1999-08-18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
LEWIS STONE
PAUL HAYES
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES MC NULTY
DANIEL STEC
MEMBERS ABSENT
BONNIE LAPHAM
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MARK W. RYAN OWNER:
HAROLD J. KIRKPATRICK ROUTE 9L, CLEVERDALE, ROCKHURST ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF A SUMMER CAMP AND A SECOND
STORY ADDITION AND REQUESTS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SEPTIC
VARIANCE FOR REVIEW CROSS REF. SPR 30-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4 AND 16-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.54
ACRES, 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79
MARK RYAN, PRESENT
MR. THOMAS-There should be a tabling motion in there.
MR. STEC-“Town of Queensbury, To: Mark W. Ryan 6 Mockingbird Court, Waterford, NY
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated
meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 Area Variance No. 51-1999
Mark W. Ryan Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 51-1999 Mark W. Ryan, Introduced by
Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the
September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information
requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may
appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The
reason for tabling this application is for the applicant to relocate the existing building somewhere else
on the property on paper and submit it to the Board, at the request of the applicant and the request
of the Board. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr.
st
Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr.
Hayes Sincerely, Chris Thomas, Chairman”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN-Yes. My name is Mark Ryan.
MR. THOMAS-You submitted another plot plan?
MR. RYAN-Right. I submitted a plot plan with Item Number Three of July 27.
th
MR. THOMAS-Hang on a second. There’s a new set of Staff Notes. I thought they were the same
as the old ones.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1999, Mark W. Ryan, Meeting Date: August 18, 1999 –
tabled June 23, July 21, 1999 “Project Location: Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes relocation of an existing camp and construction of a 518 sf second
story addition and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure.
Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Further, the applicant is requesting relief
for the expansion of a non conforming structure, per § 179-79. Relief from § 179-79, A., (1) & (2)
and E. should be considered. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to relocate and
enlarge a currently undersized seasonal camp. 2. Feasible alternatives: This proposal appears to
be an improvement over previous plans as the applicant is proposing acquisition of additional lands
in order to maintain the shoreline setback as well as the sideline setback. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The request may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects
on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created, however, any expansion of the existing structure will require some form of
relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 9-99 – res. 4/20/99 U
shaped covered dock boathouse SPR 30-99 – res. pending – second story addition Septic Variance
approved Town Board Meeting 7/19/99 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as
a result of this action. The relocation of the existing camp, acquisition of additional land and an
upgraded septic system appear to be significant improvements in the usage of this property. Are any
decks or porches to be considered at this time? SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN-My name is Mark Ryan. I submitted an updated plot plan, Item Three of July 27, 1999,
which outlines a relocation of the building and an adjustment to the property line by attaining more
property from the seller. Apparently, on that part of the road where we’re looking at more property,
it’s not 30 foot setback from the road, it’s 30-foot setback by the right-of-way line. That’s why we’re
asking for an additional 10 feet. It’s actually, the building in that point is about 40 feet from the road,
and the question of any decks or porches, just at the doorways, would be possibly a step to meet the
ground level, but no decks or porches.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re talking decks or porches on the front of the building, other than
just what you said?
MR. RYAN-Well, there’s a doorway facing the lake, and there’d be a step.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you’d just have to step down
MR. RYAN-Right, and then there’s a doorway on each end of the building, north and south, and
there’d be a step there also, but no porch.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. What we consider a deck is.
MR. RYAN-Is that anything over six inches in height, or?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think there’s a standard for what’s considered a deck or a porch.
MR. RYAN-But no deck or porch.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly want to applaud the applicant. I think he listened, and we appreciate
that. I appreciate that. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, but I certainly think it’s a much better
project. I’m still concerned about what appears to be a third floor, and I’d like to talk about that a
little bit. I’m also curious, that utility pole that’s on the property, does that come into play here?
MR. RYAN-There’s a guideline wire that shows on the plan that goes to where the foundation would
be, and I called the Syracuse office of Planning for Niagara Mohawk, and they’re going to move the
guideline, and possibly move the pole, because they actually have two issues. It doesn’t show on the
north side of this, but there’s a commercial marina. Their wires go to the western side of the road
and the phone company’s wires stay on the eastern side of the road, and they sag to about 12 feet
above the ground, because the distance is such a far distance, and they’ve had quite a few issues with
guideline, or these guide wires, because there’s a whole bunch of them in the ground with nothing
attached to them because they’ve pulled out over the years. So they’re going to relocate the pole out
of an additional pole somewhere either on the east or west side of the road toward the northern
property line, and address the whole situation.
MR. STONE-How about the trees, are you going to try and keep most of them?
MR. RYAN-Well, unfortunately, there’s a tree right about where Number Two is in the circle in the
building there. That tree has to go.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STONE-Obviously.
MR. RYAN-All the other trees, they’re actually, unfortunately quite diseased and rotted, but we had
no plans of taking any trees out at all.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. HAYES-What about that third floor?
MR. RYAN-Well, on the plan submitted to you, the designer, Williams, thought that adding an
opening from the second story up, with the windows north and I guess the front and rear, would
make the small rooms and the small size of the building look much larger, and the plan should show
that there is going to be a ceiling over the second story bathroom, but no stairs or no floor. It’ll be
open to the upper windows then.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the ceiling height there, in the third floor, it slopes, but (lost word)?
MR. RYAN-Well, there’s no third floor. It’s open to the second.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s open to the second floor?
MR. RYAN-Right.
MR. STONE-That window just goes into whatever we call those ceilings?
MR. MC NALLY-Cathedral.
MR. RYAN-Right. He thought if we just made a box with a peak on it, being so small, it would
actually look funny from the outside also, and we kind of agreed with him.
MR. STONE-So the 28-foot height extends across the whole length of the building?
MR. RYAN-Right, maximum height. He said maximum because he wanted to show that it’s not
going to go higher than that.
MR. THOMAS-But it could go lower?
MR. RYAN-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Twenty-eight feet is the maximum.
MR. RYAN-Right.
MR. THOMAS-Are you satisfied with the explanation of the second/third floor?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. It’s just going to be a ceiling over the bathroom that’s on the second floor,
and that’s it.
MR. STONE-I saw that, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So the only relief they’re requesting is from the road frontage?
MR. THOMAS-The front setback, that’s from the road.
MR. RYAN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-If I look at this diagram, the northwest corner of your proposed building is exactly
30 feet from the edge of the pavement, approximately?
MR. RYAN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re saying the right-of-way is closer to that corner.
MR. RYAN-Only on the new section, south of the property line.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. MC NALLY-So in other words, you’re purchasing that new addition to your property?
MR. RYAN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And the right-of-way is different?
MR. RYAN-Yes. When we first did the drawing, we were excited that we made it 30 feet all the way,
and then Craig caught that there’s a line there, at 16.30 feet, that line that comes down. That
apparently is a right-of-way of sorts, only in that section on both sides of the road. See, at one point
we think the Town road ended there, and then north of that there was no Town road.
MR. STONE-This is more than three rods wide, then.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think if you measure perpendicular it’s three rods. Those measurements are at
an angle. If you measure straight across.
MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, you’re right. Okay. So it’s three rods we’re talking about.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. I
believe I left it open anyway. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? In
favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any new?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes, one. It looks like it’s a record of telephone conversation, dated August 18, 1999,
approximately 1:10 p.m. to 1:40 p.m. between Dr. Russo, J. George Russo, and Craig Brown, subject:
Mark Ryan; Dr. Kirkpatrick “Dr. Russo is a property owner two properties east of Kirkpatrick. Why
would Zoning Board of Appeals consider this application for Kirkpatrick when he apparently has no
regard for authority, i.e. Lake George Park Commission Septic concerns: Does septic variance take
into account the proposed floor plan and bedroom count? Dr. Russo would like to see the existing
regulations be maintained. Dr. Russo feels that before Dr. Kirkpatrick be given any relief, the entire
property holdings be evaluated and Dr. Kirkpatrick should move toward compliance with the Lake
George Park Commission requirements for the marina”, and there’s a telephone number, and that
was the gist of the conversation.
MR. THOMAS-All right. The septic’s all taken care of, isn’t it, by the Town Board?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-So there’s no problem there.
MR. BROWN-Not unless this repositioning of the house makes a significant change on the septic
system, and I don’t think it does.
MR. RYAN-No. There’s a new plan being submitted for the site plan review that shows where the
tanks are in relationship, and they meet all.
MR. STONE-The tanks are on the west side of Rockhurst?
MR. RYAN-No. There’s a tank probably right about where it says, 20 foot side setback, it would just
be west of the building, and there’s a tank about, just north of the telephone pole, and the new tank
is going to be probably about where the two pine trees are in front of that. It’ll be 47 feet from the
corner of the lake and so on. The tank on the plan was eight feet from the corner of the building,
and they’re just going to rotate the tank to make it the 10 feet, and that’s going to be on the site plan
review, the new.
MR. STONE-And these are holding tanks, and the Town Board has made you say it was a seasonal,
no heat?
MR. RYAN-That’s correct. There’s a deed something that’s got to be submitted to say that there’ll
be no permanent heat system with holding tanks, no new permanent heat system.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there an old permanent heat system?
MR. RYAN-Yes. There’s a 50,000 BTU gas stove in there, with the heater in it.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s not going to be part of the new construction?
MR. RYAN-No, because we’re going with central air.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STONE-What happens, we’ve had a recent experience. What happens if they go to move this
and it breaks in two, or breaks apart? We had one over in Takundewide.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you going to start it fresh?
MR. STONE-He’s going to move it.
MR. RYAN-We're going to move it.
MR. STONE-And build on top of that. I’m only wondering, because we did have one recently, and
it’s like, there’s a whole new house there now, which we didn’t really get to address.
MR. RYAN-Well, it was dragged across from the road to its location, and the builder and the
designer looked underneath the building, if they had to shore it up for the second story already, and
they said the condition of it was just fine. So what happens, I don’t know.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re going to have to get approval for your new septic plans, and that’s to the
Town Board.
MR. RYAN-It hasn’t changed any, just a rotation of the tank. It’s still the same spot.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not a significant change. He still has his approvals.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-And it was approved for the upstairs bathroom.
MR. RYAN-That’s correct. Well, I guess it goes by bedrooms.
MR. STONE-Bedrooms, I’m sorry, bedrooms.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it again.
Jaime, I’ll start with you tonight.
MR. HAYES-Well, it appears to me that, like Lew mentioned earlier, we asked the applicant to make
some changes to lower the impact on the neighborhood and of course the lake, and it appears like
that's been accomplished, in my mind. I also have my degree of concern of setbacks versus the road
and the right-of-way for the road are two different things. They’re the same, but they’re not entirely
the same, and I think that, in this case, it’s a small amount of relief, considering that fact, and stacking
that up against the benefit to the applicant of being able to put this camp and improve it and use it, I
think, on balance, the test passes, and I think I’m okay with this cumulatively, especially based on the
efforts that have been made.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I was impressed how close this existing property is to the lake, 10 to 15 feet right
on a corner. Moving it back would be an improvement to the property, and certainly modernizing
what is, don’t get me wrong, but a dumpy camp, would be an improvement.
