2001-04-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 26, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES ABBATE
PAUL HAYES
NORMAN HIMES
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-We’re going to vary slightly from the agenda as you probably have it. We have a tabled
application from last week, which should not take very long, we hope.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 TYPE II GARY AND MELINDA LEWIS AGENT: N/A
OWNER OF PROPERTY: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 237 FIFTH STREET
EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 480 SQ. FT.
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 12-2000 (WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT) ZONE:
SR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 131-7-11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.15-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.18
ACRES SECTION: 179-19
GARY & MELINDA LEWIS, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Would you read the tabling motion in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Motion to Table Area Variance No. 21-2001 Gary and Melinda Lewis,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 237 Fifth
Street Extension. In order that Mr. Lewis provide a survey of his property, so that adequate
knowledge of the relief desired is known to the Board, and that Mr. Lewis be prepared to discuss
possible alternatives concerning offset from the main house. Duly adopted this 18 day of April,
th
2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes”
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lewis has provided a survey dated May 5, 1987, which shows that the
house currently, the corner of the house closest to the property line on the front, is 19.3 feet from
the property line, versus a required setback of 30 feet. The addition, as we have best been able to
determine, would be at 14 feet from the property line, therefore requiring 16 plus or minus feet of
relief. It also requires approximately a half a foot of relief from the 30 foot total side setback
requirement of the SR-1A zone. We also, we have to consider relief for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure, since the house does not currently comply with the current zoning in that
area. So there are three things that we have to consider. Mr. Lewis, do you want to talk about this
survey that you’ve provided? Add anything you want? Just state your name, again.
MR. LEWIS-Gary Lewis. It’s all pretty up front right there, what you’re seeing in front of you, as far
as dimensions. The only thing that’s not really shown on there is, it is 12 foot 4 on the survey, to the
actual road front, if you’re wondering what that dimension is there. That’s the only thing I really
have to add at this point.
MR. STONE-How deep did you say your property line was from the road?
MR. LEWIS-Twelve foot, four from where the survey takes off to the front of that house right now,
from the road front.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-There’s a span right there, it doesn’t show a dimension. That’s actually 12 foot 4, yet, to
the road there.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the distance from your property line to the edge of the paved surface of the
road?
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. LEWIS-That’s absolutely correct, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So, effectively there’s what, a 31 foot, 31.3 foot to the road, and, Mr. Stone, the
corner of the addition’s going to be how far from the line, you said?
MR. STONE-About 14 feet from the line.
MR. MC NALLY-Fourteen feet, plus another 12, approximately.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-What it is, I reproduced a 20 by 24 addition on that survey map that you have, and as
I scale it off the survey map, it scales 16 feet from the closest point to the front property line, and 14
feet from the closest point to the side property line. So those would be the proposed setbacks. If
that’s what the applicant’s comfortable with.
MR. STONE-Sixteen feet or fourteen feet?
MR. BROWN-Sixteen feet from the front property line to the closest point of the front of the house,
and 14 to the side line.
MR. STONE-So that’s 14 feet of relief.
MR. BROWN-Fourteen feet of relief.
MR. STONE-Rather than 16 feet of relief.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-So it’s 14 feet as you’ve determined it, then, that we need.
MR. BROWN-Correct. That’s what I get, if that’s what the applicant’s comfortable with, to the
front property line.
MR. STONE-To the property line, okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And the side is, they need a relief of what?
MR. BROWN-I don’t believe they need any relief from the side. It’s a minimum of 10 with a total of
30.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your Staff notes are?
MR. BROWN-Well, with the addition of this information, the side setback relief goes away.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-It appears.
MR. STONE-We still need a nonconforming.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-And we certainly, if we grant this application or this request, we will definitely need an
as built survey to go along with the completion of the project.
MR. LEWIS-So you’d like the survey updated once it’s been done?
MR. STONE-Once it’s done, we need an up to date survey, accurately reflecting exactly where it is
on the property.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? The public hearing is still open. Any other questions of Mr. and
Mrs. Lewis?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I asked you last week about feasibility of
having your addition, rather than a continuation of the front of the property, just set back some
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
distance, I’d be of the opinion that, from the front, it might look a little more appealing, but that’s
not important, but certainly it would reduce or possibly eliminate the need for the variance.
Remember the last comment that I made was I’d like to hear why that can’t be considered.
MR. LEWIS-I don’t know if it’s being selfish or not, but sort of the way I’m looking at it is I plan on
living here the next 30 years of my life. I’ll be paying on it the next 30 years. So, basically, what we
came up with is an idea, putting an addition on the house, making it look all as one, not looking
chopped up at all, per se, and we do have a leachfield, not far behind where we’re proposing the
addition. So basically if were to offset it, it could cause maybe chaos in that situation there. Literally,
right behind where the 20 by 24 is where our leachfield system falls.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That doesn’t show on your original drawing. It shows the septic tank, but.
MR. LEWIS-We literally just found this out from our neighbor, as of like Tuesday night, that the
people that lived there previously had a whole new leachfield put in, I think he said in like ’94, right
in that area, and according to him, he said that was the general area that they threw the leachfield in.
MR. HIMES-Well, I’d kind of like to know where that really is, or whether we can get any
corroboration there, because I think it has some bearing on how I would feel in connection with the
absolute need for the variance, or the amount of the variance that you would need, notwithstanding
that you’ve said that you would prefer to have it straight.
MR. LEWIS-Just on account of roof line and everything. I mean, it’s going to really break it up, I
think, if we started messing with setting it back. Do you know what I’m saying, though? I’m not
trying to be a jerk about it.
MR. HIMES-Yes, I do. I can understand.
MR. STONE-Does anything that Mr. Lewis said, Craig, concern about the septic, distance to the
septic system?
MR. BROWN-What are you asking?
MR. STONE-Are we within 10 feet?
MR. BROWN-If there’s no basement, no exposed or open basement as part of this addition, it can
be almost right next to the septic system.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-If there is a basement, it’s got to maintain a 20 foot setback from the septic system,
and that’s something that can be dealt with during the building permit process, but I don’t know, I
haven’t seen any building plans for the addition. Is there going to be a basement under this addition?
MR. LEWIS-There is going to be a full basement, yes.
MR. BROWN-That would be identified in the building permit process, where he’d have to stay 20
feet from it, or not have a basement, or change the septic.
MR. HAYES-That’s a Code Enforcement, then, essentially.
MR. BROWN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Yes. It isn’t something we have to put into a variance?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. STONE-Okay, but if it’s too close, then that throws the whole thing out of line.
MR. HAYES-They won’t get a permit.
MR. STONE-Right, they won’t get a permit.
MR. BROWN-Right, correct. He’ll have to show the septic.
MR. STONE-Which has nothing to do with us.
MR. BROWN-As part of the building permit, he’ll have to show where the septic system is, yes.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. Does that help, you, Norm?
MR. HIMES-Well, there’s two, then the building people need to know it also. So, as far as I’m
concerned, at this juncture, I would like to know that, and then think further. That’s the only
comment I have.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? Any other questions? If not, I will continue the public
hearing. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any additional correspondence that we didn’t read
in?
MR. UNDERWOOD-These are just letters that got returned, just notifications.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right, then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions? If not, then we’ll talk about it. Let’s start down at the end.
