2000-12-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
CHARLES ABBATE
NORMAN HIMES
ALLAN BRYANT
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL HAYES
ROBERT MC NALLY
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-Since everybody in the room is familiar with my monologue, I think I will skip it until
some other people might show up. In terms of how we operate, I think you all are aware how we do
that. Having said that, I will call the first item on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-2000 TYPE II JANE N. BARTON & OTHERS OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 52 NOLAN CAMP ROAD APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A GARAGE IN EXCESS OF PREVIOUS VARIANCE APPROVAL AND
SEEKS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT RELIEF. CROSS REF. AV 56-2000 OLD TAX MAP NO.
42-1-1.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-42 LOT SIZE: 5.20 SECTION 179-16 ZONE: WR-
3A
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 99-2000 Jane N. Barton & Others, Meeting Date: December 20,
2000 “Project Location: 52 Nolan Camp Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a freestanding garage in excess of the maximum height granted per Area Variance 56-2000.
Relief Required: Applicant seeks relief for a 23 foot 11 inch tall structure by requesting 1 foot-5 inches
of relief from the 22 foot-6 inch maximum allowable height per Area Variance 56-2000. (Staff
measurements offer a 24 foot 5 inch height, not including “cap”) Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would
be permitted to maintain garage as constructed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear
to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: A total accessory structure
height of approximately 8 feet taller than the 16 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial, (50%). 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 is self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 56-
2000 res. 6/28/00 22’-6” tall garage Staff comments: Field measurements performed by staff
indicate a 24 foot 5 inch tall structure, not including the “vent cap.” Please see attached photo.
Drawings submitted with previous variance indicated total proposed height; (“vent cap” to final
grade)…..22-6. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor,
and I represent the applicant, Jane Barton, and Jane Nolan Barton is here with me. It’s not the type
of application that I’m sure the Board likes to look at. It is not an easy one for me, necessarily, to
present, but I’d ask you to listen through the whole process, and then make a determination based
upon whether or not, in the first instance, you would have approved a variance as requested. This is
not a small parcel of land. It’s 5.2 acres of land. I’ll give you a copy of the survey map. The garage
that we’re talking about is still over here in the corner. The property next to it, immediately next to
it, is the Mozel’s property. The Mozel’s consented to the variance before, and they have no objection
to the Board expanding the variance, if the Board is so inclined, due to the fact that the Mozel’s
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
garage is oversized on the other side of the property line. If you take a look at some of the
photographs, you will see that, although not in the proper size, this fits in fairly well in the
neighborhood. If you take a look at some of the photographs, you’ll see that a good portion of the
back of the garage is actually built into the bank. Actually, that bank probably goes another 100 feet
or better above the garage, as it’s completed. This is not a garage or a structure that sticks up above
the sight lines from the lake. It’s completely treed on the west side, by the Mozel side. It’s
substantially treed on the lake side. I haven’t been out on the lake since they finished it, but my
understanding is that it’s not something that sticks out. Maybe Jim has been on the lake and
understands it. I say that it is not an application I’m happy to be presenting, and I’m a little surprised
by Craig’s notes, because we met. I had measurements that the builder gave me, and we were talking
23 feet, 3 inches total, for the structure, plus eight inches for a Code requirement that you have at
least eight inches of exposed concrete below the building. So we were talking a total of 23 feet 11
inches. So I think part of the difference is, in his drawing, he shows 1.2, one foot two inches as
being exposed below the foundation or below the footing, which our intention is to bring it up to
eight inches. Federally, there’s a Code requirement that you have it eight inches exposed concrete,
and this is something that’s kind of a learning experience, if you will. It’s a learning experience for
me. I made out the earlier application. I made out the earlier application, after looking at these
drawings. I submitted it to you. I submitted it to Staff, and we all thought we were right. We
weren’t actually. This drawing, and here is, there is another drawing (lost words), but this is a
drawing that was stamped by the Town Board, when the building permit was given. This is the
actual mylar copy of that building permit drawing. If you look at both of these, when you talk your
22’ 6”, you go from the top of the concrete to below the cap on the roof. I misread those drawings.
I misread them by probably two inches, two and a half inches on the cap, and I didn’t include the
eight inches on the bottom, and our actual measurement right now is telling you that total, from the
top of the cap to where an eight inch exposure will be, is 23 feet 9 inches. I spent two hours today
with Steve Pinchook of Pinchook and (lost word) and I’ll tell you that the figures will confuse you,
and if I’m confusing you at all, tell me to back up and I’ll try and explain what we’re talking about or
put it forth another way. The original eight inches here, and this line goes over to that top of that
beam. Steve Pinchook tells me that when you see drawings like this, they are dimensional drawings
and they are dimensional drawings for the lumber. So I misread it. I submitted the wrong
application to you. I think Staff misread it back when we submitted it, and I can explain very easily,
eight inches on the bottom. So the concrete thickness is my fault, not the builder’s fault, and two to
two and a half inches on the top was with the cap material, over and above it. So, in my
understanding, if we bring the grade up to eight inches on the bottom, as we’re committed to do,
we’re going to be talking about a difference of seven inches, and we seem to have a rule around here,
a little bit of flexibility. If I come in for a building permit and build something, Craig can correct me
if I’m wrong or not, and we say that we’re going to build something 24 feet, if it comes out 24 feet,
11 inches, it’s still okay. They apparently give a foot. They don’t do that once you’ve gotten a
variance, and I don’t know if you’ve gotten into that argument before with people or not. We tried
to suggest some alternatives, and we go back to where we have a real problem with how you define
the height of this structure, and I finally said, I’ll submit an application for a variance, because I differ
with Staff as to how they submit, or how they measure. If you take a look, this is the front side, the
lake side of the property, and when.
MR. STONE-Which is the lake?
MR. O'CONNOR-This side right here.
MR. STONE-Okay. From this drawing, I couldn’t quite tell.
MR. O'CONNOR-When they told me that this was off, I said, all right, can we take some siding off
of the front of the building, put some type of shield, some type of guard so you can put dirt against
it, per building code, bring the finished grade up to a point where it comes into compliance, and that
was going to be referred to Mr. Hatin, and then if we got into another discussion that said, truthfully,
that’s not the only place where you have a variance, and this is where I differ a little bit. If you’re
looking at the side of the garage, and you measure from here to the eaves, you’re certainly under even
the permitted height, but Staff is telling me that they’re looking at the side of the building, looking
through the building to where the center board would be, and dropping a line, and that, we could
take care of this by berming this piece out here, but we wouldn’t be able to take care of it on the side,
and we would have the same problem there, for the portion of the garage that’s extended beyond the
bank, not the whole garage, the whole garage (lost words) the bank. So I said I would submit it.
This, I think, is the clearest that I can give you, and basically, we’re talking about asking you to allow
nine more inches of the building, and add eight inches to the application for the area from the
concrete floor down to the finished grade.
MR. O'CONNOR-I also asked what were the other alternatives? This has a center board. It’s not a
truss roof system. So I said (lost words) ridge board right through the center of the roof joist, and
you just cut off 17 inches or maybe cut off 25 inches and have a flat peak up on the top or something
like that. You would have to rebuild the upper roof as truss. You would have to have a flat roof for
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
the portion to get across there. (Lost words) and you’re going to have two ridges, one on each end
of the flat area, which I’m not sure how you would drain out. It would take quite a bit of
engineering to do it. Steve Pinchook has been in the business of building since 1969. He’s been an
owner and operator of a construction business since 1984. He’s given me an estimate that to do
something like I talked about, flattening the top of the roof, would be about $10,000. The purest
way of doing this thing would be taking the roof off, take the gables off. You would have to take the
ceiling joists off that are on there, there, and you would have to shorten this wall. He’s telling me
that he doesn’t think, in our area, you can have a shingled roof with less than a 12/5 pitch. That’s
the minimum that you should need, with the weather that we have. To make that difference, you’re
going to cut into this wall about 17 feet or 17 inches. You’re going to put a new plate on it, and then
you’re going to put the roof joists back on. He said that that would cost as much as $15,000. So
those are the factual difficulties that Jane Barber faces.
MR. STONE-You just gave her a new name.
MR. O'CONNOR-Jane Barton.
MR. ABBATE-Jane Nolan Barton.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the four tests for an Area Variance, and we were sitting here for the
first time, I think I would have a pretty good argument. I think it’s flavored a little bit because it was
built, and built wrong, but as far as the impacts on the adjoining property or on the lake, you’re not
talking about great impacts because of an error of 17 inches, and let me explain that a little bit
further, 17 inches. Seventeen inches is eight inches to go to a finished grade, two and a half inches to
go for the cap and then somehow another seven inches in those roof joists. The first roof joists they
cut looked like they’re five and a half on twelve. They don’t look like they’re five on twelve, and they
made a mistake and they followed that model and cut the rest of them. So, that’s how we get the
total of 17 inches, but you’re talking about, are we creating an undesirable change that will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to nearby properties will be created by
granting of the Area Variance, and I can testify that the only person that’s in any way effected at all is
the Mozels, and they have consented to it and have no problem with it. I’m not even sure how tall
their building is. They did get a height variance when they had theirs built, too. Whether the benefit
sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant to pursue, other
than the Area Variance. Practically speaking, and you get into practical difficulty, I don’t think so. I
don’t think, for the benefit that you might have, which would be compliance with the Ordinance, to
have somebody spend $10,000 to $15,000, which are real minimum estimates, if you weigh those
factors, that you’re going to come to that point and say, yes, tear down the roof. You’re 17 inches
higher than you’re supposed to be, and rebuild the building. We’ve probably, if it’s of great concern,
we probably could still put some type of metal shield on the front of the building toward the lake,
and bring the finished grade up, in compliance with Code, or nearer to compliance with Code than
the full 17 inches, and I don’t know if that’s going to be material. If you actually look at the property,
right in front of that garage, there’s a hill, and the crown of the hill actually hides the bottom of the
garage. So, if you’re taking a foot off of this, it’s not going to be seen out on the lake. Whether the
requested variance is substantial. Again, you’re into a numbers game. I don’t think it is. I don’t
think it is, and substantial is supposed to be judged, not necessarily just in how many inches we’re
talking about, but what is the impact of the inches that we’re talking about. Given this location of
this garage, there is no impact. So, truthfully, there’s nothing substantial about what we request,
whether it be 10%, 15%, or whatever it might be. I’ll go back to something that sometimes bugs me
and it gets me off into stray land, you don’t necessarily want me to be into, but if this was attached to
the house, it could be even taller. The only reason that we have this is it’s an accessory structure
limitation in this particular zone. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I offer that it
doesn’t. I mean, it’s just not noticeable, and whether that building is in total, the building itself is 23’
3”, with eight inches below it, which gets you up to 23’ 11”, as opposed to even going back to the
original amount that’s required for that zone. It’s not significant. Was the alleged difficult self-
created? Yes, that’s relative, but not necessarily determinative for the Board. It was self-created, but
it was created by a lot of people. If everybody stands up and says that, as they look at it, it is
education, experience, we can look at these things a little different. I don’t think anybody talked
about the eight inches to finished grade, until they went looking for a Certificate of Occupancy. It’s
not on the stamped plans that were approved by the Town. It’s not on the plans that were submitted
to this Board, and the peak was above those that were mentioned, if you look at them. They made a
mistake when they cut the rafters. I don’t think that there’s any doubt about that. That’s a seven
inch mistake, and I don’t think a seven inch mistake on a 5.2 acre parcel is worth $10,000 or $15,000,
when you balance all the factors. That’s my presentation.
MR. STONE-That’s your presentation. Let me say a few things. The arguments that you make are
well and good for an initial request, and you made them the last time, basically the same arguments,
that rather than go to 16 feet, we should go to 22 or whatever it was, and obviously this Board agreed
with you at that particular point in time. I think we’re in a different situation, and I’m not saying
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
we’re going to change our minds, but we’re in a situation where we granted a fair amount of relief.