MR. RYAN-It is.
MR. MC NALLY-Overall, I think that, like Jaime suggested, the amount of relief that Mr. Ryan’s
asking for, in my opinion, is insignificant, given the fact that while the paved surface of the road may
be 46 feet from his house, proposed home, the setback is more than ample in this area. I don’t see
any effect on the Rockhurst area at all, particularly with the marina so darn close. So I’d be in favor
of it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I've got to agree that the setback is minor. It’s just a difference in rules. If the
rules weren’t different on those two pieces of the road, he would be in compliance. So I have no
problem with the setback, and as the other members mentioned, it’s an improvement over what’s
there, I believe. It would be nicer if the new building was smaller, but you’ve got to have enough
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
room to use it. So, all in balance, I think the improvements that he’s making balances any detriment
of the building being larger, and I’d be inclined to approve.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. It’s always encouraging to see an applicant
willing to work with the Board to try to improve the application. Clearly, the benefits are obvious,
but I think that the relief is minor, and I’d rather give relief from the road than relief from the
shoreline, which is more often the case. I don’t think there’ll be a significant impact on the
community. I think it’ll improve the lakefront, and I think that, as far as feasible alternatives go, this
is the best option, and it is an overall improvement. So I’m definitely in favor.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-I think this has become a project that I can go along with. Again, I applaud the
applicant for looking, listening to us and making these changes. I also think that in granting this
variance, we are going to address some of the problems mentioned in the letter of Dr. Russo. While,
technically, you don’t own the property yet until you get the variance, it really isn’t Dr. Kirkpatrick. I
mean, if you don’t get this, you don’t buy it, and the property is going to stay in the condition that it
is now, which obviously Dr. Russo doesn’t like. So this is going to be a big improvement. I think it’s
going to make this piece of property, which is really at the entrance to Rockhurst, a nice looking
piece of property, and again, I applaud the applicant and I have no problem in supporting this.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This looks like a good project.
I’m glad the applicant worked with us on this, and took the building and moved it back from the
lake, from where it was. I think this will be an improvement to the area. It’ll make that old building
look new, especially going on to Rockhurst, because that’s really the first thing you see when you go
on from Rockhurst is that building right there and the marina. So I would have no problem
whatsoever approving this. Having said that, I will ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 MARK W. RYAN, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes relocation of an existing camp and construction of a 518
square foot second story addition, and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Specifically, the applicant requests approximately 10 foot of relief from
the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. This request is
necessary because at one portion of the property, the right-of-way of Rockhurst Road is considerably
different than the right-of-way of the road immediately adjacent to the north, and therefore the
structure will not meet that 30 foot setback. Further, the applicant is requesting relief for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-79, specifically 179-79(A)(1) and A(2), and
E, all of which talk about nonconforming property where more than a 50% expansion is required. In
approving this variance, we recognize that the applicant will be permitted to relocate and enlarge a
currently undersized seasonal camp, one which is only 10 feet from the lake, when 50 foot is the
minimum and the new structure will, in fact, be 50 feet from the lake. In granting this variance, we
also note that feasible alternatives have been considered, compared to the original submission, and
the applicant has actually acquired additional land to bring the structure into better compliance. The
relief is only moderate relative to the Ordinance, and the effects on the neighborhood or community
will be moderate, particularly on the positive side more than on the negative side, in that they will be
an improvement to this piece of property, which currently exists, and while this difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created, obviously any expansion of this particular structure, any change in this
structure would require some form of relief. Therefore, I move that we grant Area Variance No. 51-
1999.
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-There you go. Thank you very much for working with us.
MR. RYAN-Thank you.
MR. STONE-We appreciate it.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1999 TYPE II WR-3A JOHN N. BOOMER OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE WOODS POINT LANE, OFF LOCKHART LOOP APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT ABOVE MACADAM DRIVEWAY AND REQUESTS
RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR A
SECOND GARAGE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.72 ACRES SECTION 179-16,
179-7
JOHN BOOMER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1999, John N. Boomer, Meeting Date: August 18, 1999
“Woods Point Lane, off Lockhart Loop Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 240 sf freestanding carport and seeks setback relief and relief for a second garage.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement of both the WR-1A zone § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-
60. Also, since the proposed structure is intended for vehicle storage, relief for a second garage is
requested per 179-7, Garage, private parking. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct and utilize an additional vehicle storage structure, closer to the residence. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include addition to the existing garage and
relocation to an area which complies with the shoreline setback requirements. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 75-foot requirement may be
interpreted as minimal. A second vehicle storage structure may be interpreted as a moderate request
for relief, however, the proposed total garage square footage would be 912 which would be a
minimal request. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): AV 141-89 res. 12/20/89 revised submission 16 x 16 addition denied AV 130-89 res.
11/15/89 16 x 16 addition denied SP 6-89 res. 2/21/89 16 x 16 addition unheard/variance
denied Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action.
The proposed carport is behind the existing structure and the total square footage proposed for
vehicle storage is 912 sf versus the allowable 900 sf. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Has Warren County Planning got something to say? I know it says No
County Impact.
MR. BROWN-That’s all they sent this month.
MR. THOMAS-Just that? All right. Mr. Boomer?
MR. BOOMER-I’m John Boomer. This is William Forbes.
MR. THOMAS-Would you like to tell us about this? Is there anything else you want to say about it
that you didn’t put in your application?
MR. BOOMER-Well, I’d just reiterate some of the things in there. The garage I have now was there
when I bought the property, or I may have situated it in a different location. Those of you that have
been out to my property know that the garage is some distance from my house, and it’s about 100
paces, maybe a little shy of 100 yards. About half of that distance is on a hill that has an incline, I
would guess about 20 degrees, but it’s quite treacherous to walk down in the winter. We would like
to be able to drive down and leave the car right there beside the house. We tried to tuck this in
behind the house, so that you can’t see it from the lake. You will be able to see it, just a portion of it
if you look carefully. You can’t see it at all from the road. Now to demonstrate how far my garage is
from my cottage, this past Saturday, my wife and I came back from dinner at about nine o’clock,
nine-thirty, and there was a car parked in front of the garage. A visitor at an adjoining cottage
thought that that garage went with his host’s cottage. That’s how far the garage is up the hill. I think
that’s about all. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions of the applicant?
MR. BOOMER-There is one other thing I should mention. I did look into one alternative, and that
was one of these vinyl/canvas type storage areas and garages, with a metal framework, and they were
very inexpensive. A guy could put it up very quickly. I think it classifies as a temporary structure,
but I didn’t like the appearance of it. I want to have something that matches the house and
compliments the neighborhood and the house, versus something that’s not very attractive.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STONE-What was the Area Variance that you sought in ’89? That was your property?
MR. BOOMER-Where we have an outside deck, we wanted to put a dining room, because we did
not have a dining room in the house, and we ended up replacing the deck. The deck collapsed.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s on the side closest to the lake.
MR. BOOMER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-How high is this structure?
MR. FORBES-The proposed structure?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. FORBES-It would be about 12 and a half foot.
MR. STONE--And these are wooden posts?
MR. FORBES-Yes. They would be six by six’s.
MR. THOMAS-What’s the material on the roof?
MR. FORBES-That would be asphalt shingles.
MR. THOMAS-Asphalt.
MR. BOOMER-Matching the roof on the house.
MR. MC NALLY-There’s no connection to the house?
MR. BOOMER-No connection to the house.
MR. FORBES-There would be a space of about 11 foot 6 inches between the house and the carport.
MR. STONE-It would be approximately where that asphalt pad is?
MR. BOOMER-Yes, that’s right.
MR. THOMAS-Is there an entrance on that side of the house?
MR. BOOMER-There’s an entrance, where it says existing house, that’s where the entrance is.
There’s a ramp there that goes up to the deck. Off the deck there’s sliding glass doors into the
kitchen.
MR. STONE-This is the front of the carport. The sliding doors are parallel to, as I recall when you
cam out the other day.
MR. BOOMER-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-You don’t intend on putting a connecting roof from this carport to the house, do
you?
MR. BOOMER-No, we don’t. We have a Japanese Maple and some Pachysandra there that we’d
like to maintain.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? 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? Correspondence?
MR. STEC-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-The only thing we were asked about was that corner which is 68 feet from the
shoreline. Is that it?
MR. STONE-And the second garage.
MR. MC NALLY-And the second garage.
MR. THOMAS-Well, if there’s no more questions, lets talk about it. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s tucked away behind the house. So the concern I would normally have
with any addition, whether it was a dining room or a deck or anything else closer to the lake would be
that it would be visible and that it would detract from the lake, and that it would be within the
setback, which would not be appropriate, but since this is behind the house and very little visible, I
don’t have a problem with the setback relief at all, and in large part, I understand we’ve got a 912
square foot total garage area if this thing goes up. Did you guys measure the other garage?
MR. BOOMER-That’s the other garage.
MR. BROWN-I think I took that dimension off the previous survey.
MR. STONE-This is 240, approximately.
MR. BOOMER-Yes, this is 240. The addition would be 912.
MR. MC NALLY-I've got 912 overall, but how large is that second two-car garage?
MR. BROWN-Six seventy-two.
MR. BOOMER-That’s right, 672 plus the 240. That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-So they have a two-car garage up at the top of the hill. You’re allowed a three-car
garage under the zoning code, a maximum of 900 square feet. This is 12 feet above that. So I don’t
have a problem with it. I don’t think it would have any significant impact on the neighborhood at all.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’d have to agree with Bob, that, compared with what’s allowed if there were all in
one garage, it’s almost the same thing. Minimal relief on the shoreline setback and it’s behind the
house. I think you’re going to have to work to see it from wherever you are. So I have no problem.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. The fact that we’re talking about seven feet of
relief from 75, and that’s minimal. It’s tucked behind the house, and the concern, really, is the
aesthetic impact as seen from the lake, and that’s totally mitigated. I don’t have a problem with the
second garage either because the total square foot of the two is only 12 feet greater than what a single
garage would be allowed. So I don’t see any downsides to it. I think that the location of the original
garage is quite a distance from the house. So I think that this is, as far as feasible alternatives go,
they’re limited, and I don’t see an impact on the community. So I’m in favor.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I was so impressed with the project that I almost broke my own rule. I almost
told Mr. Boomer I didn’t have a problem with it. I try not to do that when I talk to applicants if I see
them when I’m looking at property. I think it’s a good project. As someone who is very concerned
about the lake, I think the way it’s tucked in behind the house, coupled with the fact that, yes, it’s
three acre zoning in this particular point, which makes it 75 foot back from the lake, I don’t think
you’re going to see it from the lake, unless you deliberately park your boat there, stop, and maybe if
you could get a boat out in February, you might see it. I think it’s a good project. I certainly
recognize the Boomer’s need to drive the car down. As long as they don’t drive it down like Mr.