Roy, we’ll start with you.
MR. URRICO-I’m sort of in agreement with Norm on this. Assuming there’s no problem, as far as
the septic system, I’d like to know if there is an alternative means to place this addition? If it seems
like he’s locked in to this location, then I would not have a problem with it, but I really want some
further clarification on where the septic system is, leachfield.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Without repeating myself, I might just add to what my previous comments
were and what Roy has said. Depending on how the information to be obtained turns out, it still, in
my opinion would be some possible discussion in terms of what the alternatives might be, even
under those circumstances. If you look from the standpoint from our side of the equation, that it’s
something you would like to do, and, on the other hand, we have obligations in connection with the
Code as it stands, we try to balance things out in some way. I just need to think long and hard and
maybe hear a little bit more from you, in terms of what it is that, for example, that necessitates the
addition in the size that it is, and so on. That’s all for me, thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. In the interest of time and fairness, I was not here last week. So,
consequently, I’m going to abstain.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application. If you look at the five factors, the benefit to the
applicant would certainly be that they would be able to build an addition to their home, for their
growing family, in a relatively respectful area of the Town of Queensbury. While there might be the
alternative of offsetting the addition from the house, it makes it more difficult to build. This is a
relatively small lot. There’s a septic system behind the house. So I don’t know how far back you can
even push it further than it is now, with the rest of the house, and it might be an alternative, but I
don’t think it’s a feasible one, given the depth and the small size of this lot. I would think that the
relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in the normal course. They’re looking for, what, 14 feet
of relief?
MR. STONE-Fourteen feet, fourteen plus or minus.
MR. MC NALLY-But in this case, from your line in the front of the house to the paved surface of
the road, there’s another 12 feet. So that 12 foot, and then 16 foot to the addition, means effectively
about 28 feet between the house and the road surface. The Code calls for 30 feet, 28 feet, 30 feet,
there’s not much of a difference. So, just because of the fact that the road is further from their line
than it would be, I don’t think it’s very substantial. I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or
community whatsoever. You’re maintaining a respectable distance to your neighbor’s home on the
one side, and the addition’s going to be just as far from the road as the current house is. So you’re
not going adding to it or making it worse already, and I don’t see it as self-created. It’s the nature of t
the beast. You’re on a curve. There’s no one, basically, across the street that’s going to complain.
Your neighbors are supportive of it. So I’m in favor of it.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think, in this particular circumstance, in particular, the curvature
of the road place the addition in a direction that it doesn’t raise too many concerns for me, and
apparently not for your neighbors, as I read the minutes. There didn’t seem to be a lot on the table
there as far as neighborhood objection. In fact there was some support. So, it is a small lot. Two
tenths of an acre is, you know, we’ve dealt with some of these before. We have smaller lots and
people want to increase the size of their homes, and that, to me, is a benefit to the applicant that I
can appreciate enough where I think, in a cumulative sense, that the test falls in favor of the
applicant. I think that that’s a natural thing of raising a family or having a family in this particular
case. So, having said that, I would be in favor of the motion, or in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also be in favor of the applicant’s application for this project. I think
the amount of relief off the front, you know, is balanced by the fact that you have that other room in
the front, out to the road frontage, and at the same time we’re only adding a 480 square foot
residential build out on that side of the house. To build it anywhere back, in the back yard would,
you know, negate having your back yard, and it’s a pretty small back yard to begin with, and I think
with a family it’s nice to have a little open space in the back, no matter how small your lot is that you
live on. So, I’d be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-I concur with the three gentlemen who have preceded me. I am comfortable with the
fact that the septic will be considered when the building permit is sought, and if it’s going to be too
close to it, then that’s going to have to be something you’re going to have to decide to do, but as far
as the front of the property is concerned, with the matter that’s before us, I’m comfortable, when
you consider that, as has been said, the neighbors have not complained. They’re all, at least they
haven’t said anything against it. The fact that the road, the property line is well set off the pavement,
and therefore we have this additional distance between the new construction and the road, I can be
comfortable with it. Having said that, I need a motion to approve the variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 GARY & MELINDA LEWIS,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
237 Fifth Street Extension. The applicant proposes the construction of a 480 square foot residential
addition and seeks relief from the setback requirement with respect to the front. Specifically, the
applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of an SR-1A
zone, that is Section 179-19 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, since the structure does
not currently comply with the 30 foot minimum front setback, relief is requested for the expansion
of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to Section 179-79. I move the approval because, one, the
applicant would be permitted to construct an addition to their home for their family at the desired
location. Two, while there are alternatives that may be possible, such as offsetting the addition from
the main home to a more compliant location, taking up a further portion of the rear of their yard, I
don’t see this as feasible, since it’s a modest lot, and moving the addition back would result in an
inordinate amount of cost for the few feet of additional frontage that we might save. The addition
might interfere negatively, with respect to the septic system and I don’t see this as being a feasible
alternative. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. Because whereas it’s 16 feet from
the front line, there’s an additional 12 feet, as we noted earlier, from the front line to the paved
surface of the road. So effectively there’s 28 feet distance between the road and the house, and given
the fact that there’s only a 30 foot requirement, I think effectively it’s two feet of relief, which is
relatively modest. There’ll be no effects on the neighborhood or community, and the difficulty is not
self created. It’s more a circumstance of owning a lot on a curve such as this, and trying to build a
home that would fit your family. For all these reasons, I move the approval. My motion is
conditioned on the applicants, after they construct their addition, having a survey done showing the
footprint of the house and the addition, and submitting that to the Town so that we have a record of
exactly where this addition is and how it was built.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-So it’s approved.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON
D/B/A FISH TALES ICE CREAM AND FISH FRY OWNER OF PROPERTY:
STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON LOCATION: 1036 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
HAS CONSTRUCTED A FREESTANDING SIGN OF 50 SQ. FT. AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE HC-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 4/11/2001 ZONE: HC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 68-1-10 NEW TAX MAP
NO. 296.09-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION 140
STEVEN SUTTON, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Before we get into the application itself, I have a statement that I have to read. I will
read, not that I have to. I do read . “Two years ago, one of the next applicants publicly and harshly
castigated me at a Town Board meeting about how I did my job in a proceeding effecting the
applicant. Although I know I handled the proceedings correctly, the applicant took exception to my
actions. I recognize he had the right to say what he did, but he deeply hurt me. Since I have
preached that public officials must be aware that apparent conflicts of interest are conflicts of
interest, and it might be perceived by some that I do have a conflict, I should not be involved in
these deliberations. I, therefore, recuse myself”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 24-2001, Steven and Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: April 26,
2001 “Project Location: 1036 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a 32 sf freestanding sign and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 11.30 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of
the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing
free standing sign at its current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
relocation of the sign to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 11.30 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as 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.): BP 2000-520
issued 7/26/00 32 sf free standing sign BP 2000-115 issued 4/19/00 1584 sf restaurant c/o
pending SP 14-2000 res. 2/22/00 conversion of office to restaurant approved AV 10-2000 res.
