area residential, the area within the exterior walls
of the dwelling unit.
MR. THOMAS-Under Building Square Footage, Total, it says all floors of the primary structures
and covered porches, including the basement, when at least three feet in height. It does say the
floors. It doesn’t say anything about external.
MR. MASON-Okay. That was the only reason I did it, and I kind of regret it now, because I wish
that we were talking about 768 and adding 768, because then I could never get into trouble or
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
never have to worry about it. I’m fine with it, from your interpretation that you just read, is what
my interpretation when I.
MR. STONE-You’re going to build it straight up on top, whatever the number is.
MRS. LAPHAM-So whatever it is, it’s 100% expansion, period.
MR. STONE-Basically.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are we all on the same page on that one?
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. We’re saying that we’ll approve this variance. My proposal is that the
building on the second floor have the same square footage as on the existing first floor, and have
the same footprint, and be over the same footprint as the existing structure.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everybody agree with that?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I just have a question on this right elevation. It shows the upstairs as slightly
narrower than the downstairs. Is that what the difference.,
MR. MASON-The right elevation, it shows the overhang hanging out. I’m sorry, that wall steps
in, but inside, underneath those ropes, you’ve got a knee wall coming up. So actually on the floor
you get the full 24 by 32, or you get the full amount as what you have downstairs, but in the
middle of it, you’ll have that, do you see what I mean?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MASON-Actually, that’s a one foot step in, and at about three feet I’ll have a knee wall. So
you will lose about three square feet off of each corner.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. MASON-Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1998 TYPE II PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE MELLON
OWNER: F. MARTINDALE, SR. ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH ON BAY RD.,
TURN LEFT HEADING WEST ON RT. 149. PARCEL LOCATED ON SE CORNER OF
MARTINDALE RD. AND RT. 149 INTERSECTION. APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF OF THE LOT WIDTH
REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS ABUTTING COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL ROADS.
CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 10-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX
MAP NO. 48-1-6.21 LOT SIZE: 6.47 ACRES SECTION 179-30, 179-87
PATRICK MELLON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-1998, Patrick & Rusty-Rose Mellon, Meeting Date:
Project Location:
September 16, 1998 “ Intersection of Martindale Road and Rte 149,
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes the creation of a two lot subdivision of a
Relief Required:
6.47 acre parcel. Applicant requests relief from Section 179-30, lots abutting
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
collector or arterial roads. Section 179-30, C states that all residential lots fronting on a collector
or arterial road shall have two (2) times the lot width permitted in the zone in which it is located,
except if it is accessed by a single common drive. The applicant proposes two lots with average
widths of 289 feet and 235 feet respectively. The requirement for the RR-3A zone is 200 feet,
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
doubled is 400 feet.
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to create an additional
2. Feasible alternatives:
building lot in the desired configuration. Feasible alternatives appear to
3. Is this relief
be limited as there does not appear to be any additional land available.
substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
111 feet and 165 feet of relief may be interpreted as
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
moderate. Moderate 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.):
It appears as though Tax Map Parcel 48-1-6.2 was divided into 6.21 and 6.22 in 1985. The
applicants map shows proposals for two boundary line adjustments to 2 adjoining properties,
Staff
evidently to increase road frontages and encompass existing buildings and occupation.
comments:
Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as result of this action. The intent
of this section may be interpreted to allow for increased separation between driveways in order to
SEQR Status:
alleviate driveway congestion on collector roads. Type II”
MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 10
Project Name:Owner:
September 1998 Patrick & Rusty-Rose Mellon Floyd Martindale, Sr.
ID Number:County Project#:Current Zoning:
AV61-1998 Sep98-024 RR-3A
Community:Project Description:
Queensbury Applicant seeks two lot subdivision of existing
Site Location:
6.47 acre parcel. Parcels will not conform to lot width requirements of Ordinance.
Staff Notes:
Southeast corner of Martindale Rd. and Rte. 149 intersection. Parcel sizes will
conform to Ordinance requirements but access less than 100 ft. width. Issues appear to be Town
Local actions to date: (if any):County Planning Board
only. None provided
Recommendations:Local Action/Final dispensation:
No County Impact Terri Ross”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I understand we have a new map. It’s in the box there.
MR. BROWN-It’s in the file. It should be in the file.
MR. THOMAS-Mr. Mellon, do you want to add anything to what you’ve said on the application?
Tell us about anything?
MR. MELLON-As far as the lot goes, by having the driveway out on that side of 149, the visibility
is a lot better in that area than from the area between Ridge Road in. Route 9, coming out there,
going to the west you can see approximately 3500 feet to the west, and at least 1500 feet to the
east. So there wouldn’t be a problem, as far as pulling out from there.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-You’re proposing two lots, one of which comes part way along the boundary of the
brick house lot. Is that how I’m reading that? The center line, so to speak?
MR. MELLON-On Lot Number One, the westerly line, yes, is right on the edge of where the lot
where the brick house is.
MR. STONE-It’s on the edge of the brick house lot? It looks like it comes up, a few feet in. I’m
just trying to understand it. It has nothing to do with.
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-Jim Martin. I’m trying to help him out. What he’s proposing to do is create a two
lot subdivision out of an existing lot that’s just almost six and a half acres in size. The new
boundary line, the new boundaries, this is the existing lot line, Lew, six and a half acres. The new
lot line would come from the rear lot line of the brick house and extend I guess southward
somewhat through this section. So you get resulting lots of a conforming area, and the one thing I
would say about the Staff comments about the collector road, this subdivision will only result in
one driveway continuing to be on the main collector road or the road of concern, which is 149. The
other lot would exit out onto a local road, Martindale Road. So the resulting effect is we would
still only have that one driveway on the road of concern.
MR. STONE-And that one, it’s 100.83 feet, the one that’s on 149?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MARTIN-Yes. The proposed frontage width is 100.83 feet, but the Ordinance deals with this
vague concept of average lot width, and that’s what we’re looking at here, and that’s conforming to
the district but not to the doubling requirement.
MR. STONE-And the other one’s actually bigger on Martindale.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and the other thing I would point out, just as a point of reference for the
Board, is the Planning Department, back in 1993, did a Corridor Study of Route 149, the
conclusion of which was that the lots in that, along that route should be lowered in size, or the
requirements from three acre to one acre, and from five acre to three acre. Although that was
never adopted, that was the feelings of the Staff.
MR. STONE-Jim, you’re probably as knowledgeable as anybody about the plan for 149.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Would that have any impact on this at all, the straightening of the horizontal and
vertical curves that they talk about?
MR. MARTIN-I don’t believe so, and even if there were some impact, of even a, you know,
substantial amount, 100 feet or something like that, the driveway length here is very long, and the
house, building location is deep into the lot, and I don’t think would be affected by even a
substantial shift in the right-of-way.
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-What is the width at the narrowest part of that westerly lot?
MR. MARTIN-Of the Lot Number Two? We have a scale here of one inch equals 50 feet. It
appears to be about 50 feet in width, at that narrowest point.
MR. STONE-Fifty feet?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s confirmed at 50 feet by Staff.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to
speak in favor of this variance? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I am a neighbor, less than a quarter of a mile from this, on the north side of
the road. I think this is a type of thing this community should be endorsing. This is, as a practical
matter, the sale of property from a grandfather to a grandson, and I think this is what
Queensbury’s all about, and this type of thing should be happening, and keep our generations
living here, and if a change in our Code can accommodate that, I think it’s a good thing, and as a
neighbor of the property, I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this variance?
Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it.
MRS. LAPHAM-It says in the request that this would be some time in the future. Do you have
any specific time table for your plan?
MR. MELLON-For the house?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, you know, what you’re going to do with the subdivision if it’s approved?
MR. MELLON-We’re going to put a single family residence on it.
MRS. LAPHAM-On one of the lots?