You would agree that over six feet of relief is a considerable amount of relief, based upon the
arguments that you made at that particular point in time. I’m troubled by a couple of things. I’m
troubled by your misreading of the building height definition, and I think we’ve had this before, and
we’ve tried to explain it that obviously, when we talk building height, and if you read the definition, it
says, from grade, natural or finished, to the highest point of the structure. I mean, it’s very clear that
we’re not talking the eaves. We’re talking the rooftop, whether the building is like this or like this,
Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Stone, I’m not arguing with the application I’ve made. I think it’s still
unclear. I think on the Kellogg house we did not measure it that way. Then on a couple of others
we did not measure it that way.
MR. STONE-We have always.
MR. O'CONNOR-On the Phil Morse house we did not measure it that way.
MR. STONE-Yes, we did. That was the relief that was granted to the very tip up there. There was a
few inches, it wasn’t even half a foot. Do you remember, Craig, at all? It wasn’t very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I think that tip on that one, and on the other, was straight down. I’m not
arguing that. I understand the Board’s position, and I understand your interpretation.
MR. STONE-I think that’s what the Code says. It’s not necessarily the Board’s position. All right,
but having said that, I mean, we granted a substantial amount of relief. I’m concerned with, in my
history of, in my working days, I was involved with certain kinds of products where it was always
dealing with people who wanted to, I call it, slice the baloney. Start here and make the product a
little bit less than it might have been when we started, and never look back on where we started
from. This, to me, is kind of the same thing in reverse. Well, we’ve got to live, we’ve got some relief,
now we want a little more, and it troubles me that if everybody in Town came in and got a variance,
whether it was height or something else, and then came back and said, we made a mistake, and we
ended up eight feet from the line versus ten feet from the line, or twenty feet versus sixteen feet, we
don’t have a zoning code. That’s my concern. Now I’m not saying that I’m going to come down on
the side of the Code and say, no, you can’t have this extended relief, but I’m concerned, because this
is a methodology, if you will, of getting around the zoning. We got caught, we’re a little higher, but
we’ll come and seek another variance, and I’m not saying you’re bad people or anything like that, but
this is a concern that I have. Unfortunately, there are people out there who might do this
deliberately. I don’t think this is deliberate.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is not intentional. I can tell you that. The builder has suffered that he has
not been paid, although completed. The builder is not here, and maybe that would be something you
would want to hear, because the builder is in Florida, and he had people lined up to build a house in
Florida, and they went, I think right after Thanksgiving, and the last couple of days they went up and
measured the building and gave me the measurements.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments anybody wants to make?
MR. ABBATE-I have a question here. Did I hear you right, Counselor, when you indicated that this
application was originally submitted to the Town, as well as this Board, and there were no objections
at that time?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Well, why were there no objections at that time?
MR. O'CONNOR-Everybody read it the same as I did.
MR. ABBATE-Everybody read it the same as you did. Then I gather from that what you’re saying is
that they’re not reading it the same as they did initially, at this time. So what you’re telling me, based
upon your interpretation, and your perception, that we’re dealing with two standards here? Initially
there was no objection, and now there is?
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a change in position.
MR. ABBATE-There’s a change in position.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. To the tune of ten and a half inches.
MR. ABBATE-To the tune of ten and a half inches.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-Well, let’s just ask Staff about that. Do you agree with ten and a half inches, Craig? I
mean, you have different numbers than Mr. O’Connor does. Can we comment on that?
MR. BROWN-The number that’s in the Staff notes represents an actual existing measurement of the
building. Not, and the first sentence in the relief required paragraph reflects the applicant’s
application. My measurement of 24’5” is solely just a field measurement, not what they’re proposing
to maintain or proposing to create. That’s just what’s there now, they’re final 23’11” is what’s
proposed.
MR. STONE-What do you mean by not including the cap?
MR. BROWN-I couldn’t get a measurement to the very top of the cap.
MR. STONE-The very top of the building.
MR. BROWN-Right. Well, there’s a point where the shingles come to a peak, and then there’s a vent
ridge on top of that.
MR. STONE-But is that not the highest point of the structure?
MR. BROWN-It is. That doesn’t matter to me. I mean, it’s a couple of inches.
MR. STONE-I’m just saying, you’re being conservative. I mean, you’re erring on the side of the
applicant, in a sense. It’s probably even higher than that.
MR. BROWN-I did not include it. It’s not worth measuring, to me.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s the highest point of the structure.
MR. O'CONNOR-But he did include a larger exposure of foundation. I just looked at that quickly.
I did not get those.
MR. BROWN-That’s existing.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s existing.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-So we’ve got to raise the grade, we do have to raise the grade of the dirt so it goes
to eight inches.
MR. STONE-And is that going to bring it onto the wood?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, the eight inches is exposed, as opposed to one foot, two.
MR. BRYANT-They’re only going to have four inches of fill, is all they’re going to do. It’s 1.2
existing now, they want one foot and two inches.
MR. O'CONNOR-Six inches.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, add six. That makes a difference between their two measurements, basically.
Craig says it’s 24’5” now.
MR. STONE-Right. Craig is (lost words).
MR. BROWN-That’s an existing field measurement. They’re proposal, they’re application call for a
final reveal of eight inches on the foundation, which is the 23’11”.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which I understand is the Code minimum.
MR. BROWN-That’s a minimum, yes.
MR. MC NULTY-So if they backfill the six inches.
MR. BROWN-That gets them to 23’11”.
MR. MC NULTY-Take the six off Craig’s measurement of 24’5”, that brings us back to the 23’11”
that they’re asking for.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-Plus the cap.
MR. MC NULTY-Plus the cap.
MR. STONE-Which is a couple of inches.
MR. MC NULTY-A couple of inches probably.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-This is something that may not be able to be answered here, and I don’t know how
much bearing it has on the matter. So the question to you, sir, is probably in connection with that,
which, Craig, you may not be able to answer either. The second floor, floor to stand, shows eight
feet, and I’d like to know what the difference, if any is in that measurement from the original plan,
that second floor, and while you’re thinking of that, sir, I’ll go on to a question of Craig, and again,
this may be a little bit out of his area, but, Craig, it’s my understanding for an area, a structure to be
habitable, according to that fire code New York came out with in the mid eighties, has to be eight
feet.
MR. BROWN-Seven feet, six inches.
MR. HIMES-Seven feet, six inches. Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s just one of the requirements. There’s other requirements besides just height.
MR. HIMES-We did have, I remember our discussions on this, last time, and I supported the
application (lost words) you pointed out. It is definitely a unique piece of property. I enjoyed being
there when I went to look at it. We did also have some discussion about whether or not, if this
wasn’t resolved, if that, the entire building, particularly the second floor, would not be used for
occupancy of some kind, and it was, well, that was not in the plan. It was going to be for storage and
so forth, and so I would be interested to know what that, the dimensions of that floor to ceiling were
on the original plan, and whether that was raised. I couldn’t tell.
MR. O'CONNOR-It looks like on the thing that’s attached to the application that it’s eight feet
minus the floor joists of the second floor, which I think is a two by ten, if you look at the arrows that
they’ve got there on that. So it’s probably seven feet, four.
MR. HIMES-Now, presently?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it might be a little bit less than seven feet, four because you’ve got the
thickness of the plywood on top of the floor joists. So, seven feet, two, maybe seven feet, one.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That would be of some importance to me to know that, because it certainly
would remove any possibility from my mind of what the use of this second floor would lend itself to,
at some future date, and as I said, originally.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to a condition being imposed on the approval, saying that
it will not be used for residential purposes.
MR. STONE-I think we did that the first time. My note says, told no living in garage. That’s the
note that I have.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you want to put it as a formal condition, we have no objection to that.
MR. HIMES-That was included?
MR. STONE-I don’t have the minutes. That’s my note that I just wrote down.
MR. HIMES-Because I think maybe, as I remember, we talked about that. The question came up
about that, and I think the, Mr. O’Connor, and rightly so, at the time, looked at it and said, look, that
is not in our plans and we do not want to make any conditions at this point if not absolutely
necessary, and I think that maybe my recollection (lost words) maybe we can check on this, and
perhaps on the basis of what the final floor to ceiling would be in the building as it stands now. That
probably would be easy enough to determine what it was, according to the original plan, but I guess
we’ve got a file or something we could tell. I just, my own opinion, think it’s of some importance to
me. However, I could certainly say that (lost words).
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-Well, that was a question that I had, looking at this picture, if I didn’t know there was
supposed to be no living upstairs, it certainly looks like a second floor of a house.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that was done intentionally for the aesthetic purposes, so it wouldn’t be a
barn, it wouldn’t have the appearance of a barn. It was not done, architecturally, it looks better
placed in that manner, at least that’s what I thought the intent was.
MR. STONE-It’s a very attractive building. There’s no question about that. Any other questions
before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this
application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. ABBATE-I have one other question. Counselor indicated that Mr. Mozel had no objections.
Do we have anything in correspondence or any letters or memos or anything? Not that I don’t take
the Counselor’s word, but I like to see documentation at times.
MR. HIMES-My recollection is that there was.
MR. O'CONNOR-There was a consent, at that time.
MR. STONE-At that time.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I also tell you that it’s not only a casual relationship that I have with them. I
represent them, and I have talked to them about this application, and they have no objection.
MR. STONE-And he’s an officer of the court.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he is.
MR. STONE-And we accept his statement as true.
MR. O'CONNOR-I can get documentation.
MR. STONE-No, that’s okay.
MR. ABBATE-I wanted to raise and clear it up, that’s all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree. I don’t really think that the structure is offensive, and
having mine on the lake, it doesn’t really stick out like a sore thumb, like a lot of the places on the
lake do. It’s an unfortunate circumstance that it got built a little bigger than it was supposed to be,
but at the same time, I think that we have to approach it from the viewpoint of, if it’s not going to be
used for habitable living space, my only other concern would be, you know, whether the property
gets subdivided at some point at a future date, but I think it’s three acre zoning there anyway, isn’t it?
So it probably is indivisible, so to speak.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s three acre zoning on a lot of the properties, the actual hill. So you’ve got
some restrictions on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as what we had mentioned before, you know, if there’s some caveat
about living space upstairs, you know, whether it’s just for storage, I would be amenable to granting
this variance.
MR. STONE-All right. Norman?
MR. HIMES-I would feel pretty much the same, about the condition. Back when we approved the
variance to begin with, I thought, well, we’re going to have a structure there about the same size as
the physical building on the property, but nonetheless, this property is a most unusual situation, and I
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
felt this (lost words) so I think I kind of go along with Jim in saying that if we can get a condition on
that, and they are going to do something such as bring in some fill to take care of that bottom
business, I guess I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor made his statement, and I had all kinds of questions prior to that,
but you have answered those questions that I have in purple ink here, but in particular I’d like to note
that my colleague here indicated that this was approved initially, and the application was submitted to
the Town, as well as this Board, and at that time, as I understand it, there was a condition, and based
on that condition, the application was approved, and based upon that, and the unique circumstances,
I have no problems with approving the application.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Before I get to my actual statement, I do have a couple of comments. As far as the
definition of determining the height of a building, I mean, it’s spelled out clearly, and if you’ve got
one of these handy, dandy little books, they’ve even got a little diagram in the back. It shows you the
diagram. So I don’t think that’s an argument, and, frankly, I don’t really remember this original
application. Unfortunately, we dump all our paperwork in the recycle bin. So I don’t have the notes
from that particular application to discuss it intelligently. You did make a point of the additional cost
of the $10,000, the $15,000, and I sympathize with that, but that’s not really the Board’s, that’s not
even a considering factor for the Board, because we didn’t create that situation. That is something
that was not created by the Board, so, that being said, the building looks great. I really have no
objection to the way it looks now, and I would vote to approve the application, the 17 inches.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with what’s been said. On the one hand, I think, as Mr.