Boomer told me they did a few years ago, when it went into the lake. Having said that, I think it’s a
good project and I would vote for it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, while the actual placement of this garage does put it within the shoreline setback,
it’s actually further away from the lake than the house itself. It is properly tucked back in behind this
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
house so the visual impact is very minor. I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think Mr.
Boomer pointed out, and I think it’s a totally legitimate problem, that that’s a tough hill, when you
get right down to it, and when I visited the property myself today, I actually parked in front of the
Dale Earndhart sign because I didn’t know that was your garage either. I mean, you wouldn’t know
it if you didn’t know. So I think it’s a legitimate problem, and I think this is a good solution to a
legitimate problem, and I think the relief is very minor, all considered. So I think, on balance, it falls
in favor of the applicant.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other members of the Board. I think it’s a good project to
do. It’s the right place to do it, and I like what Bob said about the garage ordinance, where the
ordinance says that the maximum garage space is 900 square feet and three slips, and this is just 12
feet over that, and three bays. So I don’t have a problem with this, either. Would someone like to
make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1999 JOHN N. BOOMER,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec:
Woods Point Lane, off Lockhart Loop. The applicant proposes the construction of a 240 square
foot freestanding carport and seeks setback relief and relief for a second garage. Specifically, Mr.
Boomer requests seven feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of
both the WR-1A zone, which is Section 179-16, and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, Section
179-60, and because the proposed structure is intended for automobile storage, Mr. Boomer requests
relief for a second garage per Section 179-7, which limits garages to a single structure for private
residential parking. The benefit to the applicant would certainly be that he would be permitted to
construct and utilize an additional vehicle storage structure closer to his home. The lot configuration
is such that it is on a steep hill, and the existing garage a good distance away, approximately 100 paces
Mr. Boomer said himself from the residence, and in the winter time, and even during the summer
time, it’s very difficult to get up and down that hill, certainly if you were carrying any packages.
Feasible alternatives would include addition to the existing garage, but that would not relieve the
Boomers’ problem with respect to the distance and the slope of the hill, and it could be relocated to
an area that complies with the shoreline setback requirements, but in all honesty, I don’t see that as
feasible, given the fact that this structure is tucked behind the existing structure, which itself is closer
to the lake, and if this is the way the applicant wishes to place his carport, so be it. The relief is not
substantial relative to the Ordinance. The lot is large enough to fit two garage structures such as this,
and seven feet of relief from the 75 foot setback requirement is minimal, in my opinion. Also, since
the second vehicle storage structure is such that the combined two garages would be 912 square feet,
the relief requested is only 12 feet above the existing allowable maximum, and therefore the request
is, in my opinion, minimal. The effects on the neighborhood are also going to be minimal. The
properties are pretty much spread out in that location, and I noted that there would be very little
visual impact from the lake. The difficulty is not self-created. Mr. Boomer purchased this property
with a garage in the position where it is. He’s just trying to correct that problem. For these reasons,
I move the approval of the variance.
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your garage.
MR. BOOMER-Thank you.
MR. FORBES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1999 TYPE II SR-20 ROBERT C. STONE OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE 81 PEACHTREE LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A STOCKADE
FENCE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FENCE ORDINANCE. TAX MAP NO. 121-
15-46 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-79
ROBERT STONE, PRESENT; MARSHALL STONE, REPRESENTING APP. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-1999, Robert C. Stone, Meeting Date: August 18, 1999
“Project Location: 81 Peachtree Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a stockade fence and seeks relief from the fence ordinance. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 32.8 foot setback requirement as well as relief for a
stockade fence in the front yard and a fence in excess of 5 feet tall, per the Fence Ordinance, § 179-
74. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1.
Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing fence as well as
accessibility and privacy around the pool. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may
include the relocation of the fence to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance?: 6 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-235
issued 5/21/99 in ground pool BP99-243 issued 5/21/99 deck Staff comments: Moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While this fence is not located in the
architectural front yard, it is none the less in a front yard. Fences in this “other” front yard are
allowed up to a maximum of 5 feet tall and no stockade fences are allowed. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right, and Warren County didn’t even look at it.
MR. STEC-No.
MR. STONE-Let me say for the record that neither of the Stones are related to me. I just want to
make sure that’s on the record, that’s all.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Stone or Mr. Stone?
MR. M. STONE-I’m Marshall Stone, and my son Robert over here.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you want to say, add, talk about?
MR. M. STONE-Not a thing.
MR. THOMAS-Not a thing. Okay.
MR. M. STONE-We have talked to the neighbors, though, and the neighbors seem to be approving
of this fence that we had put up.
MR. STONE-When you got the building permit, were you told anything about fencing?
MR. M. STONE-We're both green when it comes to any of this. I have my own house, but it was
already built. My son’s house is a new construction.
MR. STONE-Who’s the resident of the house? You’re the resident? Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-What you were asking is how come you built a fence without a permit like that.
You say you didn’t understand what the Code required.
MR. M. STONE-True.
MR. R. STONE-It was further out, closer to the road.
MR. STONE-For the record, I’m told you don’t need a building permit for a fence. Is that correct,
Craig?
MR. BROWN-That’s right.
MR. STONE-That’s one of the things that he’s got in his margin on his book, that has to be fixed,
Mr. Stec.
MR. MC NALLY-I was curious who owned the fences across the street, to tell you the truth.
MR. STONE-You mean the apartment building?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, that’s where I stopped first, when I went around that corner, and I said, what
the heck’s going on here? How long has that been there, do you know?
MR. HAYES-A long time.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. MC NALLY-A long time. Does it pre-date the Code?
MR. BROWN-Probably.
MR. HAYES-I think so.
MR. THOMAS-Any other questions?
MR. STONE-How big is the shed next to the pool?
MR. R. STONE-John O’Brien was over and measured it and everything. He said it was fine.
MR. STONE-It was fine. Okay. I couldn’t tell from where I looked. I just saw, it looked, I know
it’s very close to the line, close to the fence anyway.
MR. R. STONE-There’s a common ground on the other side of the fence, I guess.
MR. STONE-There is common ground? Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Where’s your septic system located?
MR. R. STONE-To the back right.
MR. THOMAS-Out the back, to the right of the pool? Is that why you put the pool where it is?
MR. R. STONE-Yes. I couldn’t go back any farther.
MR. STONE-It has to be behind the house anyway.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, but this is a corner lot. Wouldn’t a variance be required for a pool
installed where it is? Because of the two front yard rule?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think the pool goes past the Fawn Lane side of the house.
MR. THOMAS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes, it looks to be the way it’s drawn in here, right on that line.
MR. MC NALLY-I drew a line, just looking at it. It goes across the concrete deck at the end of the
pool, the edge of the house.
MR. STONE-What do we consider the pool?
MR. BROWN-Water’s edge, in-ground pool. There’s actually some photographs in the file that Mr.
Stone submitted. I don’t know if anybody’s had a chance to see them.
MR. STEC-They’re kind of stapled to this. I can pass them along.
MR. BROWN-Just pass them along.
MR. STONE-The back fence is on the property line? Okay.
MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant, while others are reviewing the
photos?
MR. STONE-Again, I’ll say it. We don’t like to see things that are constructed that require a
variance, and this requires at least two different variances, one for the height of the fence, obviously,
and one for its position, and the fact that it’s a stockade fence. So, three, I’m sorry. It is something
that we don’t look kindly upon, which doesn’t mean that we don’t allow variances when those
happen, because we do quite often use a test, would we have allowed it. In this case, we’ll get to that
when we start talking about it, but it’s always disturbing when someone builds and doesn’t ask all the
questions.
MR. MC NALLY-So we’re talking about, is that a front yard, then?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And the maximum height in the front yard has got to be?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-Five feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And no stockade fencing is allowed in any front yard. Okay, and this fence is six
feet tall, as I recall. I sat right next to it. I’m just trying to check what my own thoughts were.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant? 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? Is there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. Sherman Pines Homeowners Association, Inc., to Bonnie Lapham, Secretary,
Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Robert C. Stone, 81 Peachtree Lane “Your notice of the public
hearing scheduled for Wednesday, August 18, 1999 and reference above has been sent to the five
owner elected association board of directors and in the expectation that one of the five could attend
the hearing. All owners of homes in the Sherman Pines subdivision are subject to the Sherman Pines
Homeowners Association declaration and all amendments thereto which are on file in the Office of
the Warren County Clerk, the by-laws, and the Association rules and regulations. For the Zoning
Board’s information, also to be considered in making a determination in this matter, enclosed
herewith is amendment number one to the declaration filed in the Office of the Warren County
Clerk on February 18, 1997, in 1011 of Deeds at Page 271. The purpose of this amendment was to
set parameters regarding fencing, swimming pools and storage sheds, and was prepared based on
information received from the Town of Queensbury Building Department, and orders to notify the
Board of no less than five working days prior to installation of which Robert Stone did not do. If
there is any additional information the Zoning Board may require, give me a call or send me a fax.
Sherman Pines Homeowners Association Ruth B. DeRue, Managing Agent” A record of telephone
conversation dated August 17, 1999, time 9:40 a.m. between Debbie Jenkins, 78 Peachtree Lane, and
Sue Hemingway, Zoning Staff, Subject: Area Variance No. 72-1999 Robert C. Stone “Lives across
street from Robert Stone and has no objection to fence variance request. Looks nice.” And a record
of telephone conversation dated August 16, 1999, 3:25 p.m., between Brian Scirada, 61 Peachtree
Lane, and Sue Hemingway, Zoning Office Staff, Subject: Robert Stone Area Variance No. 72-1999
“Has no objection to request for variance.” And that’s it.
MR. THOMAS-That does it?
MR. STEC-Yes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-As far as any homeowners association rules, regulations, by-laws or whatever, we
can’t enforce them, nor will we ever try to enforce them. The only thing we can enforce is what it
says here in the Town laws. So, if you’ve got a problem with the Homeowners Association, we can’t
do anything for you. Okay. The only thing we can deal with is the height and setback of the fence.
So, having said that, are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it, then.
Chuck, you’re up first.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I have trouble reconciling some of this, but even though, theoretically
stockade fences are not permitted in a front yard, this fence looked nice and neat to me, and I can’t
really conceive of another style fence that would improve the appearance. I think the same applies to
the height, that taking a foot off that fence I’m not sure is going to approve the appearance very
much, and I can see why it jogs out where it is, given where the pool is situated behind the house.