MR. MELLON-Yes. The one we were looking at is Lot Number One, just the one we are going to
put our house on, waiting for financial.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions? All right. Lets talk about it. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I think Mr. Mellon and Mr. Martin made a compelling case for why this variance
should be granted. It’s a large lot, which if subdivided will create two parcels that can be used by
single residence homes. I think the fact that they’re already allowed one egress onto 149, and
that’s all that’s going to remain, because the other one’s going to come out on Martindale, is
adequate and keeps the traffic hazard aspect of the variance request limited. I really don’t have
any major difficulties with it. I guess I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m trying to figure out why he needed a driveway of 200 feet, as opposed to
100 feet, and if you look at the area, there’s a great site distance. This isn’t a business. We’re not
talking about 50 cars coming out an hour. It’s residential property. I agree that it would appear
that the driveway in the western most lot would exit onto Martindale, not on Route 149. The lot
size is in excess of the existing Code requirement, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why
they shouldn’t have a driveway with 100 foot frontage on 149. It would certainly be a benefit to
the applicant, allowing them to subdivide their property and build on the property, and as Mr.
Martin indicated, there would be another individual family member in this enclave. There might be
other feasible alternatives. I didn’t know if anyone ever thought about a joint driveway, but I
didn’t see great benefit in that either, and overall, I don’t think I’m opposed to it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-I’m not opposed to it, either.
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, pretty much. I’m just trying to look at this map and get my bearings here,
but I’m not opposed to it as explained.
MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll go on to Lew. If you’ve got any more to say, we’ll come to you.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Lew?
MR. STONE-My only opposition is that time keeps going on, and Mr. Martindale farmed this
land, along with his brother next door, and obviously this will not be the case anymore, and this is
the passage of time. That’s my only concern. I wish we could go back to simpler times, but
certainly in terms of the use of this land, it seems like a perfectly valid way to go.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I guess I would probably disagree with Mr. Stone. I would think we’d go on to more
complicated times, I guess, being young. So I think that both Mr. Mellon’s and Mr. Martin’s
arguments are correct. I think that there’s a lot of density here. The reality is there’s even a lot of
road frontage. It has more to do with how the land is zoned on that corridor than, really, anything
else. I mean, 400 feet of road frontage for a single family lot is a lot, and they have a lot, 265, or
289 and 235. That’s a lot of feet on the road, and I had looked at that property, and there is a
plenty of sight in both directions to where you’re proposing to put the driveway. There really is.
So there’s really no safety issues that I would be concerned about. So I have no problem at all
with the variance whatsoever.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you want to say, Bonnie?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MRS. LAPHAM-No, I don’t have a problem, either, because I tend to agree with Jamie. They
have as (lost words) is actually necessary for safety.
MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members, that there’s at least, you know, over 200
feet on each lot. On 149 is a regional arterial road, and over on Martindale Road is a collector
road. Did you know that?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think I do recall that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, because what you said, the other lot would come out on Martindale, which is
a Town road. It is a Town road, but it’s also a collector road, which requires a variance.
MR. MARTIN-You’ve got to watch those semantics.
MR. STONE-You helped write them.
MR. MARTIN-No, not that one. That was one I wanted to change.
MR. THOMAS-I don’t see any problem with this. Like Mr. Martin pointed out, one would exit
onto 149 and the other one would exit onto a Town road. The site distance for the exit, for the lot
that would exit on 149, is great, in both directions, and as one of the Board members pointed out,
this is not a commercial venture, it’s a residential venture. So there will not be cars going in and
out. I think it was, Bob mentioned that. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1998 PATRICK & RUSTY-ROSE
MELLON
, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Intersection of Martindale Road and Route 149. The applicant proposes the creation of a two lot
subdivision of a 6.47 acre parcel. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-30, which
pertains to lots abutting collector or arterial roads. Under Section 179-30, it states that all
residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted
in the zone in which it is located, except if accessed by a single common drive. The applicant
proposes two lots with average widths of 289 feet and 235 feet respectively. Granting this
variance will require relief of 111 feet for Lot Number Two and 165 feet of relief for Lot Number
One. In granting this variance, we’d apply the criteria normal to the process. The first one is the
benefit to the applicant. By granting the variance, we will allow the applicant to subdivide the
parcel into two building lots. Feasible alternatives are limited, due to the configuration of the
existing land. The relief, when comparing it to the existing Code, could be interpreted as somewhat
moderate, but I think that the factors involved have mitigated that, and I don’t see that as too
substantial. Effects on the neighborhood appear to be minimal. There’s no negative outpouring
from the neighborhood, and the difficulty can be interpreted as self created, as the existing lot is
being asked to be subdivided, but I don’t believe that is important to denying the variance.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1998 TYPE II HC-1A WISWALL CENTER FOR
INDEPENDENT LIVING OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 71 GLENWOOD AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PLAYGROUND, INCLUDING A WOOD
CLIMBING STRUCTURE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE AND RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE &
WETLAND REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 52-98 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-4.1, 4.2, 5 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES
SECTION: 179-23, 179-60
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-1998, Wiswall Center for Independent Living, Meeting
Project Location:Description of Proposed
Date: September 16, 1998 “ 71 Glenwood Ave.
Project:Relief Required:
Applicant proposes construction of a playground structure. Applicant
requests 23.1 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback requirement and 20 feet of relief from the 20
foot side setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. Applicant also requests 51.6
feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
regulations, Section 179-60.
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the
2. Feasible alternatives:
desired playground structure in the preferred location. A feasible
alternative may be to downsize the playground structure. However, any structure in this area of
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
the site would require relief, as the setbacks overlap.
Ordinance?:4.
The cumulative total of requested relief may be interpreted as substantial.
Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
interpreted as self created. AV 107-96 -
res. 11/20/96 to construct a handicapped access ramp SP 72-96 res. 11/26/96 Glens Falls
Independent Living Center SP 72-96 - res. 5/22/97 modification to increase building size and
Staff comments:
parking SP 52-98 - pending variance - res. 9/22/98 construction of playground
The construction of a “no bounds” handicap accessible playground may have positive impacts on
the community that outweigh the setback relief requested. However, will a zero sideline setback
SEQR Status:
encumber the adjoining property, should they desire to expand in the future? Type
II”
Project
MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
Description:
Applicant proposes to construct a playground facility with setback issues of: Front;
50 ft. required and 23.4 proposed: side; 25 ft. required, 0 ft. proposed: shoreline; 50 ft. required,
Site Location:Staff Notes:
26.9 proposed Glenwood Ave. east of Woodvale Associated with
Local actions to
project SPR 52-98. Degree of variances requested indicates need for discussion
date (if any):County Planning Board Recommendation:
None provided. Approved Terri
Ross Warren County Planning Board”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. You may remember, back when this project started, back in ’96, we
were here for a variance for the ramp on an existing building. The Center for Independent Living
is a collection of organizations that provide counseling and advisory service to people with various
handicaps and various ages. The Center for Independent Living was able to develop their building
on lands that were donated by Dr. Wiswall, and it’s sort of an unusual site, and it’s very narrow,
paralleling Glenwood Avenue, and Halfway Brook runs parallel to Glenwood, at that point. When
we did the original project, we had to go through some Army Corps of Engineer permitting.
There’s Army Corps Wetlands associated with Halfway Brook, and at the time the building project
was completed, all the land, the wetlands that were capable of being disturbed, up to an acre, at
that particular time, was taken when we did the building. So that heavy line that you see along the
overall site plan, that represents the limits of where we can develop on this site, without an Army
Corps of Engineer permit. As you can see, this long line is that line across here, and that’s
partially the reason why the playground is located on the far east side of the parking area. The
Wiswall Center, they’re trying to develop as many programs for various ages and handicaps as
they can, and what they’re trying to do now is to develop what they can on the site, to compliment
some of the programs they have inside, and many of their patients are children of various ages, and
in their plan, what they’d like to do is develop some trail systems into those wetland areas and
things, which are going to require some permits, but as a first phase, trail system being sort of a
fitness and nature trail, and as a first phase of that, they want to develop a playground, and this is
an unusual playground. Typically, in the playgrounds that you see that are handicap accessible,
you have a ramp or something that gets to the playground structure, but at that point, the children
have to leave the wheelchair if they’re bound to a wheelchair, and they can usually not do very
much. This particular playground is being designed by a women by the name of Jean Shapett, who
is from Maryland, who specializes in design of truly accessible playgrounds, and if you look at this
structure, it’s a series of wood platforms, all connected by ramps. So that children can actually
access onto this structure and go from level to level. There will be some climbing apparatus.