2/16/00 TCO setback relief approved Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as
a result of this action. It appears as though the paved area in the front of the building was increased
in depth thereby decreasing the green area in which the sign was originally planned. The plot plan
submitted with the sign permit application depicted the proposed sign to be located 15 feet from the
front property line. A review of the historical record for this site did not reveal a sign permit for the
existing signs on the building. SEQR Status: Unlisted”
MR. BROWN-There’s a County referral, and just if I could, for the record, the agenda states a 50
square foot sign. That’s a typo. It’s actually a 32 square foot sign. There is a County referral some
place, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a “Warren County Project Review and Referral Form April 11, 2001
Project Name: Sutton, Steven & Donna Owner: Steven & Donna Sutton ID Number: QBY-SV-
24-2001 County Project#: Apr01-21 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant seeks after-the-fact relief from setback requirements – 15’ required, 3.7’
exists – for a free-standing sign. Site Location: Route 9, 1036, 2 parcel north of Montray Road.
nd
Tax Map Number(s): 68-1-10 Staff Notes: Staff is concerned about potential impacts to Route 9
traffic and recommends discussion. The application materials did not include a site plan indicating
the signs location or any site impediments to placing it the required distance from the lot line. Local
actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for April 26, 2001 County Planning
Board recommendation: Deny Local Action:/Final Dispensation (Provide reason if local action is
contrary to Warren County Planning Board recommendation)” Signed by Thomas E. Haley
Warren County Planning Board 4/12/01.
MR. HAYES-You understand, Mr. Sutton, that that means that you will need a super majority from
this panel to get a positive motion, which is five votes.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MC NALLY-Does that mean the Planning Board had a meeting tonight, on the 26?
th
MR. HAYES-No, they were referring to our meeting, I believe.
MR. MC NALLY-Referring to our meeting.
MR. HAYES-Yes. Craig, the last sentence in the Staff notes, we’re not dealing with that tonight?
MR. BROWN-No, that’s correct. It’s just a reference to the site, if the question came up, yes.
MR. HAYES-All right. Fine, I just wanted to make sure we’re touching all the bases here. Mr.
Sutton, is there anything you’d like to add to your application? Well, unfortunately, I was out of
town last week for the Warren County Board meeting and it totally slipped my mind, and I probably
should have went and argued my case. I thought it was, for some reason it just got by me. I
understand for any kind of variance you do have to show hardship. I think the major hardship there,
when you say that we’re the second parcel in from Montray Road, the State property is there, and
with their chain link fence just about out to the road when you go by G Rays or what used to be G
Rays, as you’re coming north on Route 9, it pretty well blocks the entire parcel. So we do feel there
is a legitimate hardship there. The paving was, we pretty much followed exactly what Leonard
Insurance had there. There was just a small spot of green space out front. I have to say that when
the sign was put there, unfortunately, I had some medical problems last year. I was out of town for
the whole summer. My son being inexperienced, and when the sign people came to put it up, there
was that little bit of green space. They plopped it where they thought it would be, and rather than try
to conform, which now would put it in the drive lane as people come in, if we move it to the 15 feet,
there’s a very slim area of drive through there which was approved by the site plan review and
everything. So it would really start to hinder traffic coming in and out of Fishtails itself. So I, you
know, seeing where it is now, seeing where the existing signs are up the road, including Suttons, the
Toy Cottage, the Village Shop, and Fishtails, as you look down the road, nothing interferes with any
of the signs. They’re all kind of look like they were planned and belong there. I do apologize for
having the sign there and being here after the fact. I know that’s not the way we normally do
business. It’s something that happened in my absence, that normally we would have gone through
the proper channels to get it up. Unfortunately, it’s there now, and it would be considerable expense
to change it now, and I’m not exactly sure where that change would possibly be because it’s, to make
it conforming, like I said, you’re going to be back into the drive lanes and that’s going to make it very
difficult for cars to get in and out of there. It’s pretty tight. So, that’s pretty much it. The main
thing, again, being the State property to our south that we tried to leave the pine trees there and there
was a lot of concern to leave as much green space as we could. You don’t see that property until
you’re right up on it, and we purposely kept that sign down to 32 square feet to give it a nice hand-
carved look, and we didn’t feel we needed a big sign. It seems like where it is now it’s not really
hurting anything, but I know what the rules are and I know you have to prove hardship. So I’m here
to plead the case.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant from any Board members?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. The concrete aprons, the one closest to Suttons, is that pretty close to the
line? I’m asking in terms of, well, what if the sign was put further to the west, to help take care of
the matter of people’s view approaching it.
MR. SUTTON-People to the west or north or south are you talking?
MR. HIMES-North I’d say, I’m sorry.
MR. SUTTON-North. We’re pretty close to the Village Collection property there. I mean, there’s a
U-Shape that’s formed by the entrance and exit there, and it seems to be the natural spot for the sign.
It’s hard to visualize it anywhere else. When you get to that gravel area, that’s actually going on to
Betty Jane Baxter’s property, which is.
MR. HIMES-The next lot north.
MR. SUTTON-Right.
MR. HIMES-I can’t tell how much distance there is from this map, but it looks like your concrete
apron is pretty close.
MR. SUTTON-Yes. I think part of the building variance that was granted, because of the Leonard
property being pre-existing there, we were already, you know, encroaching the northern boundary.
There’s just enough room for the drive lane one way coming out around the back of the building as it
is. So I don’t foresee it being anywhere south or north. There’s maybe three feet to the pavement,
going east, toward the building. Not that that still would require a variance to go, to get it three feet .
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
I mean, to get it 15 feet, we’re going to be right in that drive lane, which I think is really where the
real hardship lies. The only other alternative, obviously, is to have it on the building, but then again,
when you’re coming up from the south, you don’t even see that building until you’re past that State
property, especially when the trees leaf out, during the peak season.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I just have one other comment. I’m glad, when you started your
comments, that you spoke of the hardship from a business standpoint, because on the application file
here, you gave as the reason, to conform to existing signs along the road.
MR. SUTTON-I wasn’t quite sure how to answer that. It’s a little vague.
MR. HIMES-And I thought, well, that doesn’t, you should be trying to conform to the Code.
MR. SUTTON-Right.
MR. HIMES-You’ve explained, from your standpoint, business reason, that you can’t see it until
you’re about past.
MR. SUTTON-Right.
MR. HIMES-Without the sign being where it is. All right. Thank you.
MR. SUTTON-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, thanks. Thank you. There obviously has been a decrease in the green area, and
I guess I’m posing this question basically to you, Craig. Does that affect permeability, and should we
focus on that?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if it effects the permeability or not, but that’s not part of the application
tonight. So I would definitely not focus on that.
MR. ABBATE-All right, and also, in the Staff Notes, Mr. Sutton, there’s a statement that a review of
the historical record for the site did not reveal a sign permit for the existing signs on the building. Is
that correct?
MR. HAYES-I spoke to Craig at the beginning of the application, though. He said that that’s not on
the table tonight either.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I better keep quiet, I’m two down. I better not say another word. I’m probably
better off saying, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my comments at this time.
MR. MC NALLY-I had a couple of questions for Staff. Craig, how was this violation noted? Who
picked up on it?
MR. BROWN-During a final site plan inspection for the Certificate of Occupancy, I performed a site
inspection, and part of that, is the landscaping done, is the paving done, is the sign up, does it appear
to meet the setbacks? To me, it appeared to be relatively close to the sidewalk, so as part of the
Certificate of Occupancy, a final plot plan is required, and on that final plot plan, it was discovered
that the sign was.