O’Connor suggested, if we looked at this, or if I looked at it, on the basis, if you’d come in with a
request for the current height, at the time I think probably I would have approved it. I don’t think
the 17 inches would have made a difference to me. At the same time, as the Chairman has indicated,
I am bothered by applications, and there’s been several that do come back and say, whoops, we
goofed, and we need more relief for this or that or something else, and most of the time I don’t think
it’s deliberate. I think it’s accidental, but I am concerned about builders just going ahead and doing
something and not doing it accurately, but having said that, I don’t think it makes any difference
whether this is, as it is, 17 inches higher than what’s approved or not. As far as appearance, it’s an
attractive building. So I have no problem with it. I’ll be approving it.
MR. STONE-I think we’ve made our point, and I certainly, I think as Mr. McNulty said, if you had
come in with this application the first time, back in June, we would have all said yes, just like we did
then, and I’m certainly prepared to do it now. My only frustration is that we have done some
education here, both to you and hopefully to the Town, but nobody knows that we’ve given this
education. Nobody knows our concerns, because we never get coverage on this Board, and yet the
things that we do are of extreme importance to at least the applicant, and it’s only one person at a
time, obviously. So it’s just frustrating that we sit here and we give of ourselves and do a lot of good
thinking, I think, and ask some pretty tough questions, and yet nobody knows. It’s like we start over
again every time some applicant comes in, and that’s frustrating to me, but I’m just venting at the
moment.
MR. O'CONNOR-I learned.
MR. STONE-Yes, you learned.
MR. O'CONNOR-At least I learned that I was not aware that you had a Code requirement that you
can’t have your dirt or have your building measured to the top of the floor. I mean, those maps that
I submitted before had built into there a minimum of eight inches. Actually, the map shows four
feet below the finished grade.
MR. STONE-Well, you know what assumptions are. We all make them.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d acknowledge that.
MR. STONE-And we do the same thing. Obviously, we go on our understanding of it, and anytime
you assume, as they say, you make an ass of u and me, you know, it’s very, very simple, and I’m glad
that you’re indicating some education, and obviously Staff has gotten some. So hopefully we’ve
gotten some, too, and we will maybe ask tougher questions the next time. So, we’ve all learned.
Having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-2000 JANE N. BARTON &
OTHERS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
52 Nolan Camp Road. The applicant has constructed a freestanding garage in excess of the
maximum height granted for Area Variance No. 56-2000. The applicant seeks relief for a 23 foot 11
inch tall structure by requesting one foot five inches of relief from the 22 foot 6 inch maximum
allowable height for Area Variance No. 56-2000. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant
would be permitted to maintain the garage as constructed. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited.
Causing them to take the roof off and reconfigure seems a little bit excessive. Is this relief substantial
relative to Ordinance? The total accessory structure height of approximately eight feet taller than the
sixteen foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, but the effect of adding 17
inches to the previous granted variance seems to me minimal. So I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
Effects on the neighborhood or community? Minimal to moderate effects, I would say the effects
are probably going to be minimal. This structure doesn’t really stick out on the lake, and it’s pretty
well hidden. Is this difficulty self-created? I would say yes, it is, because it was improperly
constructed at the time, and the only other condition would be that this structure not be used for
habitable living space in the future. That the applicant is going to fill to eight inches on the lakeside,
only eight inches of concrete will be showing on the lakeside, 23 feet, 8 inches with eight inches
showing on the bottom of the lakeside, with or without the cap. If the cap is a couple of inches
more, we acknowledge that that’s as constructed.
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. I don’t have any problem with the
recommendation, but there were a number of figures that were thrown around this evening, which
are somewhat inconsistent in here. If it doesn’t make any difference, that’s okay with me. In other
words, Counselor said, relief required, we only want to add nine inches to the building, and some
finished garage, but if it doesn’t make any difference, then I’m not going to make a point of it.
MR. STONE-Well, it does make a difference.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we go to Craig’s figure, except for the cap. The cap, you’re saying you
didn’t measure the cap?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thought my guy had.
MR. STONE-Well, it certainly looks like, on this drawing, of 23’ 3”, it looks like it’s to the cap.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-So, I mean, but, I mean, 23’11”, with eight inches showing on the bottom of the
lakeside, let’s say with or without the cap, I mean, just to clarify, 23’11” we believe is to the cap, but if
the cap is a couple of inches more, we acknowledge that that’s is as constructed. Is that reasonable.
MR. O'CONNOR-I appreciate that. I don’t think it is, but I appreciate that.
MR. ABBATE-I just wanted to clear that up.
MR. STONE-I don’t want somebody out there with a transit next time.
MR. O'CONNOR-I took two hours with Steve Pinchook today trying to get a drawing for you. I
thought it would be a simple thing, and it wasn’t.
MR. ABBATE-When we get the figures right, then it’s in concrete.
MR. STONE-That’s the whole thing. All right. Do I hear a second?
MR. ABBATE-I second it, Mr. Chairman.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
JANE NOLAN BARTON
MRS. BARTON-Yes, thank you very much.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-Next is Area Variance No. 100-2000, William Herlihy, 9 Reardon Road Extension.
The applicant has constructed a porch, and seeks relief from setback requirements. Is there anyone
here to speak?
MR. BROWN-I don’t see them. Let me check the lobby.
MR. STONE-I understand Mr. Steves is supposed to be here. Having seen Mr. Herlihy today, he’s
not very happy with this. Is he there?
MR. ABBATE-No?
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Either bump him to the end, or proceed without him.
MR. STONE-No, I think we need to hear it, since this is apparently a construction mistake. I think
we need to at least hear mea culpas. We’ll hold it to the end of the meeting, at the moment, and we’ll
call on the next one we have.
NOTICE OF APPEAL 7-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING A
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION PERTAINING TO SECTION 183-22
AND SECTION 183-47 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. LOCATION OF
PROPERTY: NORTH ON BAY ROAD TO DUNHAMS BAY. ZONING: WR-1A AND
RR-3A. OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.3 NEW TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.1
JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT
MR. STONE-Read Mr. Salvador’s letter and Mr. Round’s letter, but Mr. Round’s letter is first. So read
Mr. Round’s letter. Was there previous correspondence to this, to his letter of the 27?
th
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. This is a procedural thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with those letters, I
don’t believe. This is a, our appeal is a procedural matter.
MR. STONE-I would still like to have, read the two letters that we have.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Pertaining to Appeal No. 7-2000, letter to John Salvador from Chris Round,
dated November 27, 2000 “This letter is a follow up to our meeting on November 2, 2000, where we
discussed your proposed subdivision of parcel 10-1-17.3. The Planning Office had informed you in our
October 6, 2000 correspondence that your application was incomplete and was removed from the
October 2000 Planning Board agenda. The application was previously tabled at the September 28, 2000
meeting pending review of materials submitted just prior to the meeting. During our November 2
nd
meeting we informed you that your application did not meet the minimum submission requirements for
subdivision; no building location, setbacks, septic disposal location among other items. We also
indicated the proposal did not comply with the allowable densities in the Waterfront Residential (WR-
1A) zone. Maximum allowable densities for the WR-1A district are identified in 179-16A (1) and 179-
16B. One principal building is allowed for every one acre within the zone. Additional guidance on
calculating density for subdivision of lands is provided in Chapter A183 Section A183-22 “Density”.
Relief from the density provisions is subject to the review of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
Granting of waivers from the submission requirements of A183 are subject to the discretion of the
Planning Board as outlined in A183-47. Waiver requests are generally limited to the minimum plat
requirements such as minimum contour interval, wetland mapping, etc.. I hope this information is of
assistance in preparing your proposal. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Chris Round Executive
Director of Community Development Zoning Administrator” And we have a letter addressed to Chris
Round, Executive Director, Queensbury Community Development Department, from John Salvador,
dated November 28, 2000 “Dear Chris: Further to your letter of October 6, 2000, wherein you
determined that our application was incomplete because the location of the proposed subdivision line
resulted in a 2-lot subdivision that does not meet the requirements of Town Ordinance Chapter A183.
A subsequent meeting with you and Laura Moore revealed that our application would not move forward
until the area of the lands to be subdivided meet the density limitations as enumerated in Section A183-
22 Density of the Subdivision of Land Ordinance. Absent an ability to meet the requirements of A183-
22 such that the resulting subdivided land meets the minimum lot size allowed in the respective zone (1
Acre), it was your suggestion that we seek relief from the density requirements of Section A183-22.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
Accordingly, we are hereby requesting that our application be placed on the December calendar of the
Planning Board such that we may seek a waiver from said density requirements. Such waivers may be
granted within the Planning Board’s authority to find that “…..due to the special circumstances of a
particular plat, that meeting a certain requirement of the regulations is not requisite…..” (See Sec A183-
47 Waivers). Queensbury Town Code 178 entitled “Zoning-Subdivision Review” provides for the
jurisdiction and review of 2-lot subdivisions without Planning Board approval. we do not think this code
that allows for 2-lot subdivision to be approved by the Zoning Administrator is applicable to our
proposed subdivision and are, therefore, seeking the Planning Board’s waiver. Thank you for your
consideration of this calendar request and please advise the date on which we can continue the public
hearing. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal 7-2000, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: December 20, 2000
“Description: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regards to a Zoning
Administrator determination with respect to §183-22 and §183-47 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Information Requested: The appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination, which
states “Relief from the density provisions is subject to the review of the Zoning Board of Appeals.”
Staff comments: The appellant has submitted a sketch plan subdivision for review by the Planning
Board. The application has been deemed incomplete, as the minimum submission requirements were
not met. The item that has bearing on this appeal is the total developable lands used when determining a
density calculation for the number of proposed lots. Density, §183-22,A., (4): the method for calculating
developable lands indicates the unbuildable area such as…bodies of water should be subtracted from the
total property area. The underwater lands associated with a parcel subject to the subdivision are
considered unbuildable and are to be discounted as such. It is my understanding that the appellant
wishes to seek a waiver from this calculation, and seeks such a waiver from the Planning Board, per
§183-47. It is my determination that the appellant is subject to this calculation and cannot seek a waiver,
from the Planning Board, from this requirement. I also indicated the proposed subdivision lot sizes do
not meet the minimum lot area requirements of the WR-1A zone. Both of the requests of the applicant
are for relief from the zoning ordinance and would require a decision from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.”
MR. STONE-A question before we start, personal pronoun, second page, is that you, Craig?
MR. BROWN-This was prepared by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STONE-This was prepared, it’s not signed, but prepared by the Zoning Administrator. So
those are Chris Round’s, Mr. Round’s notes?
MR. BROWN-These are his notes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s for the record. Staff notes were prepared by the Zoning Administrator.
Okay. I’m wondering why you’re here. I’m sure you’re going to try to tell me why we’re here.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen. I’m John Salvador. This appeal tonight
is taken as a result of the Zoning Administrator’s determination of November 22, that any relief
nd
from the density guidelines of the Subdivision Ordinance, as spelled out in A183 Section 22 of the
Town Code, is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals and only the Zoning Board of
Appeals. We are not here to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s determinations with respect to
Section 183-22. That deals with the merits of the argument. That’s not why we’re here.
MR. STONE-Okay. So are you saying that you would like to go to the Planning Board and have
them determine whether or not they would hear it?
MR. SALVADOR-We’re in this Ordinance, Subdivision of Land. The Planning Board and only the
Planning Board makes determinations with regard to what’s specified in here, and they have the
ability to grant waivers. We don’t call them variances. We call them waivers. That’s built in to this
Code. They are an appeals board in and of themselves. Our contention is that the Planning Board
has been granted authority, in Article 13 of Town Code, Chapter A183, to hear requests for and to
grant waivers from any and all requirements, recommendations and practices set forth in the Town
Code known as the Subdivision of Land Ordinance, one of these being Section 183.22. This
application deals with the subdivision of land that has ever been in commercial use, and it is not
likely to be in any other use. Most will agree that the operation of a commercial marina represents
the highest and best use of the property. No new construction is contemplated at this time. My
point here is that this application before the Planning Board is simply a subdivision of land. Does
not deal with residential construction, and this Code is all about residential construction. Article 13
of the Subdivision code, Paragraph 47A, reads as follows, “Where the Planning Board finds, due to
the special circumstances of a particular plat, that meeting a certain requirement of these regulations
is not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare, it may waive such
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
requirement, subject to appropriate conditions, provided that in no case…” the Adirondack Park
Agency Regulations are not abridged, and we don’t reach that threshold at all. “In granting waivers,
the Planning Board shall impose such conditions and will substantially assume that the objectives of
the standards or requirements so waived are met.” That’s their power and authority within this
Code. Through the Community Development Department, I have requested the opportunity to seek
a waiver to the provision of a Subdivision Ordinance. I can only do that before the Planning Board.