There’ll be some slides. There’ll be some activities that some children can’t do, but there will be a
lot of activities that they can, you know, a lot of the various tic tac toe and the dome windows and
the tubes that they talk to each other from different levels, and the intent was to develop this series
of ramps. Some of these will be decks, and some of the taller ones in this area may have a roof
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
structure on it, but where they can get down and basically have an overlook that overlooks this
section of the Brook. So, to accomplish this, without getting into the Corps of Engineer Wetlands,
this particular area of the site was all that was available. We looked at the other end of the site, in
the area called “Polly’s House”, where the small house was, we had the same problem there. All in
the back of that lower area is all still Corps wetlands, which can’t be disturbed. The other
advantage we have in this particular location is that the parking lot was sized for larger events,
when they have large board meetings or special events. So on a day to day basis, we don’t use the
entire parking area. So having the playground in this area allows a portion of this parking lot to
become a multiple use area where some low level basketball hoops or something like that could be
set up and take advantage of that pavement as a play area also. In order to accomplish what’s
proposed. Right now, when we came in with the original site plan, we didn’t anticipate any of this,
and what we had to do was collect some of the storm drainage, there was a series of culverts that
came under the road. We collected those culverts and they ended in a manhole, at this point, and
came down, and this was just graded off, as a stormwater swale that went down to Halfway Brook.
So to accomplish this structure, to build this, we have to do two things. One is to construct a
retaining wall, which will go from at grade to maybe a maximum of about four foot high, and then
at this end will taper back down. So that that area can be filled. Obviously, being fully
handicapped accessible, we need a fairly level ground plain to work with. So we have a retaining
wall that runs along this area, as well as the climbing structure. As the Staff Notes mention, we
have an unusual site, and in this particular area, we can’t meet the setbacks. We have a 50 foot
from the front and they said 75 from the Brook. I thought that had been changed to 50, but if it’s
75 it’s even worse. So, what we’re asking, obviously the deck structure is considered a structure,
the same as a house. So what we’d need to do this we need the relief from the Brook and from the
front setback, and we’ve asked for a zero along the property line, and actually that’ll be no more
than the edge of the deck, and the high platform’s two foot high. So that’ll be just a railing along
there. It’ll essentially be like a fence, and I submitted some letters from the neighbors, and this
particular neighbor, actually, the plan is wrong. It says State Bank of Albany. That was the
owner at the time when the original survey was done. It’s now Washington County ARC, and I
hope that Chris submitted the letter to you, but they recognize that to construct on that property
line, we would have to grade, or if they had to come over and paint or repair something, they may
have to come onto their property, and they didn’t have a problem with that. This is a strip of lawn
that’s just between the property line and their parking lot. So it really wouldn’t be an imposition.
With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-I applaud your presentation, because it certainly answered a lot of my questions.
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-I was just curious. In the area away from the road, adjacent to the parking
area. On your drawing, there is future phases of the site development that the park facilities can be
expanded. Could you tell me what future plans there were intended? Did you ever consider
actually putting the playground area away from the stream, away from the side lot, in that area
that’s intended for future building?
MR. MILLER-It would be a timing problem. If we were to propose that, we would have to get a
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and it’s highly unlikely, since we’ve already taken an
acre of wetland, which was allowed at the time, it would be unlikely to grant us a permit to build a
playground. The future expansion would be a trail system, which would be like a nature trail,
which would connect across the back of the site, and can possibly lead down to this stream where
there may be a platform, and see since those are nature trails, and sort of wetland related, they
would be permissible.
MR. MC NALLY-Maybe I could explain. It’s not within the dark line that you mentioned earlier,
that Corps Wetland. It’s the portion between the Corps Wetland and the parking area, which is
simply lawn. It’s my understanding it would be developable. Right here. This strip right here.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Part of the trail would be along there, as much of it as we can will be within
it. This is actually fairly steep down here, but then when this site was developed, fill had to be
brought in for that parking lot. So that’s a bank. That comes out. Actually, one of the things we
talked about is that within that bank, there may be an opportunity for an amphitheater or something
in this area, but that’s fairly steep along there. So that’s why nothing was proposed there, just
access to it would be difficult. The idea was by entering off of here, at some point, if there was a
trail, it could ramp down and then run along the back to the other side of the property.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MC NALLY-And I understood, when I went to the site, there was drainage swales smack dab
in the middle of where this playground’s going to be.
MR. MILLER-Yes. There’s a pipe that comes from here down to a point about here, and then the
swale runs from here all the way down. So what we would have to do is we would extend that pipe
to the retaining wall, and just extend it out to that point.
MR. MC NALLY-And then you’re going to build another drainage swale down to the (lost word)?
MR. MILLER-Well, we would keep the same one that’s there, just extend the pipe, and I think it
would be a 25 foot extension of the pipe. So, we would keep the swale, the lower portion.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re drawing shows this all as being fenced?
MR MILLER-Yes. Outside of the railing area, all that would be fenced, and the gates would be in
off of the parking lot, off that walk. That walk would be expanded.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of fencing is proposed?
MR. MILLER-Well, we don’t know. A lot of what the Independent Living Center does they do by
donations. So I have the feeling that when we get approvals for this, some of the things like the
wood for the structure and the paving and the drainage and the fencing, they will look for people in
the community to donate. So it may be whatever could be donated. What we had talked about was
vinyl coated chain link fence, four foot high.
MR. CUSTER-My question is, the surface in between the decking is going to be blacktop?
MR. MILLER-What we’re going to use for that, and you know, under ADA, all that surface
would have to be wheelchair accessible, and in playgrounds, it’s very difficult to do that with sand
and everything else, but there’s a product that’s a rubberized mat, it’s a rubberized matting, and
it’s placed on asphalt, and that’s what the entire surface would be. So, that the entire area would
be wheelchair accessible. The only exception to that is the areas underneath the deck structures is
going to be just gravel, where the children won’t go, and then the drainage will pitch into that. So
that’s how we’re going to accommodate the drainage. It’ll drain into that gravel, which will have a
perforated pipe that’ll daylight through the retaining wall.
MR. CUSTER-Is there any way, without much difficulty, of moving that off the side setback? I
mean, I don’t expect to hear any opposition, really. I’ve heard you say the ARC has written a
letter supporting it. I think that just makes it a bit of a hassle. Granting zero setback, that’s pretty
substantial.
MR. MILLER-Yes, but my strategy is, it’s not much more than a fence. Really, but probably not.
If you really felt that was important, the problem we’ve got, we’re fairly limited in our area. As a
matter of fact, one of my concerns is on the opposite side, I think some of the deck structure that
Jean has shown gets pretty close to the pavement and the fence. So, you know, I’m going to
suggest to her to look at this design and see if we could, you know, for safety reasons, pull back
from the fence on the other side. So we’re really kind of tight on both sides. So what we were
really looking to do is maximize, and since the neighbor didn’t have a problem, we figured we
might as well propose it.
MR. STONE-In that direction, you mentioned that most of that parking lot, at the east end, is
unused, what percent of the time?
MR. MILLER-Ninety percent.
MR. STONE-Ninety percent of the time.
MR. CUSTER-I’d say ninety-nine. I jog by there every day.
MR. STONE-So, I mean, some of that, I don’t know what the limitation, were these mandated by
the Planning Board, the number of lots, parking spaces?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MILLER-I think they were. Actually, we had to base it on like an office building, and I think
they were mandated at the time, and we may have even pleaded our case to get it reduced down.
As you know, usually the parking requirement is pretty heavy.
MR. STONE-I understand, but.
MR. CUSTER-It would be nice if you could move it in.
MR. STONE-Yes, it would be nice if you could move it a little way. That was my thought. I’m
also concerned about the closeness, I guess 26.9 feet from the right of way from Glenwood. That’s
not even 10 yards, that’s 9 yards, from the road. There’s going to be a fence, say a four foot fence,
on the north side?
MR. MILLER-Yes. There will be a fence. Then there’s a couple, there’s actually a couple of
pieces of playground equipment up in that corner. One’s a see saw, one’s a swing, and then before
this deck structure starts. What we’ve proposed to do is plant along that border of the fence.
We’ve tried to introduce some planting and maximize the separation as much as we can.