MR. SUTTON-That’s where it came to our attention, too. Although I was in New York at the time,
but.
MR. HAYES-So it’s sort of like a temporary CO still?
MR. BROWN-Temporary Certificate right now.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this the document that was submitted with the sign application?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And it shows a 15 foot setback?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Sutton, who prepared the application? Was it your son? Who said it would be
set back 15 feet on the application?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. SUTTON-I thought we didn’t have an application.
MR. BROWN-For the freestanding sign there’s a sign permit application.
MR. SUTTON-I was incapacitated last summer, as I say, and it kind of got away from me. So I’m
kind of at your mercy here.
MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, we granted relief, when this was being built, from the Travel
Corridor Overlay.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-Seventy-five foot, right?
MR. MC NALLY-It’s a 75 foot setback required from the road, and the building is how far back
approximately?
MR. BROWN-I knew you were going to ask that question.
MR. SUTTON-Fifty, I believe.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So we granted like 25 feet of relief, something like that?
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-When I drove by this place, I agree with you that you come up from the south,
that drainage lot, right to the south of you, does block the view of your business. No question about
that, but did I remember that the driveway in the front of the building was supposed to be a single
lane and now it’s a double lane? Enough to accommodate two cars side by side? Wasn’t it intended,
originally, as a single lane drive, and then you would drive in the back and around to the parking
area?
MR. SUTTON-Well, that’s what it’s, the arrows all go to take it out the south exit, comes in and
around and then the arrows are all to come out back around.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this a lit sign? I don’t think I’ve ever noticed it at nighttime.
MR. SUTTON-It’s not a back lit sign. It’s got a couple of very subtle spotlights on it. It’s more the
gold leaf on the carving that really makes it stand out. Not really much of a nighttime business.
MR. MC NALLY-Maybe I should ask you. Wasn’t your original plan that there was going to be a
single lane around that green space in the front? Did it become two lanes, and how did that happen?
That’s the way I remember it.
MR. SUTTON-The general contractor really, I kind of put everything in his hands, I mean, me not
being there. So I’m not exactly sure, it’s really not a two lane drive through. I mean, because what
people want to do, we have no parking lanes there. If you notice there are no parking spots, but
that’s where people want to come in and they want to park there. It’s hard to stop that. They want
to pull up to the front door. I mean, they’re not used to going around the back yet, and, hindsight
being what it is we probably should have demolished the building, set it back 20 more feet, put the
deck on the front, had it more visible. It wouldn’t have been as nice, but hindsight’s 20/20, but
people do tend to park there, which even makes that even shorter, smaller, tighter. So it just makes
it, you know, that much more difficult. I know it’s hard to come here and plead ignorance, but
things did get a little bit out of control, and there was nothing done intentionally to try to circumvent,
you know, which, I’ve been around long enough to know that you’re not going to circumvent any of
these things, but I guess, you know, I think it’s an attractive sign. I think it fits the area, and it fits
everything that’s going on up and down that road.
MR. MC NALLY-The next door building, the Village mart or something like that?
MR. SUTTON-The Village Collection.
MR. MC NALLY-And its sign is about as far from the road as yours.
MR. SUTTON-Approximately.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MC NALLY-And then you own the toy store next to that, and that sign’s about the same.
MR. SUTTON-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-The Sutton Market one’s set back at least 15 feet, though, from the road?
MR. SUTTON-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So that’s in compliance.
MR. SUTTON-Right. In fact, we’re further back than that, actually. At the time, that was a mistake
also in the other way, but it works.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I have no other questions.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy, you had a question?
MR. URRICO-Well, my question was what Bob covered. At what point did it go from the parking
lot, extend, you said you tried to keep the lot that was there when the Leonard Agency was there?
MR. SUTTON-Right.
MR. URRICO-So this building permit map that was submitted, where it depicted the sign at 15 feet
from the road, at what point did that change?
MR. SUTTON-I have no idea. I didn’t do that drawing myself, and I wish I could tell you, I mean,
that’s kind of a curve. I know between Wheeler Signs and my son, somehow it got placed there, and
it’s kind of water over the dam at this point, but it wasn’t done intentionally, at least not on my part.
Although, if I was to place it, I would be back here asking for this same variance, because it seems to
be the only place that makes sense to put the sign, other than, which I would consider a big hardship
if we had to put it back and only have it on the building, because we obviously can’t put it in the
drive lane. It would totally bottleneck everything up there, and I think that would be a hazard to
both pedestrians and people trying to squeeze around that spot, now that we have sidewalks there
and walking traffic as well.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. SUTTON-All I can say is there wasn’t any intention to change it without going through the
proper channels. Sometimes other priorities in your life take over, and last year, unfortunately, I had
one of those.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. At this time I’ll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH CRIST
MR. CRIST-I’m Keith Crist. I have the facility kitty corner to Fishtails, and as Steve says, coming
down Route 9, heading north, there’s a sign in the building and everything, the way they left all the
trees standing on that property line, it really hides the building quite a bit, and I would say that by
moving the sign in, back, setting it back would be kind of defeating, which is a beautiful sign as well.
So, all in all, I would like to say I’m in favor of where the sign is. It has no bearing or problems with
me on our side, and the whole facility next door looks great. If I could get the south side of me
looking like that, I’d be a happy camper.
MR. URRICO-Which facility are you? Where are you located?
MR. CRIST-A-2000, directly across, Della Honda was next to me, until last week, and G Ray’s is
across the street, it’s been an eyesore for I don’t know how many years now. Like I say, an
improvement like Steve on his side of the street has been wonderful. All right.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application?
Is there anyone that would like to speak opposed to the application? At this time, is there any
correspondence?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see anything, no.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And poll the current Board members. I guess this time we’ll start with Mr. Himes.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Listening to what I’ve heard puts me in a very sympathetic position with
the applicant, and especially, I think that we, barring some outrageous interference, that you’ve got to
support our businesses as best that we can, and I think that, on the balance of the matter, and the
fact that I have driven by that place many, many times and not noticed that the sign was as close as it
is, that’s probably because I’m always going north and having passed 50 other signs that are already
pretty close to the road as they are on that side of the highway coming out from Town. So, to make
a long story short, I think that the business reason is reason enough for me to say that it’s a nice
looking sign. It wasn’t built to maximum. Of course I do recognize that there were some oversights
and mistakes made with its placement, and I’m in favor of the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Thanks a lot. Okay. Reputation plays a large in my decision on this, Mr. and Mrs.
Sutton, and as far as I’m concerned, I echo the feelings of my Board member, that we must support
our businesses in the Town of Queensbury, and in terms of reputation, as far as I’m concerned,
Suttons has an excellent reputation, in terms of good business, good service, etc., etc. I believe that
there were, in fact, mitigating circumstances, and we won’t dwell on that, which I happen to know
includes personal hardships and what have you. I don’t believe there’s any malice aforethought on
this issue here, and I’m certainly in favor of this application. However, I have not been feeling well.
I’m on medication. So I’m going to interject a little humor here, if you don’t mind. Your sign says
ice cream and fish fry. Why not fish fry and ice cream, out of curiosity?
MR. SUTTON-I think it was just, Fishtails, fish fry, just didn’t ring.