So, even though this requests a variance from three different items, I guess I’m inclined to approve it
because I can’t see that alternatives are going to greatly improve the appearance.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I’m inclined to agree with Chuck. I am bothered by the frequency of after the fact
variances. However, for starters, I don’t have a problem with allowing a stockade fence, is the fence
type there, and I don’t have a tremendous problem with granting six feet of relief, and given those
two, while I’m tempted to says, lets stick to the five feet, I don’t see where the 12 inches, at this
point. However, again, we often go by, what would we have done if it hadn’t been built, and I think
if it hadn’t been built, I would have had no problem granting the relief for the setback. I would have
had no problem granting the type, but I would have said, hey, that wall, lets make that five feet, in
accordance with. So if there is one thing that I have a problem with, it would be, I’d prefer to have it
five feet high. So now we get into the question, are we going to reward the after the fact variance
request. Like I said, the one foot, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. I’ll listen to the rest of the Board, but
I could be inclined to let it go as it stands. Certainly, we’ve heard things that are, the applicant built
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
before that are harder to change. I don’t think this would be that hard to change, but, you know,
with the effort, would the foot make that much of a difference? I don’t know, but I’m leaning in
favor of Chuck, and allow it to go.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, there are three points to consider here, and if we use the test that Mr. Stec just
talked about, what would we have done if, the only one that is particular to your piece of property is
the setback relief, and I agree that we probably would have granted that, given the size of the front
yard, the size of the piece of property. That’s unique to your property, in a sense. The other two are
universal as far as the Town of Queensbury is concerned. We have a Code. It says no, I repeat NO,
stockade fences in any front yard. The Town Code calls a corner lot is a lot with two front yards.
That’s very clear. Secondly, it says no fences over five foot high in a front yard. Both of these apply
to every homeowner, no, I shouldn’t say every homeowner, but every homeowner in Queensbury
who resides on a corner lot, and there are lots of those. I don’t think, if you had come to me for a
variance, that I would have granted that, because I think there are possible alternatives, and having
said that, I certainly can grant the relief required from the setback, but I could not approve the other
two.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think like the other Board members, I think the six feet of dimensional relief of
the fence is from a front setback, I don’t think I have any problem with that at all. That seems
natural based on the placement of the pool, which had to do quite a bit with the septic system. The
pool is in the back yard, and in that area, we’ve had requests for pools in side yards and turned them
down, and pools belong in back yards, quite frankly. I guess, looking to have the test fall in favor of
the applicant, in my mind, versus the Code and stuff like that, I would like to see the applicant step
forward and off to either, One, knock it, every other tine out of the fence and make it a non stockade
fence, or lower it to the five feet, and in that way, I think that the visual impact on the neighborhood
and the amount of relief that’s being requested would be so minor that I don’t think I’d have any
problem with it either. So I could be happy with either one, as a compromise, and also as a reduction
in the amount of relief that you’re requesting. So, if either one of those things could be offered up
by the applicant, I could vote for the variance, in good conscience.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Lew, that the setback from the road is an insignificant amount, and
had the applicant been in front of us before they put up the fence, I would have approved it, but I
also agree that six feet is a significant amount over what is otherwise permissible, as is the existence
of a stockade fence in a front yard, and I don’t know how many times we’ve had people, sometimes
after the fact, come in with stockade fences at six feet in their front yards, and we’ve told them to
take them down, or we’ve told them to take every other slat out, or we’ve told them to take a
chainsaw and cut off the two feet or one foot that they put on top. So I’m in favor of approving
only a portion of this variance, as it sits now, without hearing from this applicant a little bit more.
The other thing I was just curious about that, if it takes, if they take down one foot, all right, if they
take every other slat out, is that going to be a betterment, or is it going to worsen the condition? You
live in your back yard. You’ve got more toys in your back yard than I think anyone ever I've seen,
and you’ve done a good job landscaping it. Don’t get me wrong. You spend a lot of time out there.
Your lawn itself looks great, and you’ve got a lot of activities, I’d live in the pool, too. Is it going to
look better, or is it going to look worse?
MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s really not the question here. The question is stockade fence or no
stockade fence.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, we have to balance the effect on the neighborhood, though. If everyone’s
walking by, and they’ve got, you know, a swimming pool and sheds and slides and.
MR. STONE-Many people have open fences for their pool area.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s true.
MR. STONE-That’s a more common fence, actually.
MR. MC NALLY-But this is the concern I have. I just wanted to know where your thoughts were.
Like I said, I would have approved the setback. I would not approve the height of the stockade, and
I’m still opposed to it. I’m willing to concede some points, but only on their concessions, or at least
discuss that possibility.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-Well, yes. I go with Lew’s theory, the type of the fence, stockade, no, the height, no,
the setback, yes. There’s a way to get around the stockade fence by taking every other slat out.
We’ve done that before. People have done that.
MR. M. STONE-Where’s the privacy from that, if you do that? You mean to tell me you’re going to
take every other slat out?
MR. THOMAS-They’re, what, about three inches wide?
MR. R. STONE-They’re wider than that.
MR. THOMAS-There’s another way around that, too, plant some cedar trees in front of it. There’s
no law against that.
MR. M. STONE-Who’s going to pay for that?
MR. THOMAS-It won’t be us.
MR. THOMAS-But here again, we’re looking at something that was built before it came to us, and
like I've always said, I would consider it as if it weren’t there, and that’s what I would do. I would go
with the setback, but I would go with every other slat on the fence, and down to the five-foot height
and bring it into compliance. So, back in your court.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just toss something in real quick?
MR. THOMAS-Sure.
MR. BROWN-Previously, applications have been in front of the Board for a stockade fence in the
front yard. You’ve talked about removing pickets to make, removing slats to make them picket
fences rather than stockade, which is a reasonable request I think. Another variable, I guess, thrown
into this application is the fact that it’s a pool on a corner lot, and specifically, in the accessory
structures section there’s a requirement for pools on corner lots to be sufficiently screened from the
view of the public right-of-way. So just to consider, will the picket fence?
MR. THOMAS-Where’s that?
MR. BROWN-179-67B(5). Just a question, will a picket fence provide adequate screening from the
public right-of-way?
MR. THOMAS-That sheds a whole new light on it, doesn’t it?
MR. BROWN-I’d just throw it out there for you.
MR. MC NALLY-This is an after the fact thing, though.
MR. STONE-By means of landscaping.
MR. BROWN-Or landscaping, right.
MR. STONE-By means of landscaping. It doesn’t say by fence. I don’t consider a fence.
MR. BROWN-Yes, but if you look up landscaping, I think fencing is considered landscaping. I
would guess that it would be in there.
MR. STONE-All right. Lets look up landscaping. “Natural features such as fields, hills, forest,
water, that distinguish…Landscaping, the act of changing or enhancing the natural features…so as to
make the area more attractive to the visual screening…adding lawns, trees, shrubs, sculpturing. This
does not include any manmade object that exceeds the maximum height requirement for a structure
in the zone district in which it’s located” I think it tosses it to the Planning Board. That’s what
comes up next under “Landscaping”.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what do you guys think about that? 179-67B(5) deals with swimming pools on
a corner lot and the erection of some sort of screening.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess that’s basically where I was coming from when I was saying that I
agree with leaving the fence there. I was thinking in terms of what it would look like if the fence was
shorter and you could see over the top of it, or if you popped every other slat out so you could
clearly see through it, and I think that the net result for appearance would be worse that what was
there now, and any other kind of fence they could put up there that might be appropriate, legal fence,
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
one of the cyclone type fences with the slat slid into the slots to provide some screening strikes me as
worse.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me read the definition of “Screening” in our Code. “Foliage, berms, trees,
shrubs or landscape, natural materials and plants which obscure the visual character and suppress the
noise of any given building or use of land. Where natural plant material is not practical, fences
and/or other artificial material may be partially or totally substituted according to individual site
conditions.” So, to me, this says, if we take every other thing out, then you put in plants and you get
the screening.
MR. MC NALLY-I think to do justice to both sections, you have to read it just like you suggested.
The fencing is still there, and at the same time, you need natural landscaping. You can’t do injustice
to one without the other.
MR. HAYES-That does say you can substitute, in part or entirely, a fence, though, too. That’s the
second half of that.
MR. STONE-“Where natural plant material is not practical”. It’s certainly very practical to put
natural stuff here. So then, that’s the dependent clause. Then you have the independent clause. So
natural comes first, and this is certainly possible to do.
MR. STEC-I hate to tread these waters, but we’ve used that solution before.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-I agree that what Staff raises is a valid point, but if I think you read the total reading of
all the words which are applicable, I think at least where I was coming from still holds credence.
MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go through this again. Chuck, what would you like to see?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I think I still end up being torn both ways, because I will agree with those of
you that are saying that if you were really looking at it if this had come before us before it was done,
we probably would have been inclined to agree to go with the setback. We would have called for a
shorter fence, and we would have called for something that was not a stockade fence, because that’s
what the rules say. Certainly, it’s physically possible to plant trees or shrubs or cedars or something
there to help screen. It’s going to be an economic burden on the landowner if he’s required to do
that. I still go along with leaving things as they are. I think that I could also understand the other
Board members perhaps wanting to stick closer to the requirements.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan?
MR. STEC-Well, in the past, often when we hit spots like this, we look for a compromise, and I
think after I talked, listening to the rest of the Board, and again, thinking about the ways that we’ve
handled similar circumstances in the past, I think I’d be inclined to go with one or the other, but not
both. I think, again, we always say, what would we do if this wasn’t here, if it wasn’t pre-existing, if it
had come to us the right way, how would we have dealt with this, and I agree with Chuck. I think we
would have probably gone with the setback but not the other two. Having it built and having to
correct it now, I recognize that that’s an economic impairment, so I would say, I would be prepared,
in the spirit of compromise, to pick our poison and go with one or the other, but not both, and I
would suggest that the vegetation screening would be preferable, but recognizing that we’re talking
about something that’s been built already. I could let one or the other go, but I’d rather not give all
three.
MR. MC NALLY-Have the applicants even proposed any compromise?
MR. STONE-No, that’s the point that I was going to make. I still like my reasoning, not because I
said it, but as I listened to my fellow Board members, and we consider the point that Staff made, it
makes it even clearer to me that there are alternate ways around it. In the spirit of compromise that
Mr. Stec talked about, I’d like to hear the applicant say something, otherwise, as far as I’m concerned,
it’s no. I mean, we have a three part variance, and I will vote no, and I can’t speak for everybody
else, but until I hear some compromise, that’s where I have to come out.
MR. M. STONE-Well, if you want, we could certainly change the fence from six to five foot, but I
think he’s got a nice looking piece of property there. You have an Ordinance against the stockade
fence. I can understand that, but this is the first pool, I think, in the development. I haven’t heard
of anybody else having a pool, and when you put in a pool, certainly, I don’t want anybody gawking
in at me, and you take strips out of that fence, you’re still going to have people going by and gawking
in on your privacy, and I don’t think it’s fair to take out slats. My son has a pretty good job, but as
far as putting more shrubs in there, they’re costly, and I think just looking at a fence itself, it’s well
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
kept, painted. My son does an excellent job in his landscaping, and you go put more shrubs in there?
I think, like Mr. McNally said over there, I think they’re going to make it look worse, rather than
better.
MR. MC NALLY-See, the problem that comes up, while you’re the current property owner, things
are fine. I don’t doubt you’re going to take care of that property. What’s going to happen to the
next person, and they don’t keep the fence up, they don’t keep it painted, and they let the slats fall
out and this, that and the other thing. It looks like a mess. If you cut it down to five feet, could you
plant some shrubs? They’re not that expensive. You must know, because I've seen some plants
you’ve got on the property already.