MR. THOMAS-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?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
AL BLUMBERG
MR. BLUMBERG-I’m Al Blumberg. I’m the Director of the facility development at the
Independent Living Center. The only reason I’m speaking is to answer somebody’s posed question,
can we cut back on the parking spaces. No. When we originally came to you, it was for a 9,000
square foot building. When we raised it to 11,100, I think it is now, we had to move our parking
lot to where it is now. So that’s the answer to the question.
MR. STONE-But you’ve had, how long, kind of experience have you had there now? I mean, how
long have you been open?
MR. BLUMBERG-Six months.
MR. STONE-It’s been six months, and 99% of the time there are no cars there. I mean, I’m just
saying, we can’t decide that. That’s a Planning Board function. I understand that, but I’m just
wondering if they would grant some relief?
MR. BROWN-It’s possible they could go for a site plan modification, if the parking spots aren’t
utilized. Certainly the Planning Board could.
MR. BLUMBERG-However, we haven’t met our potential. Our programs that were planned a
year ago won’t start until this fall.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you need more time, certainly.
MR. BLUMBERG-We need. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? Would
anyone like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. You’ve got that letter from, we didn’t have them in the
folder.
MR. MILLER-I dropped them off with Chris.
MRS. LAPHAM-We didn’t have them in our individual packets.
MR. THOMAS-No. We didn’t have anything.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MILLER-Well, we got them, actually, after there was, after the original application came in.
I dropped them off with Chris, but he must have sent the packets out already.
MRS. LAPHAM-Glens Falls Animal Hospital “To Whom It May Concern: I live across the
street from the Independent Living Center on Glenwood Ave. I understand that they would like to
develop a small park at the end of their property. I am in favor of this and feel it would be a nice
addition to the neighborhood. R. T. O’Connor” 68 Glenwood Avenue, “To Whom It May
Concern: We have no problem with having a handicapped equipped park across the street from
our house. We are looking forward to seeing children enjoy using it. Your truly, R. George
Wiswall, DVM Charlotte T. Wiswall” August 26, 1998, from the Warren/Washington County
ARC, “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to wholeheartedly endorse the Freedom Trail
accessible walkway, which has been proposed by the Independent Living Center. Here at
Warren/Washington ARC, our mission is to provide opportunities for people with disabilities, and
this project will culminate in a park like area which in which individuals of all abilities can enjoy
the outdoors. As the next door neighbor to the ILC, we are pleased to have such a beautiful facility
in the neighborhood, and the Freedom Trail will only enhance the property. We recognize that
occasionally people will have to come onto our property to maintain and construct. This is
certainly acceptable to us. Sincerely, Mary Connell Executive Director” Fleet Bank, August 26,
1998 “To Whom It May Concern: We understand that the Glens Falls Kiwanis Club, in
cooperation with the Wiswall Center for Independent Living and the Town of Queensbury, will be
constructing Freedom Park, a state of the art wheel chair accessible playground for disabled
children. This will be located next to our office on Glenwood Avenue in Queensbury, New York.
We feel that this park would be a welcomed addition to not only our neighborhood but to the
community of Queensbury. Jack Hills AVP” Fleet Bank is across the street from you, not next to
you.
MR. BLUMBERG-It’s across the creek. Key is across the street.
MRS. LAPHAM-I see. All right. They’re on Quaker, and you guys are on Glenwood, right
behind them.
MR. STONE-Right. The Bank is right behind the ARC.
MRS. LAPHAM-I should know better. I go there every day. I mean, I go by there every day.
MR. THOMAS-All right. That does it for the correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-No. As I said before, I had a lot, and you, your presentation answered most of them.
I had the logical questions of why there, and he did a very fine job of answering those.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-The benefit to the community and the applicant is large. It would seem to be a
playground accessible to people will disabilities is something we don’t have in the area, and
certainly I’d sympathize with any effort in that regard. I think the relief they’ve requested is
substantial. In my time, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a zero setback allowance or variance for a new
structure, where there might be feasible alternatives. I think we’ve also spent a great deal of effort
trying, generally, to protect the waterways, and I do think that asking for 51.6 feet of relief from a
75 foot shoreline setback is a lot. What’s this Freedom Trail thing? I get a sense from the letters
that there are things already planned for other aspects or portions of the undeveloped property, that
you’re thinking of applying in a piecemeal fashion?
MR. MILLER-What the applicant wishes is, you’re right. They’re looking to implement, you
know, in some of these facilities, you know, as they can get approved, and the reference to the
Freedom Trail must have come from some discussions that the applicant had with them when they
talked to them about the project and asked for a letter, and it must have focused more on the trail
than the park, and I don’t know why, but they probably, you know, the applicant must have
discussed that, at some point, they would like to have a trail that might lead down to the Brook,
which, you know, obviously, this particular neighbor would be interested in knowing about.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MC NALLY-My concern is not so much with the park, but when you tell me about an
amphitheater that might be put in to the back, and then a trail system, and I don’t know what else
you’re thinking about. If we grant relief in a piecemeal fashion, I’m not terribly fond of that, but
overall I don’t think I’ve made a decision. This particular project alone, I suppose, I may not have
too much of a problem with, but I do see this as self made, in some respect. You have grounds
where you can build this park and your trails without violating the setbacks or coming too close to
the Brook, I think, and I do think that if you took away six parking spaces, this wouldn’t be a
problem at all. That’s what I think.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I see it as a not particularly intrusive use, so I don’t have a lot of
reservation. I do agree with Bob’s suggestion, though. It would be nice if you took away the six
parking spaces, but that’s not in our jurisdiction to do. Am I right?
MR. THOMAS-No.
MRS. LAPHAM-No. I mean, we can’t do anything about that. So we either have to rule on the
playground for or against. I think the benefit to the community outweighs even the zero lot line,
and we have done a zero lot line before, for a noncharitable venture. So, if I could allow that, I
guess I could allow this.
MR. MC NALLY-The old guys did?
MR. HAYES-Yes. There was CVS, too.
MRS. LAPHAM-CVS.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I have some of the same concerns that Bob does. I would love to be able to
say, lets move it anywhere off of the property line. I mean, zero is a very strong number, and
you’ll get a lot of people in here saying, well, you gave it to somebody. Now, grant it, it’s not a
building, but it is a structure, and we recently have had much discussion about what is and what is
not a structure, and as far as we’re concerned, if you build it to use for the principal activity of the
place, or not the principal, but one of the activities, it is a building. It is a structure. Having said
that, I certainly think that anything you do in that corner will be an improvement over the trash
heap. It’s not trash. It’s C & D heap, I guess, at the moment, with all of that broken up pavement
and everything else that’s just sitting there. That would be nice to get away. I’m surprised that
nobody has complained about that yet. Maybe they have for all I know.
MR. MILLER-Dr. Wiswall had complained.
MR. STONE-Dr. Wiswall has complained. Well, I saw it today. I mean, when you get down
walking the property, you see that it’s not very attractive. I just would like to find some way, and I
don’t know what it is, and I’m not sure we’re going to take that point, but just some relief off of the
property line, so that somebody can’t come to us and say, you granted zero relief, because when
you go that far, I mean, you’ve gone about as far as you can go, as they used to say about Kansas
City, but certainly, I think it’s a good project. You certainly have tried to use the land, with all of
the constraints that you’ve had upon it, from outside influences, and we all know the Corps is very
tough. They have no emotion. They have no ties to a community. John Salvador knows very well
where the Corps comes from, but having said that, I’d just love to find a way to move it off the line
a little bit, but other than that, I think it’s a fine project.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, I too, any time that we see a zero setback, it’s eye raising, and I
probably have more respect for the Code now than when I started, and that’s certainly a
consideration that we all would have to make, but I think, in an overall sense, there’s no doubt in
my mind that it’s a beautiful facility. I have never seen a true handicapped playground, in my
lifetime, and I think it’s a wonderful thing. I don’t know of any in the area whatsoever. The
neighborhood support seems to be unanimous, including the neighbor that would be most
immediately impacted by the zero side yard setback. Even the idea that it’s going to be possible for
handicapped or wheelchair children to experience the wetlands, to me, that’s only a positive. I
mean, I view that as something we could look forward to. So, in the overall sense, I think the
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
benefit, as Bob said, is overwhelming, and it would take something egregious for me to think that
the test would be not met, when we’re balancing interests here. It would take an egregious
proposal, and I don’t think that a handicapped playground is that. So, if we can grant a zero
setback to CVS or Berkshire, I think I’m prepared to grant it for the kids as well. So, I’m in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with everything that’s been said, and I do agree that the overall
project is of outstanding benefit to the community, but I, too, sympathize with Lew and empathize
with Lew, agree with Lew that that zero feet setback really kind of bothers me a little bit. If there
was some way he could move that back just a few feet, he might be, I’m in favor of the project.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s just I have to wrestle with that setback in my head. That’s really pushing
up to the max, but other than that, I have no reservations with the project. I’d like to hear
somebody make a motion before I make my final determination.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I like the concept of this drawing. I hear the other Board members on the
zero side line setback. I agree that there should be something done to get it away from that side
line, and the only thing I can come up with is when this goes for site plan review, that the Planning
Board allow the applicant to move the whole playground to the west, by taking out two parking
spaces on the south side of the parking lot and four parking spaces on the north side, and that way
the whole area could be moved to the west probably 10, 15, maybe even the 20 feet required, but
it’s up to the Planning Board to tell them that they can get rid of six parking spaces. We can’t.