MR. ABBATE-Didn’t ring.
MRS. SUTTON-It was an aesthetic thing.
MR. SUTTON-Yes.
MRS. SUTTON-Having fish and fish side by side.
MR. SUTTON-That was her idea.
MRS. SUTTON-hat was my idea.
MR. ABBATE-I raised a sore issue here, but anyway, to sum it up, I am in favor of supporting your
application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Whenever someone puts a building up and they don’t get a permit, or they build a
building that’s too high or too close to the line without getting a variance, and then after the fact they
come in and ask for relief, it’s sometimes harder to do that, and a sign permit is not much different
than that, in some respects, but when this happens, I know what I’ve tried to do is think, what would
I have done had they come to us first and asked for a variance, without having a sign up where they
did, and I tried to look at this application in that light, and in some sense it’s a close call. I think the
benefit to the applicant is relatively straightforward. I agree with you that the sign should be closer
to the road, to compensate for the fact that that damn lot is on the corner, with the chain link fence
and all the brush growing almost basically to the sidewalk. You can’t see your business, and I agree
with Norm I think it was who commented that, I don’t know how many times I’ve been by that lot
and all of a sudden I see Fishtails out of the corner of my eye, as it’s passed me going north. So as a
businessman, I can understand the benefit that you’d receive, and I understand the need for it. It’s
important to have recognition of your business so people know where it is. When you talk about
feasible alternatives, I think that you could relocate the sign to a more compliant location. There
would be some cost involved, and it certainly would not be as preferable, but, you know, it can be
done. The relief that you’ve requested, the Code says you have to have 15 feet from the line, and
you’re asking for a sign 3.7 feet from the line on the road. I find that substantial. The effects on the
neighborhood or community, however, I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal, because like you said,
two businesses north of you certainly have a sign that close, and in large part it’s a very nice sign, and
it’s a sign that I think is, as a community, we should take pride in, because there’s a hell of a lot worse
signs than that going up and down the road. I think the difficulty is self-created, which is the fifth
test we have to do. As much as it may be in error, whether it was the contractors or whoever, that
was put there basically by yourselves. When I look at this, if you look at our Sign Ordinance, it says,
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
if you’ve got a 50 square foot sign, you’ve got to be 15 feet from the road. If you’ve got a 64 square
foot sign, you’ve got to be 25 feet from the road. So, in other words, the bigger the sign, the further
you have to be. Well, you’re 32 square feet, right? Is that right? So I can understand that it can be
closer to the road than maybe a 50 square foot one would be, but I think that there should be a
concession or two, and the concession or two that I’m thinking of is that the sign would be limited to
32 square feet, and that it would never be increased in size, and the other thing I’d like to see, I like it
that it’s externally lit. I think it’s tasteful. I think it shows your business. I think it indicates where
your business is, and it’s a nice sign. I don’t know if I want, whenever you sell this to the next ice
cream stand 50 years from now, we’re going to have a Carvel sign internally lit from there. I don’t
know if maybe we should ask that it should not be internally lit, also, and it should maintain it’s size
at that location. That’s what I think, but with those kind of concessions, which I think aren’t a big
deal, I think I could support your application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would also be in favor of the applicant’s plea for the relief that he’s
requested, and at the same time, I think I’d have to compare it to the other signs on that side of the
road. Certainly, the other side of the road where the setbacks are so much greater on the buildings,
you know, it would be a different story, but you have to keep in mind the fact that, like everyone has
said, you don’t see that sign until you’re right up on it, and if it were set back eight feet more, it
would make it that much more difficult to see it. So I think it should remain where it is.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. When you examine the criteria that we’re pledged to weigh this against, then I
agree with Robert on this, and the rest of the Board, that the weight seems to uphold Mr. Sutton’s
position. I drive past there maybe 12, 13 times a day, and you can’t see it coming north. The biggest
eyesore on that side of the road is that chain link fence, and so therefore I don’t feel this is, I feel
there’s a benefit to the applicant. I do not think there are feasible alternatives. The relief is
substantial. I don’t see this as having a great effect on the community, other than to make it better,
and the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but I think if I was putting a sign there, that’s
probably where I would locate it as well, and I would be in favor of this application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, first of all, let me say that we’re all lucky, in this particular
circumstance, that I’m the substitute Chairman, because you’re being spared a speech about already
built variances, per usual, but I essentially agree with the rest of the Board on this matter. I think if
we examine this strictly from the criteria that are involved with Sign Variance, I think the benefits to
the applicant are clear. This is promotion of his business in a tasteful manner. Number Two, the
feasible alternatives, and I believe that’s largely where this particular application rotates around, I
believe that they are limited in this particular case, based on the fact that it’s already been pointed out
that the shielding from the adjoining properties creates a situation that a sign on the building, for
example, would be inconsequential, or possibly have no benefit whatsoever. Certainly, the relief is
substantial, in this particular case. As I read this application initially, and also knew that you needed a
super majority, I wondered how this application would go, and if the relief, in my mind is correctly
identified as substantial. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that
there will be. I think the sign, as has been pointed out, is actually very consistent with the signs on
that side of the road. It’s a quality sign. It’s constructed well. It compliments the building. I can’t
imagine anybody feeling that that has a negative impact on the surrounding properties, and we’ve
already had one immediate property owner speak to the fact that he thinks it does. He thinks it’s
fine. So, is the difficulty self-created? I think Mr. McNally identified that it certainly is, in that sense.
I mean, you chose to put it there, whether it was you or your agent, but I still think, as the owner,
you have to take responsibility for that, but considering that, I think three of the five criteria that are
involved with this specific test fall in favor of the applicant, and, in that simplistic way, I think that
the balancing test falls in favor of the applicant as well. I think that’s really as simple as that. So,
having said that, I’d like to ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 STEVEN AND DONNA
SUTTON, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
1036 State Route 9. The applicant has constructed a 32 square foot freestanding sign and seeks
relief from the setback requirements. Relief required, the applicant requests 11.30 feet of relief from
the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6. The benefit to the
applicant is that they would be permitted to maintain the existing freestanding sign at its current
location Feasible alternatives, as has been said, the feasible alternative may include relocation of the
sign to a more compliant location. It’s possible. Is it feasible? Well, that’s questionable. It lacks in
effectiveness, being moved back because it’s out of usable view from approaching traffic, mainly
from the south. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 11.30 feet from the 15 foot
requirement may be interpreted as substantial. That is so. However, the neighboring municipal or
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
state law, county perhaps, and trees along the line impairs the sign’s use at 15 feet from the front line.
Although the zone code is important, we do have to balance the fact of what we’re trying to
accomplish, and it’s not just simply the code itself. There are factors that come into play, and that’s
why we’re here, to evaluate them, and we feel that the importance of the variance and the fact that
there are a lot of other signs along there that are close to the road, too, are not the influence. It’s the
fact that your business would be impaired by observing the code as it’s written. The effects on the
neighborhood or community, well, the code has been relaxed as an exception, a negative, some might
say. The positives are it’s a comparatively small sign. It’s a very, very attractive sign, which is a plus
to the area. It does some good for what we hope will be an important business in the area. Also as
conditions, the sign would be limited to 32 square feet, and it would not be internally lit, as Mr.
Sutton has agreed to.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. HIMES-Did you want a condition in there about the sign?