They, Mr. Round, is preventing us from appearing before the Planning Board to request such a
waiver, simply by determining that our application is not complete. The same Ordinance, however,
the Planning Board, at its regular monthly meeting, shall review and determine the completeness of
an application. It’s the Planning Board’s job to determine the completeness of an application, not
Mr. Round’s job. The subject matter of this waiver is germane to the Subdivision Ordinance and
only the Subdivision Ordinance. Matters dealing with density calculations are not a part of the
Zoning Ordinance. Nothing in here about a criteria for establishing density. Further, “It is declared
to the policy of the Planning Board to consider land subdivision plans for residential, industrial and
commercial uses, as a part of a plan for the orderly, efficient and economic development of the
town”. That’s in Section 183-1A, B and C. At the November 27 meeting of the Town Board
th
workshop, Councilman Martin stated the following. There was a discussion there pertaining to the
difficulty that a property owner had with developing the land as they thought they would like to
develop it, involving commercial, residential, buffer zones, and this sort of thing. Mr. Martin said the
following, and by the way, I have the minutes of that meeting here. “I would argue that we should
expand our scope of subdivision and PUD”. Right now, we are dealing with residential subdivisions
and PUD’s. That’s this. We should have the ability to do commercial subdivisions as well. This is
what we’re talking about, and we’re being prevented from getting to that point. The Zoning
Administrator has refused to allow our application to be rescheduled for the Planning Board, after
having been initially accepted by Staff as complete. I’d like to just read to you a couple of paragraphs
in here which give the, just to exemplify the type of powers the Zoning Board has, excuse me, the
Planning Board has within this Ordinance.
MR. STONE-Citation, please.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m at 183-1, on Page, okay. “By the authority of the resolution of the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury, adopted….the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is
authorized and empowered to approve plats showing lots, blocks or sites with or without streets or
highways,….” It’s the Planning Board that has the authority. Paragraph B, “It is declared to be the
policy of the Planning Board to consider land subdivision plats for residential, industrial and
commercial uses as part of a plan for the orderly, efficient and economical development of the
town.” 183-2, “the subdivider shall make application for and receive final approval of such proposed
subdivision in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Land Subdivision Regulations”. 183-4,
“Zoning definitions to apply.” Instead of reiterating all the definitions the Town uses, they simply
refer to this Code for their definitions section. However, this does not include the definition of
density calculation. This does not provide for that. So there’s no connection, there’s no connection
between this Ordinance and this Ordinance, with regard to density. “The Planning Board shall study
the Sketch Plan in conjunction with the individual and Intrinsic Development Suitability Map and
other maps and information as may be appropriate to determine if the proposed subdivisions are in
areas where there are severe limitations to development”. “The Planning Board shall review and
determine the completeness of an application”. I read that before. “The Planning Board shall study
the primary plat, taking into consideration the provisions of these regulations”. These regulations.
I’m at 183-31. This is the subject of cluster development, but “the Planning Board has been
empowered to modify the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of § 281 of the Town Law”. The Planning Board has
been empowered, and they are empowered through this Ordinance. My contention is that, unless I
can address the Planning Board and make an argument for a waiver, I can go nowhere with this
project. Mr. Round has his foot on the hose.
MR. STONE-But the citation you just made is under cluster development.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s true.
MR. STONE-This is a two lot subdivision that we’re talking about. I don’t think that’s cluster, but
then I don’t have the definition.
MR. SALVADOR-But it’s the intent, the powers that have been given to the Planning Board. It’s
another example of the powers they’ve been given.
MR. STONE-Right, but the Zoning Board of Appeals also has the power to allow variances from
the existing zoning code, and that’s what we’re talking about here.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-That’s what Mr. Round is saying, and I would like you to address that. He says that
both of the requests that you’ve made are relief from the Zoning Ordinance, and that is our.
MR. SALVADOR-He says that. I do not agree with him.
MR. STONE-So how can we, you give us, I guess, a Catch-22. You want us to rule on something he
says is our jurisdiction. I mean, it gets a little confusing, to me. I don’t know whether the rest of my
fellow Board members are crystal clear, but.
MR. MC NULTY-There’s a fine line here. If Mr. Salvador were asking directly for relief of density,
then I think it would belong to us, because density is defined in the Zoning Regulations. If he wants
to accomplish that, by asking for a waiver in the way density is calculated for subdivisions, then that
may fall to the Planning Board. Because if he has a piece of property that is partly under water, and
the directions for calculating buildable area says you don’t count what’s under water, that definition is
in the Subdivision Regulations. So I think he could go to the Planning Board, legitimately, and say,
please, can I count the part that’s under water.
MR. STONE-Okay, but however, the authorization where you talked about the Planning Board
empowered to modify minimum lot size is under cluster development, and cluster development is a
planned development in which the lots are plotted with less than the minimum lot size, and
dimensional requirements, but which have access to common open space, which is part of the overall
development plan. So it’s not just a simple two lot subdivision. There’s more involved, and that’s
the one authorization that you cited, and maybe I missed one, where they can.
MR. SALVADOR-They have, I read a number of paragraphs.
MR. STONE-Yes, you did.
MR. SALVADOR-To show, to demonstrate the powers that the Planning Board has with regard to
my application, that being one of them.
MR. STONE-Did you read any other that talked about.
MR. SALVADOR-Every one of them.
MR. STONE-Minimum lot area. Did any (lost word) except the one under cluster?
MR. SALVADOR-It’s their determination.
MR. STONE-Was there any other authorization like 183-31 that said, modify minimum lot area?
Did you cite any other one in here?
MR. SALVADOR-Let me read them again, then.
MR. STONE-You’re more familiar with this than I am, I have to admit.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, they have the authority to develop a plan, a plan, okay.
MR. STONE-That is under cluster development.
MR. SALVADOR-Any and all plans, okay.
MR. STONE-You cited particular language.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Minimum lot, they can modify minimum lot area, under cluster development. Is there
any place else they can do that?
MR. SALVADOR-For example.
MR. STONE-That’s for example.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’m saying for example.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s not for example, Craig.
MR. BROWN-It’s a potential power that the Planning Board has. It has no relevance on this
application. This isn’t a cluster development.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying, and that’s the citation that he gave us.
MR. BROWN-It’s a power that the Board has, yes, but it doesn’t apply to this application.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t apply.
MR. SALVADOR-I use it to demonstrate that within this Ordinance, the Planning Board has been
given the powers to.
MR. STONE-In certain situations.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. STONE-We have to determine whether this is one of those situations.
MR. SALVADOR-They have the power to, at least they should listen to my application for a waiver.
They can send me back to you. That’s their privilege.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re saying, your argument is that they have the right to do this, and our
determination can be this is, they don’t because this is not a cluster development.
MR. SALVADOR-My presentation is that we have the right to go to the Planning Board. Mr.
Round cannot deny us the right to appear before the Planning Board and request a waiver, for
whatever reason, for whatever reason.
MR. STONE-I ask you again, and the rest of the Board can go where they want. I ask you again, the
only time I heard you mention modifying minimum lot area is under cluster development. It’s the
only place it came up.
MR. SALVADOR-I may not have to modify minimum lot.
MR. STONE-But you cited all kinds of authorizations.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think that’s what Mr. Salvador’s asking the Board to do. They’re not asking
anybody to consider modifying minimum lot sizes. Mr. Salvador’s asking that he be allowed to go to
the Planning Board to seek a waiver from the calculation for density.
MR. SALVADOR-Not, for whatever, that’s within the Code.
MR. STONE-Hold it, Craig. I’m reading something you said that Mr. Round wrote. “It is my
determination that the applicant is subject to this calculation”, that’s the minimum, “and cannot seek
a waiver from this requirement. I also indicated the proposed subdivision lot sizes do not meet the
minimum lot area requirements for the WR-1A zone”, and they have to go to the Zoning Board for
that.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-I mean, that’s what he said.
MR. SALVADOR-What we disagree with was where he said “and” we cannot seek a waiver. His
determination that we cannot seek a waiver is denying us a right we have to request a waiver, for
whatever reason. It’s up to the Board to make the determination, not Mr. Round. That’s like him
making a determination that you folks are supposed to make with regard to a variance.
MR. STONE-And he has, and we have agreed or disagreed with him.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s your privilege, but until it’s brought before you, you can’t exercise your
privilege, that’s all I’m saying.
MR. STONE-Are you through, or have you have got more?
MR. SALVADOR-I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Salvador?
MR. ABBATE-You indicated, Mr. Salvador, by the way, how are you this evening?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m fine, sir, thank you.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. ABBATE-You indicated that this is a procedural appeal, did you not?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and basically what you’re saying is that Mr. Round is incorrect.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You’re emphatic in your position that he is correct when he states that relief from the
density provisions is subject to review of the Zoning Board of Appeals?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not arguing that point. I’m arguing where he said, and.
MR. ABBATE-“And it’s my determination that the appellant is subject to this calculation and cannot
seek a waiver”.
MR. SALVADOR-And cannot seek a waiver, that’s, I believe it’s the Planning Board’s job to
determine whether or not we can get relief from that requirement, the density requirement.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re asking us to rule on that very narrow issue, it’s always narrow, I
understand that, that you should be able, or should not be able to seek a waiver from the Planning
Board, which may or may not grant it if we, okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Let me divide that further. You’re looking for, asking the Planning Board for a
waiver in the calculation, or are you looking for the Planning Board to give you a waiver from the
density requirement?
MR. SALVADOR-The calculation.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, because if he was looking for a waiver from the density requirement, that
would put it back over here, in my opinion.
MR. SALVADOR-And they should send it.
MR. STONE-Well, they may send it to us anyhow.
MR. MC NULTY-But I think he’s right that he’s got a right to go to the Planning Board and ask for
a waiver in the way it’s calculated, because how to calculate it is in the Subdivision Regulations.
MR. HIMES-How would we be able to determine whether it was one acre or two, if, from what was
read, certain substances moved from the area, water, you know, land under water, so on and so forth,
in order to determine what the area that would be subject to our Code is? So, I mean, the Planning
Board seems like that they are the owners, so to speak, of procedure to calculate how much, what the
parcel amounts to, that’s applicable to the formula, and if it is decided that, yes, according to such
calculations, there is less than two acres, and he wants to make the two acre thing, then we have to
grant a variance. That’s the way I feel, the steps as I see it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but I have a, wait a second. I have a problem with this thing. Mr. Salvador is
taking a narrow view of this, which is okay, and he is concerned with the fact that the Zoning
Administrator has said, and cannot seek a waiver. What he’s asking us to do is say, yes, it’s okay to
seek a waiver? Is that what you’re asking?
MR. STONE-That’s what he’s asking.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think we have that authority to make that determination. That should be
addressed to the Town Attorney, not us.
MR. STONE-We are empowered to rule, on an appeal basis, that’s where we sit, and we’ve done it
before, on a decision of omission or commission, of the Zoning Administrator, and this is obviously
one of commission. He has said, he’s made a statement that this cannot go to the Planning Board.
He cannot seek a waiver. We have to decide whether we think he’s right or wrong in that decision.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t agree. I agree with Mr. Salvador that this is a procedural appeal.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re ruling on is the procedure.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think that we have the authority to make this kind of a determination.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-What determination?