MR. BROWN-I guess just to clarify, it would be an Area Variance, if you’re going to allow them
relief from the parking requirements.
MR. THOMAS-Did they overstate the parking on this?
MR. BROWN-If, in fact, they have too many, the Planning Board may allow them to take them
off, but if they don’t have enough, and they want to take some more off, it would be an Area
Variance.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t want to get into the particulars of parking, because I know it doesn’t
affect us, but if the Planning Board could see to eliminate those six parking places, two on the
south and four on the north, and they could move that whole operation to the west, and get some
kind of setback from that side property line.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. THOMAS-Otherwise, I really don’t have a problem with the zero side line setback, seeing
that the neighbor doesn’t. I don’t know what the neighbor’s going to do over there, the
Warren/Washington ARC. I don’t know if they have any plans for that. There are those nice trees
in there. I don’t see those being cut down, so that the ARC would be building anything, that they
would ask for a zero side line setback, and as far as the front property line setback, as Mr. Miller
stated, that the closest deck is 27 feet away from the property line. That’s to the decks, 26.9, from
the front property line to the deck, right here, okay, and the fence sits two feet in back of the
property line, and there’s going to be vegetation planted?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-To shave this or shield it from the road.
MR. MILLER-Yes. There’s going to be some shrubs and perennials planted along the front, along
the fence. There’s also, in that island, there’s going to be a tree in there that provides some shade
and some more separation along the road. Plus those trees that exist on the ARC, there’s one up
close to Glenwood which gives us a little bit of separation also.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but the applicant’s asking for 23.1 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback,
and like the applicant said in the application, under Number Four, Is the amount of relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? No. The relief only applies to a play structure, not a
building. This is not going to be a building that has walls, a roof, facilities, windows and stuff like
that. This is more or less like a playground.
MR. STONE-Having said that, Chris, should the see saw be within that? I mean, that’s even, I
know it’s not a structure. God knows what a see saw is.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. THOMAS-You don’t want to go that way, really.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you say we could grant an Area Variance which would get rid of parking
spaces?
MR. BROWN-From the parking requirement, sure.
MR. THOMAS-From the parking requirement. We don’t know exactly what the parking
requirement is.
MR. BROWN-If they have an excess amount.
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve been by this many, many times, and I’ve never, ever seen this parking lot
full.
MR. THOMAS-I haven’t either.
MRS. LAPHAM-Neither have I.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, but.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re suggestion that four on the north?
MR. THOMAS-Four on the north and two on the south, on those parking spaces being nine feet
wide each. That’s 18 feet that this structure can be moved to the west, to get away from that
property line.
MR. MC NALLY-That would achieve, I think, some of the concerns we have, yet at the same time
allow them to build the structure in accordance with their plans.
MR. THOMAS-Absolutely.
MRS. LAPHAM-But wouldn’t that have to be done another night?
MR. THOMAS-That’s up to the Planning Board to tell them, yes, you can go ahead and do away
with six parking spaces.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s all I’m asking. I don’t know.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Can we grant a variance, and the Planning Board would have nothing to say?
If they come to us and ask, we’d like a variance.
MR. HAYES-You certainly can’t do it tonight.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know if you can do it tonight. It wasn’t advertised that way, but ultimately,
if they don’t meet the parking requirements, it’s a variance from the parking requirements.
MR. MC NALLY-So then they wouldn’t necessarily have to go in front of the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-It probably would as a site plan modification, but to eliminate the parking spots, it
would be a variance from the parking requirements.
MR. MC NALLY-See, that would take it away from the side.
MR. THOMAS-They would need a variance only if they were at the number of parking spots
required. If they’re over five, six, well, then they wouldn’t need a variance, because the parking
spaces would be in compliance.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-By eliminating those six parking, even though eliminating those six parking
spaces, it would still be in compliance with the Ordinance.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. BROWN-If they had an excess.
MR. THOMAS-If they have an excess.
MR. HAYES-Wouldn’t it make more sense, though, like the Director said, they probably built
what they were required to build based on the site plan?
MR. BROWN-Or less.
MR. HAYES-Or less.
MR. THOMAS-Well, I think the Director said that they really overbuild because they haven’t
reached their full potential yet
MR. HAYES-Didn’t you say, though, when you went to 11,000 square feet, though, that’s when
you ended up with those extra parking spot requirements?
MR. BLUMBERG-Yes.
MR. STONE-Craig, have we, as a Board, or Chris, as the Chairman, can we appear before the
Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. \
MR. THOMAS-I think in the resolution we can make an appeal to the Planning Board to see what
they can do about eliminating those six parking spaces. It’s a good idea, but if they can, fine. If
they can’t, I’m happy with the zero side line setback. So, you know, it’s just something that we
can put in the resolution, and have the Planning Board look at.
MR. BROWN-If they can’t, if they don’t have an excess, you can, if the applicant wants to do
that.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they’ll have to come in with another application.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. If we approve this tonight as a zero side line setback, then they don’t have
to.
MR. BROWN-I mean, you could table it pending the site plan hearing, if they take away the
parking spots.
MR. THOMAS-When’s the Planning Board meeting? Next Tuesday.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think they’re both next week. It’s Tuesday and Thursday next week.
MR. MILLER-Right after we get the approval, we were going to do some of the drainage work
and the grading work and try to get as much of the site preparation work done as we can this fall.
MR. MC NALLY-And then next spring start with the actual construction of the playground?
MR. MILLER-Construction for next spring?
MR. BLUMBERG-Yes. We’re ordering all the pieces, so they’ll be set at this end of the parking
lot that you’re trying to eliminate.
MR. MC NALLY-It would actually give you more room, in many respects.
MR. BLUMBERG-Well, it’s not a direction we want to go.
MR. MC NALLY-You feel you need all the parking spots that are there?
MR. STONE-They’d like to keep them all.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. BLUMBERG-When the programs kick in, there’ll be an influx of cars. When the park takes
place, there will be people there at nine o’clock every morning with their wheelchair children and
the rest of the family. I’ve been to five different parks now where handicap equipment is there, and
I’ve been there at nine o’clock in the morning, and I see the cars.
MR. THOMAS-When the cars arrive, do they stay?
MR. BLUMBERG-They stay for an hour or two hours.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. It’s not like the ARC buses that come in, bring them in?
MR. BLUMBERG-They’re not there for the day, no. It’s like any drive up park thing, you stay
for an hour or two hours.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. It’s just an idea, kick it around. Think about it. Because I know a couple
of the Board members said they wanted to hear what the other ones had to say, or what the
resolution was going to say. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MR. STONE-We’re obviously in favor of the project. It’s a matter of, do we want to go with.
MR. HAYES-Do you want me just to float one, and then we can vote?
MR. THOMAS-Well, we can go through with the motion, with the zero side line setback, but also
ask that the Planning Board look into the possibility of eliminating those six parking spaces, only if
the applicant feels that he can do it. Right now, they’re saying no, but.
MR. CUSTER-If you do that, he’s already said he doesn’t want to go in that direction.
MR. THOMAS-Once you give him the variance of zero side line.