MR. R. STONE-How many are you talking about?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know. I’m speaking for myself. A few cedars along that line is going to
detract from the monolithic length of that fence, something at the corners, a few in the middle, so
that, yes, it’ll be there. You’re eye’s not going to be directed to it like it’s a wall.
MR. M. STONE-All right. We’ll go along with that. What, four or five cedars in there? Something
that’ll break up the stockade effect.
MR. STONE-Take it down to five feet. It’s up to you. That’s what he was proposing.
MR. THOMAS-All right. So we’re looking, the applicant is going to plant cedars on either corner
and three in the middle, maybe five of them?
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got your corner by the fence, the gate, a plant right there softens the line
on the next corner, too, and then in the middle put three.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s, what, 44 feet across there. So it would be spaced out one every eight feet.
MR. MC NALLY-How tall are we talking about? Not these miniature things, are we? This expense
wouldn’t have been there if you’d done it right the first time.
MR. R. STONE-Well, ignorance of the law is our fault.
MR. MC NALLY-You know how they have those six inch little ones you get? Those are not what
I’m talking about.
MR. STONE-We can put that in the motion.
MR. THOMAS-If you start out with like three foot ones, those things grow like weeds anyway.
MR. STONE-And just the three feet ones will break up, I think Bob is correct. As you look it, as
you come around the corner, wham, there it is, and I think anything to break up the flatness of the
situation makes a great deal of difference.
MR. HAYES-This is what I said originally. I said I would accept either the five feet or removing
every other one of the tines and I could be okay with that. I think at that point it would be fine, and
now with the addition of the foliage there, I don’t have any problem with it. It’s a well-kept piece of
property, from what I've seen, just like Bob said.
MR. THOMAS-That’s right. What’s it going to be, the five feet or every other slat?
MR. HAYES-I think the applicant suggested five feet.
MR. M. STONE-We’d rather just put the shrubs in.
MR. STONE-No, we’re saying two things, shrubs and one or the other. That seems to be where
we’re coming out.
MR. STEC-If it was me, I’d go the five feet.
MR. M. STONE-The shortness of that foot wouldn’t make any difference as far as somebody
climbing over there and getting, drowning or anything like that?
MR. THOMAS-No, because the minimum, I think, for a pool is four-foot.
MR. M. STONE-Four? Okay.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. MC NALLY-And people have done it before, they’ve taken literally a chainsaw and dog-eared
each of the things. So it looks the same as if it had been done that way to begin with.
MR. THOMAS-All right. So we’re all agreed.
MR. STONE-Are you willing to five feet and?
MR. M. STONE-We didn’t come here to cause any problem.
MR. THOMAS-A height of five feet and five cedar trees to screen, a minimum of three feet to start?
MR. R. STONE-I’m good with that.
MR. THOMAS-Any problem with that?
MR. R. STONE-No problem.
MR. THOMAS-It sounds like a deal to me. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1999 ROBERT C. STONE,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
81 Peachtree Lane. The applicant has constructed a stockade fence and seeks relief from the Fence
Ordinance. Specifically, based on a compromise reached at this meeting, the applicant requests six
feet of relief from the 32.8 foot setback requirement, and as well as relief for a stockade fence in the
front yard per Fence Ordinance Section 179-74, specifically, he is agreeing to have the fence not
exceed five feet in height, as to trigger the other portion of that Fence Ordinance. The benefit to the
applicant, the applicant would be permitted to modify the existing fence, as it sits, and leave it in its
current placement. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives as to the dimensional relief or setback
relief are limited based on the current location of the pool and the applicant’s desire to maintain a
reasonable area around the pool in which to use it. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
I don’t believe the six feet of relief is substantial. I believe it’s minimal, based on the fact that this is a
corner lot and that is essentially what’s triggering the setback requirement at all. Effects on the
neighborhood or community. There’s been positive input from the neighbors, and I believe the
fence, being that it is a safety item for the pool, I think that the neighborhood impact would be
positive. Especially considering the foliage that the applicant has agreed to provide alongside the
fence, which is specifically five well placed cedar bushes at least three feet high at their origination, at
planting. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created to some degree, but it is also
created by the fact that it is a corner lot, and there is a pool which makes for some dimensional
problems, as far as the fence. Based on that fact, I move for approval of the variance.
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. M. STONE-Thank you.
MR. R. STONE-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you for your trouble.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your willingness to compromise.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1999 TYPE II WR-1A FIRM & JOAN WEAVER OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 94 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE
CURRENT GARAGE ROOF AND REQUESTS BOTH SETBACK RELIEF AND FLOOR
AREA RATIO RELIEF. ALSO, RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS REQUESTED. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/11/99 TA MAP NO. 15-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.21
ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
FIRM & JOAN WEAVER, PRESENT
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-1999, Firm & Joan Weaver, Meeting Date: August 18, 1999
“Project Location: 94 Rockhurst Road, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
raise current garage roof and seeks setback and floor area ratio relief. Relief Required: Applicant
requests relief from the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 for 20.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum
front setback requirement and 16.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback
requirement. Also, the applicant is requesting 3.58 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height
restriction as well as Floor Area Ratio relief to have a 48% total. Further since the existing structure
does not meet the setback requirements, relief for expansion of a non conforming structure is
requested per, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand an existing
garage and create a more usable area above. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may be
limited to a downsized addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The
cumulative requests may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of
this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
However, the pre-existing location of the building may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to
substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Both the front and sideline requests
for dimensional relief are significant. These two requests together with a proposed 48% FAR total
for an existing non conforming structure causes this to be a substantial request for relief. SEQR
Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-And Warren County’s got something to say.
MR. STEC-They just put this in here. It says No County Impact with conditions, but I don’t.
MR. THOMAS-What are those conditions? They didn’t send any?
MR. STEC-They didn’t send any. So we don’t know what it is.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. and Mrs. Weaver?
MR. WEAVER-Yes. I’m Firm Weaver, my wife Joan. We're residents of Clifton Park, and we’re
looking forward to retiring up here, in our summer cottage, and thinking of the future, and feel that
we need additional space to put a lot of our belongings, and have an exercise room like we would
have in the basement of our current house. Additional office space to store some of our business
records, so that we thought that the garage currently has stairs up, and is floored in. If we raised the
roof on that, it would provide us this area, which would make the house more livable.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions?
MR. STONE-How high is the garage now from the way we’d measure from the closest to the lake
there? I mean, that’s obviously the lowest ground.
MR. WEAVER-Are you talking about the street level?
MR. STONE-No, no. I’m talking about height is measured, in this case, let me ask Staff a second.
Craig, because of the (lost words) which way, it’s from the pitch of the roof down to the, on the
lakeside, right?
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-It’s whatever the biggest dimension would be, regardless of which side it is.
MR. WEAVER-To the driveway.
MR. STONE-I’m talking to the grass. That would be the maximum height, the grass, lakeside.
MR. WEAVER-On the lakeside, I measured the ground which is level there with the stone, and I
believe that’s 10 inches below the driveway. So, currently, it’s 15 feet 10 inches.
MR. STONE-It’s 15 feet from the driveway, you’re saying?
MR. WEAVER-It’s 15 foot seven inches from the driveway up, and the ground on the lakeside is 10
inches below that.
MR. STONE-So it’s already nonconforming.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. MC NALLY-It would be 16 feet five inches from the lakeside.
MR. WEAVER-Sixteen foot five inches, yes.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that was pre-existing.
MR. STONE-I understand that. I’m just asking a question.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re basically asking to add a second floor to the garage, and if I look at
your drawings, I see that on the lakeside you’re going to have, it looks to me basically a two story
structure, with like a big glass window on the second floor overlooking the lake?
MR. WEAVER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And it’s actually framed so there’s a pitch there, and there’s a pitch running along
the centerline. So there’s two pitches.
MR. WEAVER-I thought to keep the pitch of the direction that it looked the same, you know, from
up and down, from a distance it would look even more aesthetic to have it that way.
MR. MC NALLY-Your existing home has that kind of effect on the lakeside also?
MR. WEAVER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Much larger, but it’s the same thing.
MR. THOMAS-Other questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-There’s an area just to the south of your property that’s blocked off. I assume it’s to
the south of your property?
MR. WEAVER-Yes, correct. That’s the neighbor to that side, and they’ve been up one time in the
last 30 years, and they just keep a six by six across there so nobody will park on their property.
MR. STONE-That’s their property, not yours?
MR. WEAVER-Yes, that’s not my property.
MR. STONE-So I notice your permeability right now is 58%.
MR. WEAVER-Right.
MR. STONE-Compared to the 65 that, again, all this is grandfathered.
MR. WEAVER-Yes, we’re not changing the permeability because we’re not adding anymore square
land on there.
MR. HAYES-You’re not changing the footprint.
MR. WEAVER-We're not changing the footprint at all, no.
MR. MC NALLY-Now, is the second floor going to have, I take it, electricity and power and water,
kind of thing?
MR. WEAVER-Currently, it has electricity in the garage now. So I’d bring the electricity up. I’m not
asking, at this time, to put water into the building. I am thinking that eventually I’d like to, but that
would be a separate variance, if we decided we wanted to do that.
MR. STONE-We had, a few weeks ago or a month ago, we had an application before us where we
looked at a similar project. It happened to be a second building, but they also wanted to put in
things that are not germane to primarily store three automobiles, and we kind of looked at it as an
extension of the house. Can you disabuse me of that, or is this an extension of your house upstairs?
MR. WEAVER-We're not looking to make living area, as such, in that, you know, the two of us live
in this area. We have four children, one lives in Burnt Hills. The rest live around the country. So I
don’t expect to have tons of my own kids there, at least not all the time. So I think it would have
minimal use as a living area, but yet we would be able to build many closets for additional storage to
put suitcases and Christmas Tree ornaments.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STONE-You mentioned an office.
MR. WEAVER-Yes.
MR. STONE-I’ll repeat a question that I was asked, appearing before this Board seven years ago,
because I had a plan that had office on it. Do you intend to do business out of this office?
MR. WEAVER-No, I don’t. We have an apartment building, and I've got file cabinets full of records
from it, but do business, no, I don’t plan to do any business out of there.
MR. STONE-Because it does say no business, occupations or services for profit shall be conducted
therein.
MR. WEAVER-And I would not do any of that.
MRS. WEAVER-If I could just say, we hope to retire here in a few years, and we currently come
from a home that has a full basement where we have our exercise equipment, etc., and lots of
storage. So by consolidating and moving up here, we’ll have lots of things that we need storage for,
and this, we currently have, it’s floored in currently, but the pitch of the roof, when you go upstairs,
is like this. So it’s only the very center area that’s really usable. It’s, I believe, six and a half feet high
in the center. So, we looked at this area and thought, here’s space that can be used, that really can’t
be used very well the way it is. It was, you know, left in this kind of condition, and we were just
looking ahead and thought this would be a good place to pick up extra storage.