MR. ABBATE-To vote solely on the word “and cannot seek a waiver”.
MR. STONE-Forget the word “and”.
MR. ABBATE-How can you?
MR. SALVADOR-Cannot seek a waiver.
MR. ABBATE-If the word “and” were not in there, he would not be here this evening.
MR. SALVADOR-No, but if the words “cannot seek a waiver” were in there, I’d be here. Cannot
seek a waiver.
MR. STONE-For the determination, forget the “and’s” and forget what goes ahead of it. One of the
determinations, whereas, “cannot seek a waiver”. That’s what the Zoning Administrator, forget what
come before and what comes after. In this particular case, he has said Mr. Salvador cannot seek a
waiver.
MR. BRYANT-Do you know on what basis he cannot seek a waiver, what is the?
MR. BROWN-Typically waivers are granted by the Planning Board for submission requirements, you
don’t have to provide a map to scale, you don’t have to provide contours or map the wetlands. I
think what we’re talking about here is dimensional relief, how you calculate the area allowable to be
developed, you know, substantial relief. It’s not a submission requirement, you have to have 14
copies instead of 12 copies, it’s actually how you determine the available land that’s to be subdivided.
MR. BRYANT-Right, it’s a calculation.
MR. BROWN-It’s a calculation.
MR. BRYANT-A method of calculation. He’s not referring to that, I mean, ultimately it refers to a
specific lot, but he’s not referring to the lot. He’s talking about the calculation.
MR. BROWN-How you calculate, and sometimes it helps me figure these things out is to use an
extreme. If you had a two acre lot in one acre zoning, and the entire two acres was a pond, and
somebody wanted to subdivide that into a two lot subdivision, there’s no way that it would meet a
density requirement to even initiate a subdivision application, regardless of whether or not it gets a
waiver from the Planning Board. So I don’t think there’s a threshold of how much or how little
that’s included in the calculation. It’s, the calculation applies, and that’s what the Zoning
Administrator’s position is.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the Planning Board has the right, if the opportunity to seek a waiver were
granted, to say yes or no. Mr. Salvador, I hate to bring this word up in connection with Mr. Salvador,
but is seeking his day in court.
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. That’s not obscene.
MR. ABBATE-Not at all, that’s your right.
MR. STONE-That’s your right.
MR. ABBATE-I agree with you 100%. I happen to think you’re wrong, but that’s still your right.
MR. BRYANT-I think what you just said puts a lot of light on it, that absurd example, okay, puts a
lot of light on that whole issue about the calculation, and I would agree with that, and let’s take it one
step further. Should the proper procedure at this point be for Mr. Salvador to present a plan to
divide that and, assuming that he’s got two acres, and partial amount of each acre is under water, and
make that subdivision, and submit it to us, similar to the other subdivision that we had at the last
meeting. Do you know what I’m saying? So that he’ll have .9 acres in each lot type of thing, and this
would eliminate this whole problem, because I don’t think that this is an issue about the calculation,
if you look at this problem that you just mentioned, the whole two acres being (lost words).
MR. ABBATE-Allan has a good point.
MR. SALVADOR-I maintain that’s a Planning Board determination. It’s within this Code. They
have all the powers granted to them in this Code to make such a determination. Not only that,
there’s no reference in this Code that says that for any reason we have to come to the ZBA.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-They also have the right to say no.
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. STONE-And then your only recourse is to come before us.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand the basis of the waiver. In other words, what is the waiver
exactly? I mean, do you disagree with the fact that submerged waters are?
MR. STONE-Let’s not go into that.
MR. SALVADOR-Let’s not go into that.
MR. STONE-That would be his argument, but let’s not go into that.
MR. BRYANT-Well, no, but he makes a very good example. I mean, two acres submerged, how
would you calculate it?
MR. SALVADOR-What if you want to sell the pond? This guy buys half the pond, and that guy
buys the other half of the pond, and they fish from the opposite banks, and they.
MR. STONE-Lake (lost words).
MR. SALVADOR-Where this Board grants something that is called a variance, the Planning Board
grants something that’s called a waiver. This Code allows for a variance, if you will. All Codes have
to allow for a variance. They can’t be perfect, and this one allows for something called a waiver. It’s
the same.
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got that. That I understand.
MR. SALVADOR-And this Board is empowered to grant those waivers. They can grant or deny,
modify and change, condition, whatever have you. It’s all in here.
MR. BRYANT-So if that’s the case, Craig, why hasn’t Mr. Salvador been allowed to request a waiver?
MR. BROWN-From the density calculation?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, I don’t know if it’s a density issue.
MR. ABBATE-From the Planning Board. Forget the density, from the Planning Board. Why has
he been refused?
MR. BROWN-Why does he want to go before the Planning Board? What type of waiver does he
want, from the density calculation?
MR. BRYANT-Well, but regardless of what he wants, he still should be allowed.
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s not regardless of what he wants, because that’s what this determination was,
the Zoning Administrator’s determination said. It said you can’t get a waiver from the density
calculation, not that you can’t get a waiver, but that you can’t get a waiver from this specific
calculation. You can go and apply for a waiver for a map that doesn’t have contours on it.
MR. BRYANT-You’re saying the procedure should be he should be applying for a variance? Is that
what you’re saying?
MR. BROWN-No, what I’m saying is the procedure is that he may have to apply for a variance if he
doesn’t have enough acreage to subdivide, but what he needs to do, or what the determination says,
he has to use that calculation when he determines the developable lands. If he doesn’t have enough
developable lands, yes, then he would have to apply for a variance.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me go to the basic, will you please, here. The Zoning Administrator is
saying that Mr. Salvador must come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for this density calculation,
correct, and that at this point, he’s not allowed to go to the Planning Board? Is that what he’s saying?
MR. BROWN-What he’s saying is that based on, using that calculation, it doesn’t appear that the lots
proposed meet the minimum lot size requirements which require Mr. Salvador to seek a variance for
the creation of substandard lots.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. ABBATE-Is there any reason why the Zoning Administrator is not here this evening? I’d like
to ask some questions.
MR. STONE-Let me just read, again, Mr. Salvador read it, but let me read it, under waivers. I think
it’s helpful. Where the Planning Board finds, finds, that means they have had to hear the arguments,
because they can’t find without a hearing, finds due to special circumstances of a particular plat, that
meeting a certain requirement of these regulations is not requisite in the interest of the public health,
safety, general welfare, it may waive such requirement, subject to appropriate conditions. Mr.
Salvador argues that that means they have the right, he has the right to go to them and waive the
request, or waive the calculation and the density, in a sense.
MR. BROWN-Not the density, but the use of the calculation.
MR. STONE-The use of the calculation, in other words, taking the water out.
MR. BROWN-Correct, and that’s the question you have to answer, does Mr. Salvador, will he be
allowed to go to the Planning Board with a waiver request to not be required to use that density
calculation?
MR. STONE-See, I’m not sure what the harm is in going to the Planning Board to do that. I mean,
that’s where I’m coming out. I don’t see any harm. No harm, no foul.
MR. ABBATE-That’s my whole issue. What is the problem here? That’s why I’d like to have the
Zoning Administrator here. Explain to me why this man can’t go to the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-He’s determined that it’s a dimensional requirement. It’s an area requirement. It’s
not a submission requirement.
MR. STONE-Where the Planning Board finds, due to special circumstances of a particular plat, this
is certainly a particular, peculiar one, that meeting a certain requirement of these regulations is not
requisite.
MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t say anything about submission requirements.
MR. STONE-I don’t see the harm, quite frankly, and when I agree with Mr. Salvador, we know that
there’s confusion in the ranks.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I think Mr. Salvador has a point, and I don’t see any harm, unless the Zoning
Administrator can come and explain to us what the harm is. Maybe there’s something we don’t see,
that he sees that we don’t see, but due to the fact that he’s not here.
MR. SALVADOR-Default judgement. If he’s not here, default judgement.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m about to say that.
MR. STONE-Well, any other questions anybody has? Are we all at least getting to the point of
understanding what very narrow point we’re talking about?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, Mr. Salvador, and stop me if I’m wrong, Mr. Salvador, under 183, wants to
seek a waiver of certain points that have been made by the Zoning Administrator. He wants to make
this seek a waiver from the Planning Board, and our job is to say, we agree or we disagree with the
Zoning Administrator’s determination. That’s all we’re talking about. We’re not talking about
whether there’s water on the land, whether there’s no water on the land. We’re talking about, I
mean, because that’s one of the requirements in this.
MR. ABBATE-We’re going to be voting on a procedural appeal, period, and nothing else.
MR. STONE-Exactly.
MR. ABBATE-I’m ready to vote.
MR. STONE-Well, let me open the public hearing. Does anybody else have anything to say? Let me
open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on the side of Mr. Salvador? Anybody wishing
to speak against the request that Mr. Salvador be allowed to seek a waiver? Any correspondence? I
highly doubt it.
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s just very quickly go down the line here, starting with Norman. How do you feel
about this?
MR. HIMES-I’m in favor of Mr. Salvador’s position. We certainly have (lost word) information to
discuss, in connection with any of the particulars, the matter being that, should he be allowed to go
for, and ask for a waiver from the Planning Board, even though maybe everyone in the world thinks
it’s going to be denied, or that the Zoning Administrator may feel it’s just something is not proper.
That we can’t decide on. So I tend to be in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to focus in on a procedural appeal. I believe that Mr. Salvador is
absolutely correct. I believe that based upon the testimony I’ve heard this evening, he has every right
to go to the Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask Staff one question.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-I know that this is only in procedure, and I don’t want to complicate the issue, but
would the next step be to submit the subdivision to the ZBA, if both lots are nonconforming, and
apply for a variance? Supposing that calculation is used, okay, and it’s determined that both lots are
nonconforming. Then the proper procedure would be to bring it to the ZBA and get a variance.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right.
MR. BRYANT-I’m just wondering why we didn’t do that.
MR. STONE-No, no. We can’t do that. He could have done that.
MR. BRYANT-No, I’m asking Mr. Salvador. He just doesn’t want to do that. It’s a matter of
principle, isn’t it?
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, I understand, and as a matter of principle, I think that Mr. Salvador should be
able to approach the Planning Board for a waiver.
MR. STONE-Recognizing that they may or may not (lost words).
MR. BRYANT-Exactly. Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-But he’s a citizen of the Town, and he should be afforded that opportunity.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with what’s been said. I think as long as Mr. Salvador is going to the
Planning Board to ask for a waiver on the way density is calculated, he’s within his rights, and he
should be able to do it. If he were asking directly for relief from the density requirement, then, no,
that would belong before this Board, but on the very narrow basis that he is looking for a waiver on
the calculation method, or something related to the way it’s accomplished, I’ll agree that he should be
able to do that.
MR. STONE-Jim?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree. I think Mr. Salvador is fully within his rights to request
this waiver, and I think it’s reasonable for him to go to the Planning Board and do it at this time.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree. Obviously, I’ve made my position very clear. I am concerned, and
it’s at least been expressed by one other member of our Board. This is about the third or fourth
appeal that we’ve a had, not all by you, but of the Zoning Administrator’s position, and I’m not sure
he’s appeared yet before us, and, for one, am upset by that. Because if you’re going to make a
decision, one of the things that I pride myself on this Board, is that all of us state where we’re
coming from. If we agree, we say so, and if we disagree, we say so, and we will argue in front of the
public, and we will make our, even when it’s six to one, the one person will make a very definite
statement about why they’re voting no or yes, depending upon the situation. I really think, if we’re
going to be a Board of Appeals, we have the right, and we deserve to be able to question the Zoning
Administrator, and I don’t think that Craig, as a member of his Staff, has to sit there and answer our
questions when he didn’t make the determination, and I’m saying this obviously for the record. I just
think it’s important, when a decision is made, and we’ve all made decisions in our lives that are right,
hopefully more than we make wrong decisions, but if we make a decision, be prepared to stand
behind it. We certainly are. We stick our noses out, every month, once or twice a month, at these
meetings, and I, for one, am very proud of what we do, and I wish that the Zoning Administrator
would be here. Having said that, I need a motion to approve the appeal.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 7-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR.,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
2999 State Route 9L. The appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regards to a
Zoning Administrator’s determination with respect 183-22 and 183-47 of the Subdivision
Regulations. The appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination which states relief
from the density provisions is subject to the review of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Staff
comments indicate the appellant has submitted the sketch plans subdivision for review by the
Planning Board. The application has been deemed incomplete, as the minimum submission
requirements were not met. The item that has bearing on this appeal is the total development lands
used when determining a density calculation, the number of proposed lots, density 183-22A
Subparagraph Four, the method of calculating developable lands indicates the unbuildable areas, such
as bodies of water, be subtracted from the total property area, the underwater lands associated with
the parcel subject to the subdivision are considered unbuildable and are to be discounted as such.