MR. MC NALLY-I would ask Mr. Sutton, first, whether he’d consent to the imposition of the two
conditions, limiting the sign to 32 square feet, and having a provision that it not be internally lit. Is
that something you can accept, sir?
MR. SUTTON-Sure, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Then I would include that as conditions on the motion, with Mr. Sutton’s consent.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. I would like to include the comments made by Bob, and Mr.
Sutton’s agreement to it as part of the approval.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
MR. SUTTON-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2001 TYPE II G. CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER
AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: G. CHARLES AND LISA C.
MUNZENMAIER LOCATION: 16 RENEE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/11/2001 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ZONE: WR-1A , CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.52 NEW TAX MAP NO.
239.12-2-95 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16
CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2001, G. Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier, Meeting Date: April
26, 2001 “Project Location: 16 Renee Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 2800 sf residential addition and seeks relief from the setback and height
requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front
setback requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-
1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired
addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include
downsizing and relocation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Both the 11
feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement and the 3 feet of relief from the 28 foot requirement may
be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to
moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be sufficient room
for compliant construction on this site. It does not appear that a relocation of the addition, 11 feet
to the north, would deprive the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. Three feet of relief
from the height requirement does not appear to present any adverse impacts on neighboring view
sheds. Apparently, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing garage into a storage
building/workshop, thereby addressing the issue of a second garage. SEQR Status: Type II”
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Is there any County?
MR. BROWN-There should be a County, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 11,
2001 Project Name: Munzenmaier, G. Charles & Lisa Owner: G. Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier
ID #: QBY-AV-25-2001 County Project#: Apr01-19 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to construct a 3,200 sq. ft. two story
residential addition including two bedrooms, 2 ½ baths, a family room, a 2 car garage and a
basement. They seek relief from front setback (30’ required, 19’ proposed) and height requirements.
Site Location: 16 Renee Drive, Cleverdale. Route 9L to Harris Bay, turn into Renee Drive. Green
house on left is #16. Tax Map Number(s): 10-1-1.52 Staff Notes: The proposed addition would
more than double the size of the existing house – expanding it from 2,400 square feet to 5,600 square
feet. The application materials address the issue of septic capacity and function. The applicant has
agreed to test the system as soon as the ground thaws. Though the site plan does not indicate the
location of the tank and leachfield, a sketch plan of part of the parcel does indicate that it is located
west of the house. This is a matter of particular concern since the entire eastern section of the parcel
is part of a large wetland known to contain rare species. The application materials do not indicate
any stormwater mitigation measures, though the Town of Queensbury does regulate stormwater.
Due to concerns about potential impacts to water quality in a sensitive environmental area, Staff
recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for
April 26, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the
stormwater and septic system plans meet Town of Queensbury regulations. Local Action/Final
Dispensation (Provide reason if local action is contrary to Warren County Planning Board
recommendation)” Signed by Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 4/12/01.
MR. STONE-Craig, before we start, with that stipulation, does it have to go to the Planning Board,
the septic?
MR. BROWN-Stormwater stipulation? No, that’s typically handled during the building permit
process.
MR. STONE-That’s only the building permit. Nobody else, if we grant the variance, only the
building permit?
MR. BROWN-Unless you think it reasonable to forward it to the Planning Board for review. It’s not
required to go.
MR. STONE-Okay. The other question that I have, you wrote in your Staff notes, 2800 feet, County
said 32. Which is the correct number?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-This is Charles Munzenmaier, the owner of the property. I think the
difference is, what, 400 square feet, and that is the proposed basement area. So it doesn’t effect the
plot. It’s just another area underneath, and it’s not livable.
MR. BROWN-Is it living space or utility space?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, it’ll be just a cement floor with a door into it.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I didn’t consider it as living space in my notes.
MR. STONE-I just wanted to make sure we don’t have that in.
MR. HIMES-Before we get started, I have a question, perhaps, of Staff, too. Looking, when I went
by there, I see on the map, too, the garage, the attached garage, or as it says on the map existing shop
it says, appears to me to be much closer to the line than anything else, being proposed or what not,
and I’m wondering whether that, would that make this a nonconforming, does that have any impact
on this?
MR. BROWN-No, because the proposed addition is to a totally different structure than the
freestanding garage. They’re not proposing any changes to that freestanding garage, just an addition
to the residence.
MR. HIMES-But the accessory structure, Waterfront One Acre has to abide by the same setback
requirements as the principle structure. So even before this came along, as it is at this moment, it
seems that this, the garage, is just a few feet from the line, much closer than, well, I’d say several feet
at least, than the house. Is this a nonconforming situation?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. BROWN-I think the freestanding garage is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, but that’s
not really even part of this application. I’m assuming, and I don’t know the history of the property,
but it was built some time before the regulations said you couldn’t build it at that location, and it’s
just been maintained there.
MR. HIMES-Wouldn’t it, normally doesn’t (lost words) as a nonconforming?
MR. BROWN-If there’s an action proposed, an addition proposed to that structure, sure, we’d
identify it as nonconforming, and it would be a different set of rules you’d be looking at, but this is a
different building on the property, and we’re talking about the house, which is a conforming
structure.
MR. HIMES-It is going to undergo some construction, because it’s going to be changed from a
garage to a workshop.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if you take the garage doors off and put on a swing door, that doesn’t require any
variances. You’re not making the building any bigger. There’s no structural changes. It’s just a
conversion of the building.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So we don’t pay any attention to the fact that that is right up on the line?
MR. BROWN-You won’t be seeing that back in front of this Board unless they propose to make it a
different size.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I have one question, Lew, if I may, please, to the Staff. Are percolation tests
appropriate in this instance?
MR. BROWN-I think if you read the letter from Dave Hatin, which was submitted as part of the
application, that addresses the building, yes, that’s the building code’s position, the Building
Department’s position.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Munzenmaier, anything that you would like to add, subtract,
multiple or divide, in terms of the application that we’ve read so far?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, we’re here to answer your questions.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll ask a couple that I asked you this afternoon. How high is the current house
above grade, using the measurement of a plumb line from the highest point of the house to the
ground?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-I can’t get a plumb line from the highest point.
MR. STONE-I understand, but.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-From the ground, where you told me to measure, to the eaves, was 18 feet,
and from the eaves to the highest peak on the roof was another seven feet. So it’s 25 feet.
MR. STONE-So it’s currently 25 feet, approximately?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-From that corner, right.
MR. STONE-From that corner, okay, and the other question that I had, which was not on the
drawing, the height of the, I’ll call it the bulkhead or what, I haven’t got the right word.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-The retaining wall.
MR. STONE-The retaining wall, and the subsequent fill inside the retaining wall, how high is that
wall supposed to be?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-The line of sight, I’ve got five feet, from where it’ll tie in.
MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, measured from the ground as filled, but, at least I’m concerned that there’s
an additional five feet down to the hill, as it slopes away. I mean, even though it is going to be filled
all the way across, it will be as if there, as I understand it, there’ll be, it’ll come out here and drop
straight down. The retaining wall will be on all sides.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MC NALLY-Effectively 36 feet down to the ground.
MR. STONE-Yes. I’m not sure how we handle that, Craig, to be, I know we talk about as filled, as
finished, along the side of the house, but this is going to be out in front on a slope.