MR. WEAVER-But part of the beauty, I guess, of being on the lake, if you have windows on the
lakeside so that whole side of the house, both floors, tends to be windows. So when you build a
house that way, it tends to have less storage and closet space than perhaps a house that wasn’t
situated as such.
MR. MC NALLY-Your current home on the site, I see you’ve got 1440 square feet for the building
footprint itself?
MR. WEAVER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And is that a three story structure, when you include the walkout basement, is
what I mean.
MR. WEAVER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Could you tell me a little bit about what kind of space you have in your existing
home?
MR. WEAVER-Okay. The existing home is 40 by 36. Those are outside dimensions I used here.
So if I want to measure inside, I come up with a few hundred square feet less, but, especially since
they use 12 inch block downstairs. So the upstairs there’s an attic over that, but there’s just a little
square hole and a closet. So that’s basically not usable, the attic.
MR. MC NALLY-Two main floors?
MR. WEAVER-Yes. So there’s the main floor and then there was the basement area that was
finished off.
MR. MC NALLY-How large is the basement area?
MR. WEAVER-Well, it’s under the whole house.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s the same footage?
MR. WEAVER-Well, it has a porch out about six and a half feet. So it’s basically 40 feet wide, minus
the cinder blocks. Instead of 36 it’s like 29 feet, minus the furnace and the hot water heater and so
forth.
MR. MC NALLY-The utility stuff.
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 application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak
opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. I have a record of telephone conversation, dated August 16, 1999, 9:30 a.m.,
between Bob Wood and Craig Brown, subject: Firm and Joan Weaver application “Generally
against application. Garage is very close to property line ‘a larger, taller structure so close to the
property line may have an adverse effect on my property value’. Lived there for 14 years and feels
that an addition of this nature would infringe on his privacy ‘Absurd to build an accessory structure
this size on a parcel this size’. More living area above the garage? Craig Brown”
MR. THOMAS-Is that it?
MR. STEC-That’s it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. STONE-Is that the neighbor to the north?
MR. WEAVER-That is my neighbor to the north, and I may point out that their house is totally in
front of the garage. So it isn’t something that they would see, because their house is totally to the
lakeside of the garage.
MR. MC NALLY-Rockhurst is a tough area.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions?
MR. STONE-How high is it going to be from the road?
MR. WEAVER-From the road, right now, it’s three foot ten on that side. So it’s really well over the
road. So I’m actually raising the roof on the roadside, because I’m flattening the pitch, about six feet
higher. So, it would be sort of like a normal height looking garage instead of a plain looking garage,
when you look at it from the road, but I think it would be, in fact, I've got a picture of what it looks
like today, from the road. Has everybody gone and looked at the place?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. WEAVER-So that I felt by raising the roof, the structure would look more normal and better
for the looks of the neighborhood.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Dan.
MR. STEC-All right. Well, the Rockhurst area is a difficult area, as far as any expansion of most of
the properties there because of the small size of the lots, and in doing this application, actually, two
previous applications jump to mind, that remind me very similar, similar circumstances, and again,
while recognizing that due to the nature of most of the lots up in Rockhurst, that practically any
expansion is going to require relief, and I recognize that, but I guess what concerns me is the Floor
Area Ratio total going all the way to 48. That’s more than double the maximum allowed 22%. I
understand that we’re not increasing the footprint, so as far as permeable area, and I recognize that
we’re talking about a garage expansion. So we don’t have to worry about septic and we don’t have to
worry about plumbing, but reference was made to, well, what is the purpose and function of a garage,
and if we start talking about vehicle storage and other storage, that’s one thing, but again, the
question mark of essentially, in my mind anyway, the non storage nature of some of the additional
rooms that would be created, to me, really starts to cloud the line between garage and expansion of
the home. The long and short of it, I’m really troubled by the 48% total Floor Area Ratio. All the
other setbacks are really just the current setback. We're not talking about infringing any closer to any
of the property lines. This is the non conforming nature of the structure, so with that said, I’m just
bothered by increasing the Floor Area Ratio so dramatically.
MR. WEAVER-As I've said before, the stairs are there currently, and it is totally floored in.
MR. STEC-Right.
MR. WEAVER-By the legal sense of the Code, it’s increasing the Floor Area space, but really I’m
asking to raise the roof. It’s already floored in. So in that sense, I’m not increasing the Floor Area
space.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STEC-Right, and that’s why we have the test of the five elements that we go through, and
there’s clear benefit to the applicant, if we approve this, in that, clearly, being a tall guy myself, any
head room is always at a premium. Feasible alternatives, again, really, in my opinion, you’re limited.
The feasible alternatives, essentially, would be no construction, but again, it may be feasible, but it,
clearly, may not be attractive. The third one, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and
that's where I get a hang up. What is the effect on the neighborhood or community? Again, bearing
in mind that a lot of the Rockhurst properties are all in the same boat, where you try to do any
minor, what would be an incidental project anywhere else, because of the small size of those lots, and
is it self-created? Again, the size of the lots is not anything that you had in your control. So,
weighing this, it’s close, but I’m bothered by the 48% total, but we’ll hear from the rest of the Board,
and I’ll listen to what they have to say, but I guess if I had to guess right now, I’m not sure I could
stand in favor of this, unless I hear something from somebody else, and I don’t think there’s a whole
lot of room for you to compromise, either. I mean, this is one of those situations where you’re either
going to go with it or not going to go with it. So I don’t think there’s anything more the applicant
can do. It’s just how do we feel about it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew?
MR. STONE-Well, I've been quite consistent, as far as Rockhurst is concerned. We’ve had a
number of applications for people who want to put in second stories. This is not a true second story,
and that I have voted against, one because I think it makes the road more dangerous. I think it
makes it appear to be more crowded than it really is, and it’s very crowded even in actuality. I also
think it has an adverse effect upon the view from the lake, and that’s one of the reasons we have the
Waterfront zoning law that we do. I recognize the applicant’s interest in using this home in the
future for a permanent home, and I’m very sympathetic to that. I happen to live on the lake, and I’m
very sympathetic to that. However, and this is not a personal comment, it is not our job to relieve a
bad decision. When you bought the house, you were aware of some of the limitations. Obviously,
some of them have changed. Obviously, if you had come to us to build this house now, there was no
way in the world that it could be built, according to the current Code. I’m concerned with the
number of variances that are required here. We have the height one. We have the setback ones.
Yes, the building is there now, but when you come to us with a new project, it opens up the whole
thing to be looking at, and if we were to grant this just the way it is right now, we would have to
grant six or seven different things. That’s too many, for me. I mean, you’ve heard us, tonight, with
the pool one, where we said, here are three things. We can’t go with three. We’ve made some
compromises. As I say, I have been a strong defender of the lake, the views from the lake, the views
from the property, and other property owners, and I’m concerned that Rockhurst was a bad project
when it was built 40 years ago, and unfortunately it’s getting worse, because of all of the interests, like
yourselves, in putting in a permanent home and want to live there permanently, but to me, this is an
extension, I’ll go back to what Dan said. This is an extension of your home. You want to put an
office in there, that’s something that normally goes into a home. You want to put an exercise room
in, that’s something that normally goes into a home. Storage, yes, that can go into a garage, but in
general, you’re expanding your home to a Floor Area Ratio which is quite large, relative of the Code.
So unless I hear some willingness to make some compromises, and I’m not sure what they are at this
point in time, I’m sort of like Dan, I would almost certainly vote no unless I hear some compelling
reasons from my fellow Board members in the next five minutes.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, like my fellow Board members, it’s not hard to understand that Rockhurst is a
difficult area. We have many applications for Rockhurst every year that I've been on the Board.
Different from Mr. Stone, I have voted for second story additions in Rockhurst to camps, largely
because I don’t think it effects the view of the neighbors. I think the view from Rockhurst is out, as
it is with your property, essentially. So, you know, I think we’ve entertained those proposals and
those applications independent, and often saw the wisdom to approve them, but in this particular
case, and the relief that’s requested, cumulatively, is substantial. This isn’t a second story addition to
a camp that’s already there on the lot. It’s a second story addition to a second building, and that, to
me, may be the step that pushes it over the line, as far as the test that we’re charged with enforcing.
It’s a beautiful piece of property, and you maintain it very nicely, but at this particular time, I think if
you need more space than what you have there now, which is already over the Floor Area Ratio, then
you’d have to examine, investigate another home. I know that’s not that feasible. I know that’s not
that easy. It’s easy to say, but it’s not easy to do, and I know that, but in this particular case, I think
by granting 48% of the Floor Area Ratio, that we’d be setting a precedent on Rockhurst that could
just lead to more applications, and certainly we have enough already. So I think cumulatively the
relief may be just too much.
MR. WEAVER-There’s a building project that you obviously granted recently that they’ve just been
doing, at 64 Rockhurst, that has a lot smaller lot than mine and there’s a lot more coverage, and
actually some friends of ours that re-built their house on Rockhurst two years ago, I think they have
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
more floor area. You let them go up, over 40% of their house, for a second story, that I didn’t feel
that this was as big a relief as other projects that I see going on on Rockhurst, in the last year or two.
MR. HAYES-I have to speak for myself, of course, but I think sometimes the benefit to the
applicant of perfecting a house on the lot, that existing cottage into a parcel that they can use, versus
expanding a second building on the lot, but in my mind, those are two different ideas, as far as the
benefit to the applicant, the dire necessity of it. I mean, I’m only speaking for myself, but I think
there is a difference.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This is a WR-1A zone, and under that Code, you’ve got an allowance for one
principal dwelling per lot, and you’re allowed to have accessory structures, such as a garage, which is
for the storage of vehicles on the property. That’s really not designed or intended to be living space
or business purposes or purposes attendant to your home, and additional living space, and I know
the last application we had on Lake George, in this regard, wanted to use an art studio and a deck
over a garage. They wanted to put a second floor on it, and we turned it down for that reason. The
setback, while it’s not usually significant, you know, you’re footprint’s your footprint. On Rockhurst
it’s different, though. Because we always are trying to reign in people’s natural desire to expand and
cover the whole damn lot, versus the community’s concern that there has to be some kind of setback
that’s appropriate for the community, and in Rockhurst, we generally ignore some of the formalities,
because the lots are so tiny, and the houses are built on top of each other over there. So we’ve kind
of looked at that almost as a separate zone, but you’re asking for 20.7 feet of relief from the front
setback requirement, which is a lot. Normally you should have 30 feet of relief from that. You’re
looking for side setback relief from the neighbor who complained, of 16.5 feet. You should have 20
feet, and I think you’ve got like three and a half feet on that side of the garage to the north. The
height is something we’ve always taken into account, also. In this zone, the maximum height is 16
feet, and if you’re looking at this structure, as you plan to build it, it’s going to have a peak at 20.5
feet. So you’re looking at four and a half feet of a height relief that you’re asking. The Floor Area
Ratio should be 22%, and we’ve gone beyond that on Rockhurst frequently because of the tiny lots,
but as built, we’re talking about a 48% Floor Area Ratio, which is a lot of coverage. I sympathize
with you folks, because it’s a nice place to retire to, but I've got to balance the needs of the
community, and you have a large home there already. I think what Jaime was talking about is
sometimes when you get one of those little tiny camps there, and they want to build a second floor
addition on it, we look the other way, because it is their only primary structure and their primary
residence there, but on balance, I unfortunately and regretfully don’t see that I can vote for it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I won’t try to repeat everything that the other Board members have said, although
I basically agree with them. I think for me, the side setbacks, the front setback is not a big problem
for me. The existing building is there. You’d just be going up, but the height bothers me, and the
Floor Area Ratio. It strikes me that the way that the buildings are set there blend pretty well with
your neighbors on either side, and putting a taller structure there, I think, is going to change the
appearance, and as the other Board members mentioned, the Floor Area Ratio being so high bothers
me, too. So I’m afraid I can’t go along with the application.