It’s my understanding that the appellant wishes to seek a waiver from this calculation, and seeks such
waiver from the Planning Board per Paragraph 183-47. It is my opinion that the Zoning Officer is
incorrect in his findings, and that Mr. Salvador should, indeed, have the right to go to the Planning
Board.
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
MR. ABBATE-Now, one thing, Mr. Salvador, I’d like you to retract your statement, you can’t beat
City Hall, that you made last time.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not home yet.
MR. STONE-He’s a long way from home.
MR. ABBATE-But you see, there is justice.
MR. SALVADOR-Talk about the slice of baloney.
MR. STONE-Well, at least one member of the Planning Board heard both sides of this argument
tonight.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
1,178 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR ADDITION; 1,455 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AS
WELL AS A 784 SQ. FT. GARAGE. APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, FLOOR
AREA RATIO RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
COUNTY PLANNING 12/13/2000 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-
1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-19
JON LAPPER & KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Do you want us to read your note, your letter in, Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. STONE-Yes, why don’t you read. It’s short enough.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the November 29?
th
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Letter addressed to Lew Stone, Chairman, Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals, from Jonathan C. Lapper, dated November 29, 2000 “Dear Lew: After coincidentally
witnessing the hearings on this project at both the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and the Lake
George ZBA, I’ve been asked by Bob Wall to assist Kevin Maschewski with regard to a revised
application which reduces the size of the proposed structure. The Town of Lake George has now
granted all required permits under its jurisdiction. In accordance with the concerns raised by the
members of the Queensbury ZBA at the prior meeting, the floor area ratio for the entire project, taking
into account the property in both Towns, has been reduced from the previously requested 27.2% to
25%. Additionally, the wraparound deck previously proposed along the lake has been removed and the
lake setback has, therefore, been increased by an additional five feet. In the spirit of compromise, Mr.
Wall is hopeful that the ZBA will recognize this request as a more minimal variance, and deem it
approvable. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of your December meetings.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 101-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: December 20, 2000
“Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 1,178 sf first floor addition, 1,455 sf second floor addition as well as a 784 sf
freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum
side setback requirement and 5.4% relief from the 22% allowable Floor Area Ratio requirement of the
WR-1A zone, §179-16, for a FAR of 27.4% for the site in total, with a 32.4% total FAR on the lands
within Queensbury. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, 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 the home as desired. 2. Feasible
alternatives: A smaller addition may be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the ordinance?: 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while
the FAR relief may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 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.): AV 79-2000 withdrawn 10/18/00 single family dwelling
addition. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
previous variance application requested a 33.6% FAR in Queensbury. This proposal requests a 32.4%
FAR in Queensbury. While the total interior floor area has decreased from 5,212 sf in the original
proposal to 4,809 sf in the current proposal, the exterior areas, which must be included in the FAR
calculation, have increased. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-We have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
12/13/00 Project Name: Wall, Robert Owner: Robert Wall ID Number: QBY-AV-101-2000
County Project#: Dec00-21 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes to use a seasonal residence as year-round residence. Applicant proposes
construction of a second floor to dwelling; addition of a great room on the lake side. Also, construction
of a detached garage and new septic system are proposed. Site Location: 15 Antigua Road Tax Map
Number: 1-1-5 Staff Notes: This proposed action was also referred by the Town for review of a site
plan (QBY-SPR-77-2000). The Board reviewed a somewhat larger version of this project at its Sept.,
Oct. and Nov. meetings for site plan review and area variances under the zoning ordinances of the Town
of Lake George and Queensbury (the property straddles the border). According to the applicant’s
attorney, the Queensbury ZBA expressed concerns with the floor area ratio for the entire project (taking
into account the property in both Towns) and the lakeshore setback. The applicant has reduced the
floor area ratio from 27.2% to 25% and removed the proposed wraparound porch to increase the lake
setback an additional five feet. The proposed action meets the lakeshore setback requirements for the
district in the Town of Lake George, b9ut not those for this portion of the Town of Queensbury. In
Sept., when the Board reviewed the earlier version of the proposal for the requested area variance and
site plan approval from Queensbury, the Board recommended an approval with the condition that the
septic system meet Department of Health standards. In Oct. and Nov. when the Board reviewed the
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
earlier proposal as referred by the Town of Lake George for a side yard setback variance and site plan
review, the Board determined the project as then presented (with a revised location for the septic field
and less proposed pavement) to have no county impact. Staff does not identify any significant impacts
to County or State resources from the project as revised. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board, 12/14/00.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re on.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Kevin Maschewski and Bob Wall. Well,
when we sat down and put together the application on November 29th, as I said in that letter, after,
since all of us were at the meetings, even though I wasn’t representing Bob at the time, we understood
what the Board was saying, and that it was asking for too much relief, and Bob heard that, and he was
willing to reduce the size of the structure, and Kevin redesigned the structure, and we all thought that we
were submitting something that you would feel was a fair compromise and a good faith effort to ask for
a more minimal variance. However, to our surprise, Craig Brown pointed out, after he reviewed the
application, that what was did, technically, didn’t make things better, because in order to make it a better
looking home, since the architectural design, instead of having these straight walls, the first floor and the
second floor, with the same exterior wall, in order to reduce, the top floor, to reduce the floor area ratio,
Kevin reduced the top floor and architecturally, and he’ll go through the architecture, but architecturally,
it required to have these pitched roofs, which created eaves on the first floor, just architecturally, so it
would be a more attractive home. Well, technically, those have to be counted for floor area ratio.
They’re not living space. They’re not covered porches. They’re just areas covered by the eaves, but
under the Town Code, Craig is absolutely right, the way you calculate floor area ratio, we didn’t improve
the situation, even though that was certainly our intent. So we were all surprised, but he was correct, and
for that reason, I submitted my letter of December 8, which attempted to explain just what I just
th
explained on the record, and our request for a variance now is saying, hey, if you look at what it really is,
it’s a smaller home, it’s smaller livable space, and we think, in terms of the main issue of the benefit to
the applicant and the detriment to the neighborhood, that this is a really smaller house but a more
attractive house, and if you took away the eaves, sure you could technically comply, but it just wouldn’t
look at attractive, either from the lake or from the neighborhood behind. So we’re asking you to
consider that, even though, in terms of the technical requirements, we are still asking for what appears to
be a substantial variance, but we’re hopeful that you won’t think that it is, because its not living space.
MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple of questions, because you confused me. First of all, the number in your
letter of the 29, the 25%, that’s the number you say is in error?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-You would agree with the 27.4 that Craig has in his Staff notes?
MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, floor area ratio, you’ve confused me with the eaves, and, Craig, can you
explain what?
MR. BROWN-It’s my understanding, and the reason that I determined that those areas needed to be
calculated, or used in the calculations, they were covering a walkway, a sidewalk that goes around the
building, and if that’s not correct.
MR. LAPPER-It is correct, but that’s, but it’s not there as a porch or anything, it’s just, it’s a sidewalk,
just as a sidewalk.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. I’d like to intervene. When I originally made these modifications,
and Craig Brown and I were talking, a part of the floor area ratio requirement form has an area that
requires covered decks and covered porches to have a quantity put in. I had no quantity put in. Now, in
fact, the eaves do go around the entire house, because the second floor is now reduced and smaller than
the first floor. Craig wanted those numbers documented. Now, I kind of argued the fact, and I had
asked him if he could explain or tell me or at least give me a definition of what a covered porch is, and
he could not, and, you know, at that point, I’m a little confused myself of what floor area ratio number
we should be going in on. The actual floor area ratio, from the original submission, went from 27.2 to
25, and in my heart, as an engineer/architect, that is the actual floor area ratio. The perimeter overhang
eaves brings, which supposedly is a covered porch, brings in the additional 2.4%, if that makes it a little
clearer.
MR. LAPPER-It might be helpful if you walked them through the site plan, and showed them.
MR. STONE-Yes, if you would, that would be helpful.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-What ended up happening here is this is the existing line of the existing house, the
side property, or the side foundation. The first floor still entails that. On the original proposal, the
second floor also stepped up with that same foundation/footprint. The modifications brought that
second floor in, and if you look on the elevations of the drawings, you can see that the actual second
floor steps in. So by creating that, a little roof had to be built around that first floor, and the eaves
actually came around, and my original drawings did not have any eaves along the front or along here, on
the lakeside. It looked, literally looked like a plane. The house looked like it had wings on the side, and it
was going to fly away. In speaking with Bob, it wasn’t architecturally pleasing, although we reduced the
square feet. The elevations should show a little better, but I believe most of you have walked the
property. There’s an existing stone wall that comes along the front of their property. The grade drops
such that this stone wall, you have to step down to get into the entrance to the house. That is still
proposed, just creating and building a new stone wall here, getting rid of the poured concrete sidewalk.
The poured concrete sidewalk cracked, heaved, and it’s doing actual problems to the foundation. So
what we’re proposing is just a new slate sidewalk, set in sand dust, something that can move and heave
and not cause detrimental cracks to the foundation, and in doing so, that stone wall is still going to be
there, and that little roof overhang covers that stone wall, creating a roughly a three and a half foot
sidewalk in front of this house, and that is I believe what is documented as part of the covered porch in
Queensbury. I think the elevations, the actual size of the house right here, and that’s where I said this
first floor wall is not the same as the second. It actually steps in, creating this. This has to be t here,
that’s the roof, and by creating this, I continued the actual drawing around this way, the roofline, around
this way, which in the front elevation creates that.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying you have an extended eaves.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Your contention would be it’s an extended eaves over.
MR. LAPPER-Over an exterior sidewalk.
MR. STONE-Exterior sidewalk.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Not, and believe me, Mr. Stone, I’m building a house right next to yours, Ed
Tobin’s.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-His house is, if you know the design, and I think he was in front of this Board,
that pretty much has a wraparound porch all the way around it, for sitting and enjoying and so on. It’s, I
don’t know, 10, 11 feet wide. That is a covered porch. It’s a wraparound porch. This, architecturally,
had no intent as a covered porch. It was only three and a half feet behind that stone wall.
MR. STONE-What would you, if you weren’t talking to us, what would you call this? If you weren’t
defending that it’s not a covered porch, what would you say it is? How would you describe the house in
words?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’d call it an eaves, or maybe a covered entrance.
MR. LAPPER-But an eaves because it’s just an extension of the roof.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s an extension of the roof.
MR. LAPPER-An architectural element, and the only reason the sidewalk is there is because of the
retaining wall. Otherwise the sidewalk could be 15 feet from the house, but it’s just because of the grade
change.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-And incidentally, and this goes with everything with the height requirements in
Lake George and Queensbury, that stone wall, you physically have to come in, step down, step through
that stone wall, to get to that front door level. That stone wall here is retaining earth back. So, it’s kind
of deceiving, and I agree with Craig Brown that it’s covered, but, you know, in my eyes, being technical.
MR. STONE-It is interesting. I was just trying to find the definition of even a porch in our Code, and
we don’t have one, except the dictionary.