MR. STONE-That’s correct, and I understand it, and I would do the same thing.
MR. THOMAS-It’s like I said. The zero side line doesn’t bother me at all.
MR. BLUMBERG-We have an expense of putting in the curbing down at that end, and a sidewalk.
What we would have to do is bit the cost of all that we’ve done before, which in a not for profit, is
not easy. I mean, you’re fundraising. You’re really twisting people’s ear to contribute to these
things, and I could see where we could possibly give up that whole side walk, and maybe move it
five feet in, without losing any of the parking lot, right in here, this sidewalk. We could possibly
move it that far.
MR. MILLER-Losing the sidewalk doesn’t help us down where we’re getting a zero lot line,
because the sidewalk is only on the upper portion of the playground. Where we’re asking for the
zero setback on the play structure is tight against the parking lot itself.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if you eliminate the sidewalk, you know, you could move the structure
five feet that way.
MR. HAYES-Do you have to have a sidewalk on the end of the parking lot for safety reasons?
MR. MILLER-I think we should, because, you know, if we do have a fair amount of traffic
coming there, with people parking to use the playground, you know how people park. They park
as close as they can. If we eliminate that sidewalk area, we lose that circulation and access space
into the playground.
MR. THOMAS-How about losing one parking spot? At least then you could move that whole
structure over nine feet.
MR. HAYES-At what point are we, can we change what site plan did?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the thing of it. We’re trying to intertwine here.
MR. MILLER-I don’t remember the specifics on the parking, and I never thought to look it up.
MR. THOMAS-Well, why doesn’t somebody float a balloon.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1998 WISWALL CENTER FOR
INDEPENDENT LIVING
, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Chris Thomas:
71 Glenwood Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a handicapped playground
structure. The relief that is required, the applicant requests 23.1 feet of relief from the 50 foot
front setback requirement, and 20 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the
HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. The applicant also requests 51.6 feet of relief from the 75 foot of
shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, 179-60, I guess as that
relates to Halfway Brook and the surrounding wetlands. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant
would be permitted to construct the handicapped playground and the structures as set forth in his
diagram. The feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives I guess would be to either eliminate
parking spots or the sidewalk or both, and shift the structures inward, but the applicant has
indicated a reluctance to do that. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think that it
is. I think a zero setback is always substantial, and that’s been mentioned by every Board
member, but I guess we have to weigh that in with the effects on the neighborhood or community,
and I think the effects on the neighborhood are overwhelming and substantial, and I think that
supersedes the high level of relief that is being requested. Is the difficulty self created? I don’t
believe that it is, based on the nature of the lot, what they’re trying to accomplish, and also the fact
that there’s been several wetland issues that have already been addressed in this parcel to do the
original construction in the first place, and that’s made for some heavy restraints on developable
square footage on the property, and therefore I would move for its approval. I would amend my
proposal to include a suggestion by this Board that the applicant, at their site plan review, consider
asking for the possibility of removing those parking spaces or the requirement thereof, in favor of
shifting the project away from a zero setback.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, based on the one parking space per every 150 square feet of
leasable, and the building square footage of 10,877, they’d require 72 parking spaces, and
according to the Site Plan, SP-1, they’ve provided 60.
MR. THOMAS-So they’re still 12 short?
MR. BROWN-They’re still 12 short currently.
MR. MILLER-I think, when we did the original calculation, we didn’t include some hallway
spaces and non leasable space, because I think the Park Ordinance refers to leasable space. So 60
is probably pretty close to what was required, by the time we eliminated non leasable area from the
building, but I don’t recollect, specifically.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Did your motion limit it, or contingent upon them building structures as
depicted in their plans?
MR. HAYES-Yes. I think I mentioned that, as they were in the diagram, and I guess I would like
to amend my proposal to include a suggestion by this Board that the applicant, at their site plan
review, consider asking for the possibility of removing those parking spaces or the requirement
thereof, in favor of shifting the project away from a zero setback.
MR. STONE-I have a question. What’s the elevation of the decks on the east property line?
MR. THOMAS-These are the foot, height.
MR. STONE-That’s feet.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Those indicate the approximate elevation, based above the pavement areas.
So, you know, the pavement is like 316. So the highest deck would be like elevation 311.
MR. THOMAS-The highest deck I see is four feet.
MR. MILLER-There’s one that’s five feet.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. HAYES-Right, and the slide’s a five.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re at 316, and 321would be the highest.
MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, that’s right, 321.
MR. STONE-Yes, but on the line, we’ve got one and two.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So they’re below the fence pretty significantly, then.
MR. STONE-Yes, and we can put the fence right on the line, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can the put fence right on the line. You can put a six foot fence.
MR. BROWN-Five foot on the side.
MR. MILLER-We’re just trying to contain the children. We really don’t have a security problem.
MR. THOMAS-But if you run a four foot fence along there, and that two foot deck, the deck’s
only going to be two feet below the bottom of the fence.
MR. MILLER-Well, where we have the deck, we won’t have, the fence will stop, and then there
will be a railing. The railing will go up the deck. So there’d only be fence where there’s not
railing.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I see it now.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-I’m just curious. These all go down from the decks? The decks are the high point?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-That could go up. It’s going from two feet to three feet.
MR. STONE-But I mean, there’s nothing on the deck. I guess I really don’t know what’s on this
deck. We never did ask.
MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t know that exactly, because this was a preliminary design. I’m
assuming that the five foot structure will probably have a roof on it, because one of the ideas is
that one of them was going to be like a tree house kind of a concept, and I would imagine what they
would probably do is put that on the taller one, but I don’t have any specific drawings that show
that.
MR. CUSTER-Jim, you said this was a preliminary design. Why can’t Mrs. Shapett redesign it to
push this darn thing three, four, five feet in? I mean, you haven’t moved off that setback. You
haven’t compromised at all. I hate to split hairs. I just really think that’s the minimum that could
be requested here of the applicant, but that’s all I’m saying. I just think we’re setting a dangerous
precedent by continuing to grant this, that’s a significant amount of relief.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is, Brian. It is a significant amount of relief, but then again, too, this isn’t
a building.
MR. STONE-No, but the layout. Obviously, she’s still working on the design. I mean, I think we
have no problem with the playground in this location. We have no problem with the size of the
location. If there is any way to get the structures. The fence we understand. Get the apparatus a
little off the line, I think it would please us a lot, but having said that, looking at the height
consideration, I can vote for it the way it is, but I would like to see it off the line a little bit.
MR. MILLER-Well, when you say you’d like to see it off the line? A foot?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-A foot is infinitely more than zero.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. CUSTER-Well, the motion’s there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, the motion’s there. All right, and we’ve talked about the motion. I’ll ask for
a second. I’ll second the motion.
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Custer
MR. THOMAS-We have a five to one, that’s one more than we need. So the variance is granted,
as is, with a zero side line setback, reluctantly.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
MR. MILLER-Sorry to put you on the spot.
MR. THOMAS-As I say, what are we going to do.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED QUAKER VILLAGE DEV.
CORP. OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF BAY &
QUAKER APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE REQUIREMENT OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET AND THE
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE:
SUBDIV. 11-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.5, 14, 16,
17, 18, 19.1, 19.2 LOT SIZE: 25.753 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-70
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LAPHAM-“Re: two lot subdivision and related area variance for Quaker Village
Development Corporation Our File No.: (64221;93157:Thomaslt.824) Gentlemen: On behalf of
Quaker Village Development Corporation I hereby submit applications for subdivision approval to
separate the Applebee’s site from the Lowe’s site at the corner of Quaker and Bay Roads. The
entire property is 24.149 acres and the Applebee’s site is approximately 1.6 acre parcel. This
subdivision request was not initially contemplated however it has been necessitated by financing
considerations. The two parcels will continue to function as one development as the result of a
reciprocal easement agreement which gives the owner of each parcel the perpetual right to utilize
the other parcel for access. The area variance is requested for relief from Section 179-70 because
the Applebee’s parcel does not contain frontage on a public street. The parcel is separated from
Quaker Road by the Niagara Mohawk power line. I do not believe that there will be any practical
effect of this subdivision as far as customers are concerned. Moreover, although this approval was
not originally contemplated, the applicant believes that there are no additional impacts with respect
to SEQR and therefore the prior SEQR environmental impact statement review should be sufficient
to encompass this subdivision. Please place this matter on your respective agendas for September.
Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-1998, Quaker Village Dev. Corp., Meeting Date:
Project Location:Description of
September 16, 1998 “ NE corner of Bay and Quaker
Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes creation of 1.6 acre parcel without frontage on a public
Relief Required:
right of way. Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement
of Section 179-70, Frontage on Public Streets which requires that; “Every principal building shall
Criteria for considering an Area
be built upon a lot with frontage on a public street….”
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant
2. Feasible
would be permitted to create a building lot with the desired configuration.
alternatives:3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Feasible alternatives are limited.
Ordinance?:
40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial,
however, were it not for the Niagara Mohawk utility parcel directly between this parcel and
4. Effects on the
Quaker Road, this parcel would have ample frontage on a public right of way.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
this action. The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
utility parcel. 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 one facade Sign Permits; 98-3213,
Staff
98-3214, 98-3215, 98-3228 SV 57-98 - res. 8/26/98 to display 6 signs - Applebees.
comments:
Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed parcel, which
is being reconfigured, appears to have an existing, filed, 50 foot right of way for ingress and
egress. This right of way, along with the access available through the Lowe’s site should
SEQR Status:
adequately address access for the site. Type Unlisted”
Local Actions to Date (if any):
MRS. LAPHAM-Warren County Planning Board. “ none
Site Location:County Planning Board Recommendation:
provided Quaker and Bay No
County Impact Terri Ross”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-The only thing I’d like to add to what’s been said is that the parcel complies, in
every other conceivable way, with Town Code. It’s just that it doesn’t have the frontage, and as I
said in the application, I don’t think that there’s any practical effect of that, since there’s the one
curb cut that was approved, that would be shared by the two parcels, and access is provided with
the bridge.
MR. STONE-Is there more than one owner? You say in your letter “which gives the owner of
each parcel”.
MR. LAPPER-There is not, there’s only one owner. This is being done for financing at this point,
but by making this application to you and the Planning Board, I just have to assume that the way
the Town’s going to review this is to consider that some day, they could sell the Applebee’s, or sell
the Lowe’s. There’s no plan to do that. They, traditionally, own all their properties. They own
everything they’ve done in Vestal and all over the Northeast, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t.
So I’ve presented it, contemplating that it could some day be owned separately, but the reciprocal
easement agreement, which is referenced in the plan that was submitted, has the filing information.
It’s already been recorded in the County Clerk’s Office. So that whoever owns the parcel, they
would always have those rights for their customers to cross the properties, the other parcels.
MR. STONE-Right now Quaker Village owns them, though.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Quaker Village is the, it was a stock purchase that when the Newman
Development Company bought it, it still had the name of Quaker Village Development Corp.,
which was the prior owner, which was a corporation that, they bought all the stock, and so the
shareholder is Newman Development Group. Even now, because that’s the shareholder of that,
ultimately, at the time of the sale, which closed in March, and then it got built. So I look at this as
a technicality that it doesn’t have the frontage, just because of that.
MR. STONE-My only comment on here is, why should I not worry, doing this?
MR. LAPPER-Because I’m asking you not to worry. I said that jokingly. The reason not to worry
is, to do it differently would be to purchase a 40 foot strip from NiMo, and to have two curb cuts,
which would not be preferable.
MR. STONE-Or not divide it.
MR. LAPPER-True, but I don’t see what benefit.
MR. STONE-Jon, I can’t see any, but I sometimes wonder, when you see little things like this,
wonder why.
MR. LAPPER-I think if you go back just a little bit to the history of the project, I think we talked
about this the last time I was here. When we had the project approved, after the Full
Environmental Review, the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of
Findings, what was approved was an envelope for a 12,000 square foot building on this lot, which
was, at that point, anticipated that would be a tire, battery and auto accessory store, and when the
lease for Applebee’s came about, relatively recently, and when that was signed, subject to site plan
modification, which was granted, the developer views this very positively, and the Town has as
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
well, that it’s a much more attractive, since this is the front of the site, it’s much more attractive
building than to have a tire place, and as a result of that, after that determined who the tenant was,
it was determined that it would be better to own it separately, to have the right to subdivide it, and
that’s why I’m here.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? Any more questions for him? If not,
I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Mr. Salvador?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Will this project be subject to site plan review?
MR. THOMAS-I do believe it will be.
MR. SALVADOR-It will be subject to site plan.
MR. STONE-It’s on the agenda.
MR. THOMAS-It’s on the agenda for next Tuesday.
MR. LAPPER-I want to just clarify that. Site Plan Review was granted by the Planning Board. It
was modified 7/28/98. It’s on the agenda next week for Subdivision approval by the Planning
Board, for Subdivision, but Mr. Salvador just asked about Site Plan approval.
MR. SALVADOR-Planning Board approval.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But the Subdivision. So we’d be back next week, but this variance is a pre-
requisite to coming before the Planning Board.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MRS. LAPHAM-No.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? No more questions. It’s pretty cut
and dry. Okay. We’ll talk about it. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, from what I can see, this is another formality, but this particular
corporation, individual, it seems like they’re back here all the time with just formalities. Is this the
last application that we’re going to here, or what?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a legitimate question, and part of that is just, the process of a project of this
size, that everything is not determined up front. When we got it approved, we had a lease for
Lowe’s, which was signed and pending the approval, but this lot, this was an outparcel which was
needed to make the whole project feasible, financially, partly because of the expense of developing
this property with the stream corridor and the wetlands. It was a big deal to engineer. I’m told that
that bridge cost $400,000 to design and install. That was something that it was not originally
contemplated that it would be such a big deal. So it was important. For one thing, the site could
afford, in terms of the zoning, no variance is required for the size density for this Applebee’s
building. The site could accommodate that. The site, in terms of a 25 acre parcel, could actually
accommodate more building, but it was always contemplated that there would be something on this
parcel, and the changes that I’ve come through recently, to talk about, to request approvals for, are
because Applebee’s came later. It would have been simpler if we’d known this up front. I don’t
anticipate that I’ll be back for anything else, but at the same time, you know, Lowe’s could decide
that they want to change something. I mean, anything’s possible. The tenants could, but I think
that we’re set.
MRS. LAPHAM-Applebee’s would most likely be happy with the Sign Ordinances, the way they
read.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. You mean missed that last month. That’s been addressed.
MRS. LAPHAM-We’ve already done that. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And it’s appreciated. The building permit, I understand, was issued this week, or
the developer told me that they expected it, that it was going to be issued yesterday or today. It’s
from Applebee’s, that they’ve submitted the application.
MR. BROWN-Maybe they’ve submitted it. I haven’t see it yet.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. That was information that I just heard today or yesterday. So I apologize
for having to come back piecemeal, but that’s just the iterative process of a development of this
size. Things change.
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. As I said, it seemed like a formality, but I just wanted to make sure we
weren’t going to be formality’d to death.
MR. THOMAS-Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, before I say something, let me ask a question. Is this statement, or is this
agreement between the two parcel owners who are both the same person, is this recorded in the
Town? I mean, do we get something like that?
MR. LAPPER-It’s recorded in the County Clerk’s Office and the recording information is on the
plan that I’ve submitted to you.
MR. STONE-It is? Okay. Fine. Having said that, I share Bonnie’s concern. That was my
question, why should I not worry, because I would like this thing, this thing certainly has gone very
rapidly, and I recognize, as you go rapidly, that things do change along the way, and I think it’s
going to be a good project, looking at it, talking about the Balloon Festival, though, some of these
guys are going to be surprised, if they try to land there tomorrow or the next day, when they go
from ACC, because they used to land there a lot, in that old field there, but having said that, I don’t
see any problem with it at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, I think that it’s a technicality. The rationale that Jon’s given of
why we’ve had multiple visits makes sense. I mean, you’re talking multi million dollar leases and
stuff. There’s going to be some details that need to be ironed out or he wouldn’t have a job.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HAYES-But I guess I don’t have any problem with this. If I looked at this as if you had
come here initially with that, based on all the considerations with the Brook, and the things that did
happen there, and the positive development of the property, I would be in favor of it anyway. So
I’m okay with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian?