MR. THOMAS-All right. As all the Board members have said, it’s the Floor Area Ratio that really
bothers them. The secondary is the setbacks. I don’t think the height is really an issue here, though
it is four feet over what’s required, but I was noticing on the Floor Area Ratio worksheet here that
the first floor and the second floor are both the same size, at 1440 square feet, which leads me to
believe that that’s a 2880 square foot home on this lot. That’s a real big home for Rockhurst, and
along with a detached garage of 650 square feet, I just can’t go along with this. That Floor Area
Ratio of 48%, you know, you may all have good intentions of using it just as a storage space, an
exercise room and an office, but the next person coming in may want to put a bathroom up there,
and they’re going to have to change the septic system for that, and I don’t know where the septic
system is now on that property, but I don’t think you’d be able to get a compliant system in there
now. I think everybody else has said what needs to be said. So, would someone like to make a
motion?
MR. WEAVER-Can I ask the Board a question? If I didn’t raise the roof quite as high, so that part
of it wasn’t floor space, instead of adding say 650, you added 400 square feet, which is probably the
minimum you could do to try to get a flight of stairs up there, and still have room to walk around and
make one room up there, would that be considered any more favorably or not?
MR. THOMAS-Myself, personally, no, because you’re still way over the Floor Area Ratio for that
particular lot, and reducing it down 250 square feet, it puts a very little dent in that 48%.
MR. STONE-I would agree.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STEC-I would agree, too. You’re still going to be right around double the 22%.
MR. THOMAS-So, does anybody else have any comments on the Board? If not, I’ll ask for a
motion.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1999 FIRM & JOAN WEAVER,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
94 Rockhurst Road. To raise current garage roof, and seek setback relief and floor area ratio relief.
Specifically, the applicant had requested relief from the Waterfront One Acre Zone, Section 179-16,
requirements for 30 feet of minimum front setback, and 20 feet minimum side setback relief, in
addition to relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction, and the 22% floor area ratio relief.
Additionally, the applicant was seeking relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, as per
Section 179-79. While the benefit to the applicant was clear, that the applicant would gain additional
storage and as argued by the Board living, if you will space, and the feasible alternatives are limited.
We felt that the relief sought was very substantial. Specifically, the Board notes that the proposed
floor area ratio was 48%, which is in excess of two times the maximum allowed for that zoning. We
also felt that while the neighborhood is fairly congested, and the lots are of smaller size, that while
the difficulty is self-created, in the sense that the applicant wanted to go much larger than the current
floor area ratio is, the sizes of the lots did contribute to the difficulty, but in balancing all this, we felt
that the substance of the relief and the impact on the community for expanding the height and the
floor area ratio outweighed the benefit to the applicant, and so based on this, I move that we deny
the Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, it’s been denied.
MR. WEAVER-Okay. Well, thank you for your time.
MR. THOMAS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1999 TYPE II SR-1A JAMES P. & LINDA J. DAVIS
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 129 PITCHER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 125-1-29.10 LOT SIZE:
0.58 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-67
JAMES & LINDA DAVIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-1999, James P. & Linda J. Davis, Meeting Date: August 18,
1999 “Project Location: 129 Pitcher Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
installation of an above ground pool and seeks relief from the accessory structure setback
requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear
setback requirements of Accessory structures, § 179-67. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to construct and utilize an additional recreational area on their property. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as
moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood
may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may
be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Much of
the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the home. Since this is a corner lot, the pool, if
approved, must be sufficiently screened from view from the public right-of-way. Consideration may
be given to this screening. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. THOMAS-All right, and nothing from Warren County?
MR. STEC-No, nothing from Warren County.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. and Mrs. Davis?
MR. DAVIS-Yes, good evening. I’m Jim Davis. This is my wife Linda, and we’re residents of the
Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-The first question I have. When you built the house, you didn’t think about a pool,
because you’ve got a gorgeous front yard, I mean, really gorgeous. You could have put the house
just a little closer to the road.
MR. DAVIS-Well, you know, actually , when we built there in ’87, our intention was, as newlyweds,
to build a starter home, fix it up, make it look nice and lets move on. We’d have like to have been
where our predecessors were on 94 Rockhurst by now, but we’re a little bit behind schedule.
Actually, our intention there is, actually, when we did build in ’87, you’re exactly right. We had
schemes of a big front yard, and when we did build, Ambershire was not in the picture. In fact,
when we built on Pitcher Road, we were the third house there, and we had plenty of woods behind
us, and actually, our driveway came off Pitcher Road. So we had figured that we wanted a bigger
front yard, but you’re absolutely right. The predicament that we got ourselves in now that we have
two young children who are of the age of wanting a swimming pool, seven and four, and now we are
trying to fit 10 pounds of manure in a five pound bag, but this is the scheme that we came up with.
MRS. DAVIS-And we wanted to sink it in the ground a little bit, so that it would be attractive, I
mean, an above-ground pool.
MR. STONE-Who told you that you should stop digging?
MR. DAVIS-Well, it’s a four foot pool.
MR. STONE-No, but you’ve been digging.
MR. DAVIS-Yes, we did. No one actually asked us to stop digging. We made that decision on our
own, based on the fact that two weeks ago we had a contractor who was willing to do it for minimal
cost. So we kind of put the cart before the horse, there ourselves, that was our decision.
MR. MC NALLY-The pool’s going to be basically level with your rear deck?
MR. DAVIS-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So you can access it from there.
MR. DAVIS-That’s correct, and we will have pretty much a wraparound deck, with the required
railing height and what have you, stair accessibility.
MR. STONE-The row of trees to the east, how old is that?
MRS. DAVIS-We planted them probably eight years ago.
MR. STONE-And what are they?
MRS. DAVIS-They’re cedar.
MR. STONE-That’s what I worried about. They’re not as big as I would like to see them. They’re
pretty, but you didn’t go all the way.
MRS. DAVIS-And if you notice, we have put littler ones, and they’re not quite as high.
MR. DAVIS-We actually bought those at a fire sale. We didn’t expect them to be that high, either.
MR. STONE-I wish they were higher for the pool.
MR. DAVIS-Yes, that’s right.
MR. STONE-How tall were they when you started?
MR. DAVIS-We bought them about three or four feet high.
MR. STONE-Anyway, it’s a lovely front yard. It really is.
MRS. DAVIS-Thank you.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. MC NALLY-The rear setback relief you’re requesting is what, 10 feet?
MR. DAVIS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-There’s a 12 foot, from your rear property line to the existing leach line.
MR. DAVIS-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-So the pool is closer to the house than that, right?
MR. DAVIS-The pool is closer to the house than that, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So why do you need 10 feet of relief, is what I’m asking? In other words, it seems
as though you would need less relief..
MR. DAVIS-Actually I need, I don’t know. I didn’t know if that had to incorporate the deck, at the
time. Because I intend on being, on that rear property line, there’ll be three foot of deck on that side,
closer to the line.
MR. MC NALLY-That’ll do it. So you’re building a deck, in addition to the dimension of the pool?
MR. DAVIS-That’s correct, yes.
MRS. DAVIS-And we didn’t put in for the deck variance, because it was hinging on this variance.
MR. DAVIS-Well, we didn’t file for a building permit yet. We do have a pool permit, but we don’t
have a deck permit, from the Building Department.
MR. STONE-I’m confused. What are we saying?
MR. MC NALLY-I think their amount of relief they’re requesting is not taking into account a deck
that they want to build.
MR. DAVIS-No, I think it is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. STONE-The property line’s over here.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s the back property line.
MR. DAVIS-The rear property line is the margin of that paper, actually, as it’s listed.
MR. THOMAS-Okay, and it goes 12 feet to the existing (lost word) line.
MRS. DAVIS-And there is a hedgerow in the back yard already, of hemlock. I don’t know if you
saw that, which.
MR. HAYES-Is it from Garden Time?
MRS. DAVIS-No, actually, not, but I already have replaced.
MR. DAVIS-He’s our neighbor to the rear.
MR. THOMAS-What’s the distance between the side of that pool and that back leach line?
MR. DAVIS-It’s going to be three feet. I hope to, actually, put the deck a little, or the pool a little
closer to the existing deck, and I’ll tell you the reason. If you’re familiar with Aqua Wood pools, they
have those buttresses on the side, that they go back three feet. So I can’t, I’m trying to get the pool
to be a little closer to the deck, but he’s telling me he needs five feet to install those buttresses. So,
I’m hoping, if anything, I’m going to be a little closer to my deck, but I’m allowing for five foot there
as my dimension.
MR. STONE-So you don’t have a leach field? You’ve just got three leach lines making up the
required length?
MR. DAVIS-That’s correct, 180.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. STONE-That’s the first time I've ever seen that.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-So we’ll go with 10 feet of relief, is that what we’re doing? That’s what they asked
for, that’s what they’d get?
MR. STONE-That includes the deck, right?
MR. THOMAS-Well, it looks like it’s going to be eight feet.
MR. HAYES-So he’d need 12 feet of relief?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. No, it looks like they need eight feet of relief.
MR. DAVIS-That’s correct, yes.
MR. STONE-Because it’s 12 feet to the leach line, from the property line and they want to be just
inside the leach line.
MR. HAYES-He could do that with the deck?
MR. BROWN-But if you want to consider the deck in the future, encompass that into this relief, so
you don’t have to come back.
MR. STONE-Well, what is the scalloped line here?
MR. DAVIS-I’m just highlighting where the pool is.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. DAVIS-I’m showing you where the location of my pool is.
MR. HAYES-So you’re talking about going five feet from the edge of the pool, then, for the deck,
counting everything?
MR. DAVIS-Five feet off my existing deck is where the water’s edge will start. The pool is 18 feet
wide.
MR. HAYES-Right. We're not concerned about near the house. We're talking about the back
property line. How far?
MR. DAVIS-The back side will be three feet of deck.
MR. HAYES-So 10 feet’s probably right, then.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HAYES-Okay, because if we don’t handle that now, you’ll be back.