MR. MC NALLY-Overlooking the lake.
MR. STONE-Overlooking the lake. I want to be sure we understand that and know that.
MR. HAYES-That’s going to drop off there, but you’re going to measure from here down to here, I
think.
MR. STONE-Yes, I know we are.
MR. HAYES-You’re measuring from right here to right here, not from out here down to here.
MR. STONE-We’re going to measure from here to here.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BROWN-Assuming that this stone wall is facto, and this is the final grade here, we would
measure to point adjacent to the building, to final grade.
MR. STONE-There’s going to be a crib all the way around, is that?
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Munzenmaier, on your drawing you show a stone wall. That stone wall is
about five foot tall.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Basically, it can be anything, okay. Right now, I took a line of sight from
the current grade, here. I took this point out here, okay, and the way the property grades down, and
this distance would be five feet. If I put more fill in, it could be three feet, whatever. I don’t know
what the extent.
MR. MC NALLY-We just wanted to know what your plan was. Your plan was to have an exposed
stone wall as depicted on that plan?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Exactly.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-So, aesthetically, all these posts are the same dimension, rather than this one
being this long, this one being.
MR. STONE-And these rocks would go across the front, the east side?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Just the same way?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-He’s not going to backfill unless he has to.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be backfilled.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, I’m going to fill that up inside.
MR. STONE-Inside. In other words, it’s going to be like, forget the house, there’s going to be a crib
of dirt.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-The distance, the height variance will be how high I make this wall.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Okay. If I made it another two foot, I’d be down to 29 foot.
MR. STONE-No, you wouldn’t, because the house would go up two feet.
MR. HAYES-No.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-No, this is a wall.
MR. MC NALLY-He’d just build the wall up.
MR. ABBATE-No, it would stay at 29 if he did it.
MR. BROWN-But realistically, that’s not going to happen, because he needs to walk out this slider
here.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. BROWN-This wall’s not going to get any taller.
MR. STONE-But just help me. If you built this wall now, forget the house, you built this crib, I’ll
call it, and you go all the way across the front, the east side of the house, and you come back on the
other side with stone. Is that what you’re planning? And there’ll be stone across the front.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right, on the outside of the deck, away from the house.
MR. STONE-Yes, and then you’re going to fill that triangle.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Backfill inside, yes.
MR. STONE-That whole triangle will be filled?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And therefore, the house will start at the top of the wall or the top of the fill,
whichever it’s built on. So the wall could be up four feet. It’s still what’s inside.
MR. ABBATE-Which still comes to 31, is what you’re saying?
MR. STONE-Yes, it still comes to 31.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Just for clarity, this wall is actually removed from the house 12 feet.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-On this side it’s 16 feet. On this side it’s 10 feet.
MR. BROWN-That wall is out here, underneath the edge of this deck. Is that correct?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-So your house is back in 16 feet.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the intent is to fill that whole thing, so essentially that’s the surface of the
ground.
MR. BROWN-That’s the final grade.
MR. HAYES-That’s not even the intent. If he doesn’t do it, he’ll be out of violation.
MR. STONE-I understand that. I appreciate that. Okay. Anything else you want to add?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-But the question that you asked me, as far as the roofline, so that that is
only, from 25 to 31 is six foot difference that we’re, in essence, adding on.
MR. STONE-You’re three feet under conforming and three feet over conforming if we grant a
variance.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-The majority of the house would be under conformance.
MR. ABBATE-I wonder if you’d clear this up for me, please. I see that you had a conversation with
Mr. Hatin, the Building and Code Enforcement, and you basically, and I want to make sure that this
is correct, that I’m stating that you would be willing to upgrade your current, you currently have a
1,000 gallon tank. You’d be willing to upgrade it either to 1250 tank or install an addition 1,000?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MUNZENMAIER-I think by Code I, for a four bedroom, I have to upgrade it to 1250, and if
I’m going to buy a tank, why not, I’ll see what the differential cost between a 1,000 gallon tank, put in
series, add it that way, or remove the 1,000 gallon and replace it with the 1250.
MR. ABBATE-Craig, with a four bedroom, how many gallons would be required?
MR. BROWN-Don’t quote me on this, but I’m under the impression that a 1250 tank is the
minimum required for a four bedroom system.
MR. ABBATE-So if we made that as a stipulation, there should be no problem.
MR. BROWN-Not even necessary.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a Code, you’re right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anyone other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-Did I understand some of it was going to be used as a workspace, that you’re
converting?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-I’m converting the garage, the existing garage.
MR. MC NALLY-What is your business? Is it for business, sir?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Well, I do little projects. My wife does stain glass, that type of thing.
MR. MC NALLY-And Craig mentioned the garage doors being removed. Do you have plans in that
regard?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. There will be, yes. I don’t have plans now.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you intend to side it with the normal siding that you’re going to use otherwise?
What are your plans? What are you going to do?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Take the door and put plywood right over it, and paint it, because I already
have an access door from the other side of it. I might put, one of them might have a door.
MR. HAYES-Just as long as you understand that it can’t be a garage door, or else you’ll have two
garages.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Understood.
MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you build a house within the height requirements of the Town, 28 foot?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-It’s difficult with the slope of the land, with the contour of the land.
MR. MC NALLY-I see the slope of the land, but I mean, the house itself is 31 feet tall. I was just
trying to figure out, you know, what makes your house need that extra height?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Three floors and a roof.
MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Can I say something? The majority of the house is actually going to be
conforming within the height requirements. Because of the slope of the land, the front, actually the
front facing the lake is much steeper, which is requiring, you know, in order for it to be even, we’ve
also put on a hip roof to try to minimize it. Our design has a hip roof to minimize the height going
up, and we would have actually preferred more windows in the front, but because of the height
restrictions, we kind of minimized it as much as possible.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the thing is, you are building up the ground. So you’re starting with a level
piece of ground, as far as the house is concerned, and you’re going to be 31 feet above that piece of
ground.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. STONE-It has nothing to do with, and the question that Mr. McNally asked, why have you got
to be 31 feet?
MR. MC NALLY-Do you understand what he said?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MUNZENMAIER-I understand what he said, but if you look at the, I can show you this print.
If I didn’t do this, okay, which would allow us a little deck and the ability to walk out on the porch to
have a sliding glass door, if I didn’t do this, I’d be six inches from conformance, but just for the
aesthetics and the looks, we felt that coming out here, off the hip roof, would be the right thing to
do, from an architectural standpoint, and a desirable standpoint. That’s what creates this.
MR. MC NALLY-Right, and then having the basement walkout is what you want?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Because if the grade was leveled, you’d only be a two story home, rather than a
three story home.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right, exactly, and the contour.
MR. MC NALLY-I know the land. I saw the land, and I can see how it slopes much further on one
side.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-And we’re also set back some 200 and some odd feet from the lake. So
we’re not on the water with a 31 foot structure like I think some others are.
MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Aesthetically, your point is well made there.
MR. MC NALLY-In the rear, on the road, what’s the elevation there? It’s significantly taller than the
wood shed and the garage.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-It will be, but again, it will be the six foot, not from here.
MR. MC NALLY-Ballpark.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Ballpark, it’ll probably be the six, the seven foot difference.