MR. CUSTER-I really have no difficulties with this. The benefit it obvious to the applicant.
Feasible alternatives are encumber the property by putting in another means of egress for
$400,000. I don’t think I want to do that to them, and I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-The variance we’re asked to give is from a requirement for 40 feet of road
frontage. There are 100’s of feet of road frontage around this entire development which the
restaurant will have perfect access to. So the purpose of the Statute, the Ordinance is met. I have
no problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t have any problem with this one either. In fact, I think it was last
month we gave a variance to a lot not on road frontage, but it has a permanent easement. Was that
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
a permanent easement, or a permanent right of way across another lot to get to it. This one here is,
like Jon says, a mere technicality, just for financing, and I think everyone else has said, this is a
multi million dollar operation that they’re doing here. It’s just one of the little things that go along
with it, and as far as buying land from Niagara Mohawk, you’ve got a better chance of getting hit
with a meteor.
MR. LAPPER-This is a major transmission line, so that’s absolutely correct.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that is.
MR. LAPPER-Before you do a resolution. I would just ask that, SEQRA has to be addressed, and
just like, when we talked about the signs, because this was the subject of a Full Environmental
Impact Statement, my position that I’d ask you to adopt is that there’s nothing significant, in terms
of an environmental impact. We’re changing this to allow the subdivision, because it doesn’t
change the site development or configuration in any way. So just to adopt the reference that this
was already done, and that there’s nothing that requires a SEQRA review, because it just wouldn’t
be appropriate to treat this as if it were something by itself, and to treat it like an Unlisted Action.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MOTION THAT A SEQRA REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS DONE ON THIS PROPERTY
PRIOR
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. Would someone like to make a motion, if there are
no other questions or comments?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1998 QUAKER VILLAGE DEV.
CORP.
, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Northeast corner of Bay and Quaker in the Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes creation
of a 1.6 acre parcel without frontage on a public right of way. The relief required, the applicant
requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement of Section 179-70, Frontage on a Public
Street, which requires that “every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage on a
public street…” In this particular case, the lot is being divided for technical purposes, so that, in
time, these two pieces of property could have separate owners, and the way the development has
been made, there will be adequate access to two different highways in the Town of Queensbury,
and that there should be no problem accessing this property or exiting this property. In considering
this Area Variance, we recognize that the benefit to the applicant would be that he would be
permitted to create a building lot with the desired configuration, and that feasible alternatives to do
exactly what they want are limited. It might be construed that 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot
requirement is substantial, however were it not for the Niagara Mohawk utility parcel directly
between this parcel and Quaker Road, this parcel would have ample frontage on a public right of
way. In fact, there is a right of way from this property to Quaker Road. Minimal effects on the
neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action, and the difficulty may be attributed to the
pre-existing utility parcel, and not necessarily self created.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. STONE-I did notice something, off the record, that somebody told me that that light, you
know now where there’s two lanes, at Glenwood, that people are going straight ahead, two lanes,
on down Bay, and it comes to one. That has nothing to do with you.
MR. CUSTER-They should put a turning lane in there.
MR. STONE-They should put a, they should paint, like they always had a turn, a right turn on
Quaker.
MR. LAPPER-You mean a right turn on Glenwood?
MR. STONE-No, Quaker. There are two lanes, at Glenwood.
MR. LAPPER-But you can go across.
MR. STONE-Never could. You weren’t supposed to go across, in the right lane, across Quaker,
from Bay. There was an arrow, at one time, I think. The left lane you go straight, the right lane
you were supposed to turn.
MR. LAPPER-Lets say you want to turn into Hollywood Video. I’ve done that, where if you’re in
the middle lane, you’ve got to go quickly right.
MR. STONE-If you go into Hollywood Video, but if you keeping going and try to force yourself
in, beyond Hollywood, somebody told me they almost got whacked the other day.
MR. LAPPER-Well, part of that is that when the traffic pattern changes, because of
improvements, people have to get used to it, and that’s why the light blinks for, that’s why the
lights have to be blinking for two or three weeks before you turn them on, but maybe you’re right.
Maybe it should be restricted.
MR. STONE-That has nothing to do with you.
MR. LAPPER-Call Bill Remington, it’s a County Road, and see what he says.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Any further business before the Board? Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-You had closed the public hearing on this application, and therefore I wasn’t
permitted to speak, but I would like to remind you that there are significant environmental impacts
that differ, whether you’re talking about a tire repair shop and a restaurant, gentlemen, wastewater.
MR. THOMAS-We weren’t lead agency on the environmental impact. We don’t have anything to
do with it. It was all done through the Planning Board.
MR. LAPPER-There’s an excellent answer to that. I heard Mr. Salvador and I was going to go
approach him and tell him the answer. In the Environmental Impact Statement, we said that this
was going to be approved, that this out parcel was going to be used, and it was reviewed this way,
for any permissible use in the Highway Commercial zone, because we didn’t have a lease. There
were negotiations on going with National Tire, and we thought that that might result in a lease, and
it didn’t, but in terms of the Environmental Impact Statement, it contemplated any permissible use
in the Highway Commercial zone. So it was broad enough, so the review was broad enough.
MR. SALVADOR-Was a restaurant contemplated in the Environmental Impact?
MR. LAPPER-It is one of the potential uses within a Highway Commercial zone.
MR. SALVADOR-Was it addressed? Were the environmental impacts of a restaurant addressed?
MR. LAPPER-Well, it has public sewer. So in terms of environmental impacts, that would be the
most.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s not the only utility it needs. The other thing is, doesn’t the Subdivision
Ordinance specifically state that the parcel must front on a Town road?
MR. STONE-You’re going to argue between a State road and a Town road?
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. SALVADOR-It says Town road, and an easement doesn’t count.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why I asked for a variance.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think they understood that.
MR. LAPPER-They did.
MR. MC NALLY-(Lost word) distinction, John, between the fact that Quaker is a State road,
versus a Town road?
MR. SALVADOR-No. The access to the parcel is via an easement, not a Town road, that’s
according to the way I read the Subdivision Ordinance, as not allowed. It has to be a Town road, a
Town designated.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying that a property, a subdivision. You’re saying something on Route
9 can’t be approved by this Town because it’s not a Town road? Being a State highway?
MR. SALVADOR-I think it’s ludicrous. I don’t think it’s proper.
MR. STONE-The words are, you think any.
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Any road by use or dedicated.
MR. SALVADOR-Don’t you remember the argument on the navigable waterway?
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-John, what you’ve pointed out obviously is one of the many things, inconsistencies,
in the law, and that’s why we have lawyers who look at these things.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, Craig is still looking, but I believe it says “Town Road”.
MR. BROWN-Section 179-70, which is Frontage on Public Streets”, “Every principal building
shall be built upon a lot with frontage on a public street, improved to meet the standards of the
Town of Queensbury.” That’s not from the Subdivision Regulations. That’s from the Zoning
regulations about construction of buildings with frontage.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This fronts on an easement.
MR. STONE-That’s what we granted him. We granted that relief.
MR. CUSTER-That was the relief.
MR. STONE-Recognizing that the parcel right next to it, he fronts on the easement, and the
easement, on the other property which has the easement over NiMo property, on the one place, and
going out the other way, and he said, there are, what do you call them, reciprocal agreements.
MR. BROWN-Actually, in the Subdivision Regulations, “Each lot shall abut on a street built to
the Town’s specification”.
MR. STONE-To the Town’s specifications, or better.
MR. SALVADOR-Is the easement to the Town’s specification? 49.5 feet is the Town
specification, three rods.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why I asked for a variance.
MR. SALVADOR-Did you understand that you were granting that variance? The Highway
Superintendent should be involved in this. He’s the one that grants those kinds of, the Highway
Law that governs.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
MR. MC NALLY-It’s the Town Zoning Ordinance that governs specifications (lost words). We
granted relief, and I thought we did it properly.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-Lets do minutes, Mr. Chairman, and get out of here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Lets do minutes.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Good night, Jon.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
July 16, 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:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally
August 19, 1998: None
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST
REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 19, 1998, AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer
August 26, 1998: None
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND
REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1998, AS PRINTED
, Introduced by Chris Thomas who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer, Mrs. Lapham
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/98)
Chris Thomas, Chairman
42