MR. BROWN-With the filing of the application, the applicant agrees that it’s included in the calculation.
You just have to determine how much bearing it has on the Code. Whether it counts or whether it
doesn’t count has already been taken care of.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. LAPPER-We’re not arguing whether we should be here for a variance. We understand that,
technically, the way Craig’s interpreted it, we’re not disputing that, but we’re saying that it justifies an
Area Variance because it is really an architectural element. It is really a smaller house, and it just looks
better.
MR. HIMES-I just had a question, probably for Staff again. Without the eaves, the sidewalk, so to
speak, I’m thinking of one we had this past summer where I misinterpreted something with sand, gravel,
and so forth, which I thought was categorized as permeable, but was actually categorized as
impermeable. So, without the eaves, the sidewalk itself would be considered impermeable. Isn’t that
right?
MR. BROWN-I think so, but it wouldn’t be counted as floor area, because it’s not a covered area.
MR. STONE-It would be impermeable. That’s another calculation.
MR. HIMES-You were close on that, too, it seems, last time.
MR. LAPPER-When we talk about permeable and impermeable in Queensbury, as compared to other
towns, when you have crushed stone for a driveway, because it gets compacted, it’s considered
impermeable, but at the same time, in most communities, I had one over the summer in Bolton, when
you have cobblestone pavers that are set in sand, that’s considered permeable, because the sand does let
the water filter through. What Kevin is saying here, the reason he’s jackhammering out the concrete and
putting the slate in is because it will heave, but it will settle, and it will let the water drain. So we would
argue that it’s probably permeable, because the water will be able to percolate around the stone, but.
MR. BROWN-But there’s a roof over it.
MR. STONE-But there’s still going to be a roof. You’re still going to have 65.8.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I mistakenly connected that to floor area ratio. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I apologize, if there are any other questions, jump in, but again, the only, I’d say
the two notable changes from the previous is the reduction of the second floor for square footage of the
home, and we did reduce that wraparound deck out along Lake George, which brought the lakefront
setback five feet farther. Because we know that was a concern originally when we presented this.
MR. STONE-Okay, but we’re still going to have, even, all right, if we throw out, in our judgement, the
eaves as living space, what is the floor area ratio on the lands in Queensbury going to be?
MR. LAPPER-Well, can I just stop you there, with all due respect. You’re not incorrect to talk about
Queensbury, but when you talk, the house happens to be situated more in Queensbury, but that’s sort of
arbitrary here because it’s one lot, and when you’re talking floor area ratio for a lot, in this respect, you’re
talking about the lot for permeability and for protection of the lake, and the fact that it’s more in
Queensbury means that it’s farther from the lake, which is a good thing for the lake. So I’m not avoiding
answering your question. I’m just explaining that the answer, it means that, in Queensbury, it’s a high
number, but yet we think you should be looking at the whole lot. Okay.
MR. STONE-What is the number? Having given your editorial comment, what’s the number?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thirty percent.
MR. STONE-Thirty versus twenty-two?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, in Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But for the whole site.
MR. STONE-It’s 25.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Or 27.4.
MR. LAPPER-But 25 if you didn’t include the eaves, 27.4.
MR. STONE-Lake George has no floor area ratio at all.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-And actually, as long as you did bring Lake George up, previously, we had
originally submitted applications in both townships, simultaneously, pulled ours from Queensbury, and
then we sat in front of Lake George. We’ve got all the approvals. We’ve got a variance from Lake
George, and interestingly enough, they realize the septic was not in the Town of Lake George, although
they brought it up, a couple of the members did indicate that we do not have jurisdiction there, but as a
courtesy, I had presented the fact that, for the record, you guys don’t have a copy of the septic. You
should. It’s the same parcel. So we pretty much sat in front of Lake George and talked about
Queensbury side as well, and not to shut you off on that, but it’s a tradeoff.
MR. STONE-And you’re supposed to be assisting him here.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, I think it’s an interesting fact that we did, since we previously sat in front of
you folks, did get Town of Lake George variance. I think that’s very important.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you’ve got to consider that you met all the setbacks, lake setback requirements,
even Lake George’s. Correct?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We went in for a side yard setback.
MR. STONE-Side yard, all right, but the lake, which is one of our prime concerns, as you know.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We have met.
MR. STONE-You’ve met.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We have met and exceeded.
MR. STONE-They don’t have a floor area ratio, so that wasn’t a concern to them. So I would only say
that, while they gave you approval, that really doesn’t impact what we look at. That’s all.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I understand.
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper’s arguments notwithstanding.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t disagree with that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Other than that it was pretty much, just hit the drawing board, and I feel
confident that now it’s architecturally detailed. It’s an Adirondack style, very similar to what’s being built
next door to your place. It’s cedar sided, and I truly think, and I hope to be building it, but it’s pretty
much a beautiful design.
MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question. You had a previous experience on Assembly Point.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. STONE-In building a house.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. STONE-That came before this Board.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-And that house was going to be fixed, it was going to be added to, and it turns out it was
torn down.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay.
MR. STONE-And you built a brand new house. Is this house structurally sound, that there won’t be any
of that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-This house, actually, in respect for Bob, is, it’s in better condition. I mean, the
floor, the foundation is all adequate, it’s a lot newer than what I had purchased, and unbeknownst to me,
I purchased the headache.
MR. STONE-I didn’t me to remind you.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I know, well, hopefully it looks nice now, but, no, it’s structurally, the only
issue is that front foundation, Bob and I have talked about it, where that sidewalk is there. It was poured
concrete, and over the years, it’s done that, and it’s pushed and the block foundation, that needs to be
corrected, but for the most part, no. I mean, the floor system, although, you know, there are walls that
are going to be taken out to provide for new walls, and new locations, and so on, but no.
MR. STONE-Okay. The reason I ask is because your experience was not the only time we’ve seen this.
With all of these, as Mr. Lapper put it, all of the improvements along the shore, and I guess I can’t argue,
because I improved the shore, we’ve had a number of these where all of a sudden we’ve granted a
variance, and then we’re building a brand new house, and it sometimes would cause us some different
thinking, because if you’re building a brand new house, then we can sort of force you to meet setback
requirements and that sort of stuff, or at least have a say. All right, remind me, side setback, were we
happy with that the last time, the 9.66 feet of relief? Does anybody remember?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I kind of remember. I think it’s because of the, it was an existing footprint, is that
correct?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So we were okay with that. We still had a problem of the floor area ratio, and that’s why
it was worked out. So we were okay with the setback.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I remember. I want to make sure that we all, we haven’t discussed it,
and that’s a big amount of relief, but I think we had agreed.
MR. BRYANT-There was one other discussion, and that was on the height. We had a big discussion
about the height, and I noticed, and I asked for Craig’s scale, because your elevations really don’t show
the overall height of the building. Okay. We had a discussion about the height last time.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s within the 28 feet. Mathematically, it’s at the 28 feet. It will adhere to the
Queensbury height regulations of 28 feet.
MR. BRYANT-That was the only other discussion.
MR. STONE-All right. So you’re not seeking relief there, and if you come in at 28 and a half, we can
justify, make you take it off. You weren’t here for that discussion earlier this evening.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Put a sunroof on it, with or without the cap on it.
MR. STONE-Including the cap. We’re talking, the only thing that’s not included is the chimney.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MR. STONE-Which I don’t understand, but that’s our zoning.
MR. LAPPER-Because you don’t want the roof to burn. The chimney’s got to be higher than the peak
of the roof.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? We’ll get a chance to talk
about it. All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-For the record, we did have correspondence from the neighbor, earlier, with the larger
house, where they were supportive of it.
MR. STONE-Correct. Good. Are there any further questions of the applicant? Well, let’s discuss it.
Let’s start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I do recall, in great detail, at the last meeting we had, we parted with the
understanding that you were going to attempt to work in the spirit of compromise and reduce and what
have you, and everything work out well. It’s my opinion that Mr. Wall and his counsel and his architect,
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
are basically operating in good faith. They have come here before the Board. They have not attempted
to conceal any of the miscalculations, what have you, and they have thrown themselves at the mercy of
this Board. Is that correct, counsel?
MR. LAPPER-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I think they also indicated that they’re willing to have a stipulation that this
house would not be torn down and the new building put up. Do you agree to that stipulation?
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Well, based upon this, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any problems with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, in recalling the conversation, our earlier conversations about the floor area ratio, I
know that you were going to go back and rework this and come out with a new thing, and I think we’re
at basically where we started. I mean, there’s really not a lot of change in the floor area ratio. Personally,
if the floor area ratio of the total building, as compared to the entire lot, whether it’s in Lake George or
Queensbury, came close to the 22%, I think it would be more attractive to me, but as it stands right now,
you’re still at 27.4%, and even if you take the eaves out, you’re still above 25%, and you’re not anywhere
near the 22%, and I don’t really see the improvement over the last submission. So I would still be
against it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I think I, too, am going to be against it, on the same basis. I think the floor area ratio
is still high, considering the whole site. It strikes me that the site is not unusable the way it is. It would
not be unusable if it were restricted to a 22% allowable floor area ratio, and considering, if we were to
grant this in fact what we would be granting would be a 32.4% floor area ratio, because we can’t grant it
based on what’s in Lake George. We have to grant it based on what’s in Queensbury, and that floor area
ratio does bother me. So I guess I’m going to come down on the oppose side.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to agree with the two previous guys, also. I still think the floor
area ratio is too large, and as a suggestion, I would, you know, in looking over your plans, you’ve got a lot
of open space in there with the size of your great room and your foyer, where you come in there, and I
think those areas could be reduced somewhat, or reconfigured, too, to lower down the size of what
you’ve got there. You’ve got an awful lot of air in there and not a lot of living space that’s really usable.
I don’t know if your intent is just to create this giant expansive thing. It looks nice, but it’s awful big, you
know, for the southern basin (lost words).
MR. STONE-Okay. Norman?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I, too, feel that it’s a big structure for where it is, and I don’t really have any
other detail to add to what’s already been said. I agree with my fellow Board members. As much as I’d
like to do something or to allow them to proceed, it would be a nice looking place, but it’s just a little too
big. So, I’m not in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m conflicted. I think, as Mr. Abbate said, the applicant has made an attempt to
bring this down, but it’s still very large with Queensbury. We have to look at Queensbury. We have a
lot of lake property in Queensbury. We know what’s going on. It’s being developed. It’s being
improved. By certain people’s standards it’s being improved, but nevertheless, we have a Code to
uphold. Twenty-two percent is a reasonable number for a particular lot, and while this property does, is
in two towns, we have to think about Queensbury, and as I said earlier, we’re really talking about a
separate subject that Lake George never even considered, because they don’t have anything to guide
them in this particular area. They don’t have a requirement. They don’t even have a very good
definition of floor area.
MR. LAPPER-They certainly don’t, and that’s unique to Queensbury, but they do have a building
coverage requirement which did not require a variance. It’s the first floor. I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-But we try to do that and also certainly by our setbacks, and we’re granting a great deal of
relief, in terms of the setback. I mean, Mr. Maschewski correctly says that he’s building next to me, but
that property is conforming to our setbacks, and it’s a constraint, and we recognize it’s a constraint, and
it’s one that we applaud, quite frankly.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
BOB WALL
MR. WALL-Excuse me. Could I intervene, or just let you finish?
MR. STONE-Yes. Absolutely, go ahead, anytime. You can stop me.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I, not anybody really, unless you look at the numbers and the square foot of the
house, and I don’t even think Craig Brown realizes this, but the actual house, I mean, I’ve heard from
two, three members that the house is too large. In fact, it’s not. The house is less than 21% of floor area
ratio. I mean, the house is not too large for the property. I think everybody’s looking that it is, and that
the numbers are skewed. There’s an additional garage that’s on the property, up toward the road. The
structure, in fact, is less than 22%. So, just kind of for the record, it should be know that that house, as
designed, as built, square foot, is well under the 22%, well, not well under, it’s under that 22% floor area
ratio. The addition of the garage up along the road brings in additional square footage. It’s a detached
garage. Before a determination is made tonight.