MR. DAVIS-Okay.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions before I open the public hearing? I’ll open the public
hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to
speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEC-Yes. I have a letter dated July 27, 1999, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,
“Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members: We are aware of the Area Variance application submitted
by our neighbor, James and Linda Davis, for the purpose of installing an above grade swimming pool
in their rear yard. We reside at 2 Amethyst Drive in Queensbury and are adjacent to the rear of the
Davis residence. We are specifically aware of their request to have the rear yard setback requirement
changed from the existing 20 feet to 10 feet to accommodate their pool installation. We take no
exception to their request. Sincerely, James Troelstra and Laura Troelstra”
MR. THOMAS-Does that do it?
MR. STEC-Yes, that’s it.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I guess we’re going to talk about it,
then. Let’s see. It’s down to Lew.
MR. STONE-Actually, I would like to talk a little bit about screening on the backside, when we
actually get to a motion. The only thought I had when I went out and looked at it is, do you need as
much, I wrote down, you want your cake and eat it, too, in terms of the two decks, without cutting
down the size of the decks, but I think, given the nature of the comment by your neighbor, the kind
of screening you have put in on part of that back line, and hopefully a willingness to put some
additional screening, certainly you have that wooded area, which is screening it from the road, again,
a corner lot with no side yards. I think this is a project that is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood, which is actually very, very nice. I had never seen the development, the subdivision
to your north, and I was quite impressed, I have to admit. I wondered about the play tower,
however. That was a question. Is that something you need to have in there, along with the pool?
MR. DAVIS-No, actually, that was our.
MRS. DAVIS-That’s where it was, where the hole is dug.
MR. DAVIS-We had it moved. That was our kids’ play area, and we intend on moving it in the back,
would be northeasterly corner, back in the woods there. It’s actually going to be on a shared area,
that our neighbors and I, you know, we cleared a little area to move the, it’s part of a swing set.
MR. STONE-Basically, I think it’s a project. I think because of the wooded area, which is going to
provide natural screening, as I say, hopefully a willingness to put more along the rear property line.
Even though your neighbor says he’s happy with it, screening is always good. I think this is a good
application.
MRS. DAVIS-We actually already have those trees, to be planted in those holes where.
MR. DAVIS-Well, for the record, our neighbor is an owner of a prominent landscaping company in
the Town. So he recently landscaped his yard and has offered to do so with that buffer area, which is
primarily mostly his, by the way.
MR. STONE-But you’re responsible for the pool part.
MR. DAVIS-Well, that’s correct. We do intend to clean it up, actually, and get some nice (lost
words).
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I think the test has been met, with little or no negative impacts on
the neighborhood, and maybe not any, as far as I can see. The benefit to the applicant would be the
overriding concern in this area, and they have two kids, and kids want pools, and I think in this
particular case it’s a good project, and I think the applicant has demonstrated a history of doing the
appropriate thing with his lot. So I don’t have a lot of worry about screening not being adequate. So
I’m in favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s tight, but if the next door neighbor doesn’t mind it, and these folks
don’t care, I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I feel about the same way. With what screening is already in place, and given the
situation, there’s not much else that the applicant could do with this pool, and I have no problem
with it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the
moderate nature of the relief sought, and any impacts that could possibly exist on the neighborhood
or community. I’m in favor.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I think this is a good project. It’s
probably the only place on the property that they could put this pool, because of it being a corner lot,
and I hope that the applicants tonight have heard what needs to be done on a corner lot when it
comes to a swimming pool, fencing and screening.
MR. DAVIS-It wasn’t a corner lot when we bought it.
MR. STONE-It wasn’t? They cut the road through?
MR. DAVIS-No. Amethyst came in three years after we were there, yes. We're not complaining.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, I don’t have any problem with this one. Would someone like to make a
motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1999 JAMES P. & LINDA J. DAVIS,
Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
129 Pitcher Road. Applicant proposes installation of above-ground pool and seeks relief from the
accessory structures setback requirement, specifically, 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum
rear setback requirement for accessory structures according to Section 179-67. The benefit to the
applicant is clear, that he would have the advantage of enjoying the pool in the yard, and feasible
alternatives are limited to perhaps a smaller pool, but we felt that the benefit was greater than any
negative impact on the community, and we also felt that 10 feet of relief is moderate enough to allow
it to go, especially since the neighbor in the rear yard has no complaints at all, and so with this said, I
move that we approve the relief sought.
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. DAVIS-Thank you.
MRS. DAVIS-Thank you.
MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1999 TYPE II LC-10A SR-1A HELEN BARBER OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 232 FULLER ROAD, ENTRANCE IS GRAVEL ROAD NEXT TO
YELLOW HOUSE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A
10.1 ACRE LOT AND A 17.2 ACRE LOT. RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH STANDARDS IS REQUESTED. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP
NO. 123-1-15.31 LOT SIZE: 27.3 ACRES SECTION 179-13, 179-19
CHARLES BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-1999, Helen Barber, Meeting Date: August 18, 1999
“Project Location: 232 Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2 lot
subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot standards. Relief Required: Applicant requests
133 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement of the LC-10A zone, § 179-13.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create a building lot. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to meet the minimum standards. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 133 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc): Subdivision 2-99 pending, two lot subdivision Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed lot does not
comply with the minimum lot width requirements, it does comply with the acreage and road frontage
requirements. Apparently, the applicant prefers this lot configuration in order to maintain the pond
on the easterly lot. SEQR Status: Type II”
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. THOMAS-Anything from Warren County? I didn’t see anything on the list.
MR. STEC-Nothing from Warren County.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Barber, go ahead.
MR. BARBER-We spent some time, originally, trying to decide how you would break this up,
because as it notes, there are two zonings for the property. Actually, 12.3 acres is in LC-10 zoning,
and 15.1 is, I guess, SR-1A, and if you note, I’m not sure if I highlighted the 10.1 lot for everybody
on their maps or not, but the zoning comes right down through the middle of the property and
actually cuts the pond, and in discussing it with the surveyor when we were doing this and
subsequently with the Adirondack Park Agency who issued a permit for the subdivision actually
yesterday, the intention was to keep as much of the wetlands off the 10 acre lot, so there would never
been any issues with setbacks on the 10.1 acres. You’ll notice there’s a whole bunch of stuff that’s
been put on this map. The Planning Board wanted 10 foot gradient marks. So that’s been put on.
The APA requested to see reserve test area for the septic system, so that’s been noted on here, as
well as the perc test that’s been done. The only way that we thought it might be able to increase the
average lot widths, which is impacted by the long 50 foot right-of-way coming in to it, would be to
cut a substantial part off the 15 acres, which then you’d have your SR-1A and your LC-10 being
combined on one lot, and even in the permit, the APA noted that they preferred a standard where it
left the 2.2 acres non buildable area attached to the 15 acres, and the 10.1 as the building lot. I don’t
know if everybody’s gone to that particular location or not.
MR. STONE-Yes. Who lives on the pond lot?
MR. BARBER-I do.
MR. STONE-You do?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. STONE-There’s one house envisioned for that lot, even though?
MR. BARBER-Actually, I have that house sold. I have it under contract to a gentleman who’s a
descendent of a large local manufacturer who desires privacy, and he considers it a small estate, and
his intention was, my intention is to keep it as one lot without any additional buildings, and I've been
told it’s the same for them.
MR. STONE-And of course the other lot would only have one house, because it’s 10 acre.
MR. BARBER-Correct. Now, the APA’s permit has dictated that the 2.2 acres, which includes the
pond and the swale on the 15 acres, cannot have a building on that 2.2 acres, and actually, if you were
to look at the area, there’s not sufficient to meet any of the restrictions for setbacks anyway.
MR. STONE-And you are following the line of the zone?
MR. BARBER-Correct. This was the wet area. It also the line goes right through the pond, and if
we had put it with this property, you’d come over and you’d be in your SR-1A zone, and if we
changed it down here, you’d also be in the SR-1A zone. So it was the only configuration we could
come up with, not to mention the fact that we liked the pond by the house.
MR. STONE-The lands to the south, are those just wood lots?
MR. BARBER-You’re talking about Albert Holmes? Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, Holmes.
MR. BARBER-And the people directly next to us, it’s actually Don Kruger, and he actually uses my
gravel driveway there, occasionally, to get by. He put a pool, his building is probably 15 feet off my
lines there, and everything else here is wooded, and if you’ll notice on the west side of the property,
there’s a very steep area there. I mean, there’s never going to be anything in there, and what’s
proposed is something not larger than a four bedroom house, because that’s the most that APA
approved, you’ll see the proposed area. That may get changed by anybody who buys that lot, but
that shows where it’s suggested, and I actually have that under contract, and they have accepted that
as the location for that house. So, I mean, it’s a one structure property. That’s all that’s permitted
for it.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re selling it to Raymond Bailey?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
MR. BARBER-No, we bought it from Raymond Bailey.
MR. MC NALLY-My apologies.
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Would
anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed?
Opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MR. STEC-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. We're back up to
Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, it appears to me that the feasible alternatives have been
thoroughly investigated by Mr. Barber and the APA, whose knowledge I will defer to, and I think,
looking at the map and looking at the concerns that I would have, I think that the configuration that
they have come up with is, in fact, the best, and it’s logical, it makes sense. So I don’t have a
problem granting the 133 feet of relief, based on the fact that I think we’re solving a problem here,
and it looks to be a natural subdivision of this property, or at least one that considers all the things
that I would consider important, and the rest of the lots in the area look to be about the same size.
So I think that the effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, if any, and I guess I think
in that case the benefit to the applicant to create a building lot passes the test, and I would be in
favor of it.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Jaime.
MR. THOMAS-That’s it?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. He said all the points that were necessary.
MR. THOMAS-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can be short, too. I agree, also. I think it fits, it’s a logical subdivision and a
reasonable request.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan?
MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members.
MR. STONE-Ditto.
MR. THOMAS-I agree with the rest of the Board members. This is the only way you could
subdivide this. The two important things have been met, and that’s road frontage, and acreage. So,
having said that, I would ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1999 HELEN BARBER, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
232 Fuller Road. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum
lot standards. Specifically, the relief required, the applicant requests 133 feet of relief from the 400
foot minimum lot width requirement of the LC-10A zone of Section 179-13. Benefit to the
applicant, the applicant would be permitted to create the building lot as desired. Feasible alternatives,
I believe that the feasible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated and the current plan
represents the best use or subdivision of the property. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? 133 feet of relief is probably moderate in this particular circumstance, but it certainly is
not substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there will be little or no
effect on the neighborhood or community, based on the fact that it’s consistent in acreage and
character with the rest of the lots in the area. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe partially, being
that he wants to do a subdivision, but again, it has to do with the zoning in the area. So, based on
that fact, I believe the test is passed, and I would move for the approval of the application.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting August 18, 1999)
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham
MR. THOMAS-There you go.
MR. BARBER-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anybody have anything else for the good of the Board?
MR. STONE-I move we adjourn.
MR. STEC-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Thomas, Chairman
33