MR. BRYANT-What’s the point?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The point is that the house.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s still included.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, the point is, and just more of a technical, and maybe this is just my being the
architect being personally involved, but the house was told to me by three members that it’s too large for
the property. In fact, it’s not, not for the floor area ratio. The addition of the garage adds to the floor
area ratio, which, where I’m going with this, is there anything that we can work in between the two
structures, in reduction of that, including a garage, before a determination is made? Because, in fact, the
house is not too large.
MR. ABBATE-What is the size of that garage? I don’t recall.
MR. STONE-Seven eighty-four.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-A 28 by 28.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Seven hundred and eighty plus square feet. That, the addition of that garage,
increases the setback.
MR. ABBATE-Increases your setback . What you’re basically saying is that the house itself, minus the
garage, would be acceptable.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-The fact that the house has to be included in the square footage exceeds the square
footage.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Right, and also as kind of a double jeopardy on that is if that garage is attached to
the house, by far, the house would be too large. It would look cute. It would be a monster. The
addition of those wraparound eaves reduces the look and the mass of the house, on an architectural
feature, as well as a detached garage now does not make that house look like the monster I think
everyone thinks it is. I just wanted it for the record.
MR. STONE-It’s a good point, but I’d assumed, they certainly can speak for themselves, when they say
that the house is too big, they mean the property is too big, not just the living. The square footage is too
large. I mean, am I reading you guys correct? So it’s not just the house.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the question for us, Bob owns the house, and what’s there now is not adequate
for his needs or architecturally meeting his needs. So he obviously is not going to go away and sell the
house, and he’s come back a bunch of times, certainly between both the towns, to try and make this a
better application, which was acknowledged, and I appreciate, and so the only, the option for the
applicant is to say, okay, obviously I’ve got to go back to the drawing board to do something different, to
make the, satisfy the requirements of the Board, and so the question for us, I mean, we can go back and
come up with something different, and hope that satisfies you, but I guess what do you want to see?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. STONE-No, I think what you’re hearing is that, and let’s make sure we all agree with the numbers.
The zoning calls for 22%. We’re all agreed what that is, that’s first floor, second floor, and detached
garage.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’re not arguing that. Okay. The number that Craig has here, and I think you
agree with, that in Queensbury, and that’s all we can concern ourselves with, the buildings are 32.4%. Is
that an acceptable number? Is that the number we’re talking about?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but I mean, I really don’t think that that’s fair.
MR. STONE-I know your other point, but in Queensbury, the floor area is 32.4%, the ratio is 32.4%. If
you, the way you want to argue, if you take the whole lot, and you take all of the developed buildings, the
house and the garage, it’s 27.4. All right.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Twenty-seven point four, I know Craig writes it as five point four percent, but it’s really
twenty-five percent, over twenty-five percent increase.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-That, to me, is a large number.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, you know, this is how, we do this all the time, and I probably have done it the
other way, it’s nice with statistics to subtract 22 from 27 and get 5.4, but it’s really 25% additional space.
Obviously, the consensus on the Board is that that 25%, certainly as you get to the whole house, is too
much, and if you use it just in the lands in Queensbury, it’s way too much, and that’s the guidance. I
mean, obviously, somewhere, I mean, we have granted variances somewhere between 22 and 32.
There’s no question we’ve done that, but we haven’t granted 32, and obviously, the Board doesn’t want
to grant, not on the lake. It doesn’t want to grant that much. So you have two options. We can table it,
or you can withdraw it, or we can vote on it.
MR. BRYANT-To answer your question, let you know how I feel about it, if the overall, I know that
we’re supposed to only concern ourselves with Queensbury, but that’s really not a fair situation, what the
Chairman said.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-So if the overall house and structures was, and we’re not talking about the eaves. We’re
just talking about the buildings, is 22%, or very close to that, then I wouldn’t have any problem, because
the setback issue is really not an issue. It exists, but the floor area ratio, if you can get it to 22%, forget
about the eaves, then I would go along with it.
MR. STONE-Well, 22 you’d go along with, but then we’d all go along with 22, because he doesn’t have
to come for a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Well, why is, this garage is 28 by 28, right? Why?
MR. LAPPER-Because Bob would love to have a nice sized garage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Bob would love, okay. Obviously you heard my vote. I thought it was a good
idea. So it would seem to me that if I were sitting at your side of the table, I would give more attention
to the home than I would the garage, even though Bob would love.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s what Kevin was getting at with his questions. We agree that that’s the first
place to look, to make it a smaller garage
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s what I’m focusing on.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-That certainly, I mean, we don’t care where it comes from.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-The feeling of the Board, there was one vote for and five potential votes against. That
means we can deny it, and you’d really have to make a serious change, or you can table, you can
withdraw it and make a different attempt. It doesn’t have to be quite as severe, if I’m reading it correctly.
We don’t have to vote to listen to you again. If we vote no, then we’ve got to go through a discussion
whether to hear it again.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Since the applicant withdrew last time, we’d ask your indulgence, since they
withdrew last time, we’d like to just table it, hearing everything that you’ve said, and come back with a
modified, smaller proposal, which will be very similar to this, but smaller.
MR. ABBATE-What you’re saying is a reduction in square footage?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-2000 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by
Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
15 Antigua Road. So that the applicant can make a significant reduction in the Floor Area Ratio of
that portion of the property in Queensbury, and that he will have 62 days in which to return, either
the January meeting or the February meeting, whichever is suitable.
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll be back.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2000 TYPE II WILLIAM HERLIHY OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE LOCATION: 9 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A PORCH AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
OLD TAX MAP NO. 44-2-18 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.07-1-34 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES
SECTION 179-16 ZONE: WR-1A
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, we have one more thing. We can decide to deny or approve the other
Area Variance, or table. Well, we have to take some action.
MR. ABBATE-Before we take any action, I have a question. Do you have any reason why these folks
are not here? There may be a legitimate reason. Do you know of any? Do they live locally?
MR. STONE-I talked to the owner today, and he told me that Matt Steves was going to be here to plead
his case, since they’re the people who, according to the owner, messed up.
MR. ABBATE-He was going to be here to plead his case?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Then we have no choice but to deny it, sir, in my opinion.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I had another question with this.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. MC NULTY-If the drawings they presented us are accurate, looking at the diagram that’s here, it
looks to me like the house itself is less than 30 feet from the front, and it’s less than 25 feet from the side
lines, and according to my reading, in that zone, the front setback is supposed to be 30, and the side
setback is supposed to be 25 feet.
MR. ABBATE-You’re right.
MR. BROWN-The side setback is supposed to be 25, if the lot’s 150 feet wide.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MR. MC NULTY-I wonder why they aren’t also asking for a variance for side setbacks.
MR. BROWN-Is the lot 150 feet wide?
MR. STONE-No, the lot’s not 150 feet wide.
MR. MC NULTY-No, it’s less than 150, okay.
MR. BROWN-There’s a sliding scale, based on lot widths. For this particular lot, the side setback should
be 20 feet.
MR. ABBATE-You said 20, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s 20. That’s a recognition that lake side lots run from 30 feet. Okay. Go ahead.
Your question.
MR. HIMES-Well, if, as he said, too, the front it appears to be the house, not the porch, is 29.14. Am I
right on that?
MR. BROWN-The applicant is requesting relief from the closest point, I think that encompasses any
other portion that’s still within that setback.
MR. STONE-And that’s a valid point to raise, but the relief is the closest point of the house to the road.
MR. HIMES-I see.
MR. STONE-I mean, you certainly can say, well, why isn’t the rest of the house, if you only goofed on
the porch, why isn’t the rest of the house in conformity? That’s a valid question.
MR. HIMES-And one other, in the back, it looks as if the thing is quite high, the way, I think it’s built
close, they have to fill in a lot, but in back, where we’ve got up to the deck, and there’s a second floor
deck, which also in the paperwork they only specify 45 square feet for porches and decks, which means
it probably didn’t include this back, but is the height okay? Do you recall what the thing looks like?
MR. BROWN-The building plans propose a maximum height of 28 feet. We don’t have any
confirmation, but that’s certainly something you could ask the applicant for, if you were to table it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I spoke with the applicant. She told me that this was the result of the initial
layout by the surveyors.
MR. STONE-That’s why Matt Steves was supposed to be here tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but that was her big thing. She said, well, I don’t see that it was anything
that we did. It was the surveyors who put it too close to the road. They assumed it was less than 30 feet.
MR. STONE-And that’s why they were not going to come tonight, because it wasn’t their fight, in one
sense. I mean, it’s still their house, but that’s what he explained to me this afternoon. We have the
option, gentlemen, of tabling it, for 62 days, or we can, on the basis of what we have read, we can vote
yes or no. What’s your pleasure?
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. BRYANT-No.
MR. STONE-You want to vote it down now?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I think if you vote it down now, that would get their attention.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Just let me toss this out. If you vote it down now, and he wants to come back with a
variance application, he’s got to come back with a different application. In this case, there’s no way to
come back with a different application, because the structure’s built, and I’m not going to tell you what’s
reasonable and what’s not, but I think to offer the applicant another notification, if somebody needs to
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
appear at the meeting, give them a chance to argue their case, it is not unreasonable, but it’s at your
discretion.
MR. MC NULTY-But that would be my feeling. If the only request that they really need would be for
the porch, I would be inclined to say, okay, they didn’t show up, tell them no, take the doggoned porch
off and be done with it, but the house is too close, too, so they’ve still got to come back.
MR. ABBATE-Well, my point is this. Don’t these applicants have a responsibility? Are we the only
ones that have a responsibility?
MR. STONE-No, and I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. Craig has an interesting point. Normally,
remember, if we deny an application, the applicant has to come before us with a proposal markedly
different, and we have to vote to accept the applications. We have two steps.
MR. BRYANT-Based on what Chuck said, that the application is going to have to be markedly different.
MR. STONE-But what Craig is saying, the house is built. In other words, if somebody came before me,
and I want a variance, and I haven’t built anything, and we say, no, it’s too much, and we vote it down,
then they have to come back, if they still want to build, they have to come back and say to us, all right,
we wanted 10 feet of relief. We’ll go for three feet of relief, and we have to say, that is markedly
different, and then, in another meeting, consider the application, a two step process. If we vote this
down, there is nothing they can come back to us, short of saying, I’ll tear the house down.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, but who’s problem is that? Who generated the problem? They did by
not being here. I say, no.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s unreasonable to table it and ask them to show up again.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say table it.
MR. STONE-I think we might be found arbitrary and capricious, I hate to bring those words out, if we
voted no.
MR. BROWN-At least unreasonable.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. The only thing they could do to make it markedly different would be to tear the
porch off and then come back for a variance for just the house, and that’s only going to make 3.24 feet
of difference.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But that opening on the back is actually inset from the furthest point back of the
house. It steps in to where that door is, on that back side.
MR. STONE-The back side, we’re talking the road side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the road side goes across.
MR. STONE-Boy, you’re really a lake person.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But across the roadway, it comes across on the west side, then it drops in slightly
to where that door opens.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the porch comes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but it’s actually an extension of the house sticking up there.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Chuck is saying, and that’s why it would be unreasonable for us
arbitrarily, we may still deny it, but without them offering something, they can’t come back to us. We
sort of tied their hands.
MR. ABBATE-I yield.
MR. MC NULTY-The other factor is, it’s Matt Steves, and we know he’s not a fly by night. He’s not
just trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or something. He’s a reputable person.
MR. STONE-No, and actually, they did a foundation survey.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You may want to just vote on tabling this, then you can have other discussions.
MR. STONE-Right.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/00)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2000 WILLIAM HERLIHY, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
9 Reardon Road Extension. Until next month’s meeting, because of the absence of the applicant.
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
MR. STONE-We have one set of minutes to go over.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 15, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2000, Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally
MR. STONE-All right. I move to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
33