MR. ABBATE-What do you have, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I’ve got 20 to the eaves.
MR. ABBATE-Twenty to the eaves?
MR. BROWN-I just did the first one. That’s where the final grade is, but to the highest point of the
house, 26.
MR. STONE-You’re talking on the back.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that going to be visible from the road, to any significant degree? I see the shed.
I saw the shed and the garage or the workshop, I guess, when I drove by. The house is behind there,
but it’s going to be closer to the, if I look at this plan, there’s the woodshed, and there’s going to be
26 feet tall. So I’m just trying to figure out what kind of impact it has on looking at it from the road.
I’m just trying to think about it.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-This is a winter shot, okay. We are about 15 feet above 9L, and this shot
was taken from 9L.
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-It might be up to here. It’s going to butt up right against here. So it’s going
to be like this.
MR. MC NALLY-The question is, how noticeable is that going to be.
MR. ABBATE-This is what you’re talking about. It’s going to butt up to this part, and then will rise,
is this correct?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-On the opposite side.
MR. ABBATE-On the opposite side. Which what you’re saying is very visible from 9L.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right. That’s five foot in to the other side.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, if this was flat on the road, no question, it would be a different situation.
You’re fortunate in the sense of being so high up off that cliff, because it is not as noticeable.
MR. STONE-And the fact that there’s also a big State buffer in there, too, I mean, there’s, what did
we figure, 10, 15 feet? He doesn’t go to the cliff.
MR. MC NALLY-No, he’s 19 foot from the cliff, though.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, no, 19 foot from the property line.
MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s the property line. The cliff’s out here.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Then I’m mistaken, then.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-See, what you’re talking about, this garage, that’s (lost word) see it. That is
right up against the property line. It’s going to end up in front of this shed.
MR. HAYES-Can you scale that out to see how far it is from Route 9L to the property line?
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of siding do you have?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Shingled, vinyl.
MR. MC NALLY-Painted, stained?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Like a clapboard look.
MR. MC NALLY-White?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-No.
MR. MC NALLY-What color?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Either a gray, and we’re doing all of this, the whole house, everything.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I would think you would.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-What colors did you want?
MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Well, I think we were going to make it like a tan with a Hunter green, and
maybe (lost words). I think it’ll look much better than the (lost words).
MR. STONE-The garage is going to be on the west side, the west end, or no, south. Is that going to
be one story, or is that going to have something above it?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-That’s going to have something above it.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s two stories.
MR. STONE-Because I don’t have an elevation.
MR. MC NALLY-Right there. That’s where, the garage is underneath that corner, on the left. The
first floor is the garage.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So there’s windows in the garage, then, like regular (lost words) windows.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Three of three will show what you’re looking at.
MR. STONE-I have two of three twice, I think. I’ve got three pages, but I’m not sure I have, I’ve
got the same thing twice.
MR. MC NALLY-Here, Lew.
MR. STONE-Okay. The garage is going to be here. Okay. I don’t even have that on mine. No,
that’s not right. The garage is over here.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. HIMES-What would be the square footage of the proposed garage, approximately?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Twenty by twenty-four.
MR. HIMES-It looks about the same as the existing one.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Pretty close. So that’s 500 or less. I ask that because there’s a 900 foot maximum.
MRS. MUNZENMAIER-No. We just want some place to be able to put the cars in the winter,
without the snow, get the groceries in the house.
MR. HIMES-It’s a good idea, attached and heated.
MR. STONE-Here’s the addition over here. Where’s the garage? On the other side of this?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-That will be driving in to this way.
MR. STONE-This comes out?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes, that comes out.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we are looking right here, and we just don’t get the depth. Okay. I hadn’t
seen this one before.
MR. MC NALLY-My only concern was the height, because this is at the road.
MR. STONE-Well, it says 21 feet, 20 and a half. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-How far from the road were you?
MR. HAYES-The property line’s 42 feet, plus or minus. Then you’ve got the additional.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a long ways from the driveway.
MR. MC NALLY-There has to be a 30 foot setback.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-From the property line.
MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions? 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. UNDERWOOD-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant before we talk about it? Okay. Let’s start with
Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m comfortable with the setbacks off the road. I think that, you know, given
that extra corridor that’s there, that when the trees are leafed out, as shown in the pictures, even in
the winter time, what’s showing there is not going to be substantially obtrusive to the neighborhood,
and pretty well protected, and also I think we have to consider the fact of how far it’s set back from
the lake. Of course, I always try to put in by beef for a little bit of vegetation out in front, you know,
and not just a stark view, a straight view, but it’s not really a sticking out like a sore thumb view like a
lot of them are up there. So, I’d be comfortable with the relief from the road, and as far as the height
relief, I think that it’s going be balanced a little bit with that in-filling. It’s going to be a little bit
above height, but at the same time we’re not talking that it’s one of those ones that really sticks up
and it’s out in the middle of the open. So it is set back from the water. So I’m comfortable with
what the request is.
MR. STONE-Jamie?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. HAYES-I feel similarly, in this particular circumstance. The benefit to the applicant is fairly
obvious. It’s what they want to do and, as far as feasible alternatives, I think that the Staff notes
correctly point out that there are feasible alternatives, in this particular circumstance, including
downsizing, but really, as I look at the plans, and particularly after the presentation, what really struck
me, in the cumulative sense, was that the property is, in fact, 200 feet from the lake, and, you know, a
three foot variance that’s two hundred feet from the lake, to me, I don’t think that that amounts to
substantial relief. I think, in fact, really, it’s minimal. I know, in the past, we have often discussed
that that particular relief is very, rotates very heavily on how far we’re talking about being away from
the lake. Three feet away from the lake, at 50 foot, to me, would be a much greater concern, but in
this case, the property is well back from the lake. So, I’m comfortable with the three feet. The side
setback I think also in this particular case, after examination, is heavily mitigated by the State right of
way from Route 9L. I think there’s going to be, most of the time, some heavy vegetation there, and I
don’t think that this is going to represent a negative impact on that neighborhood, from that
perspective. I think it’s going to be back far enough to be very minimal. There has been no
neighborhood opposition in this particular case, and I was very interested to see how the neighbor
that shares the right of way through the property there would react, and if they had some concerns, I
certainly would have considered that, but they’re not here. So I have to presume that they’re
comfortable with the project. As far as the difficulty being self created, I think that it is in the sense
that the 31, the height of 31 appears to be a product of your architectural plans and stylistic
impression, but, after listening to your explanation of that, I’m not sure that that’s unwarranted in
this case, based on the fact that, you know, you’re far enough away from the lake, and that this
provides a symmetrical aesthetic to the addition. So, on balance, I think I’m okay with this
application, as it sits.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I agree with Jamie. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I certainly agree with my two Board members. I think your plans are well
thought out. I had some concern about the height being 31 feet, but as you indicated here, from 9L
it’s going to be sloped going down, and this is, the pictures were taken when there was little or no
foliage there, and during the summertime, etc. Well thought out plans. I think it will certainly add to
the area, particularly as you described the type of siding, and you’ve taken into consideration a
number of things. You’ve even made some concessions as, although it’s not a matter for us to
discuss, with septic and what have you, and I certainly, I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. I, too, agree with Jamie’s comments. I’d just like to add a little to
them, in that, in connection with the highway view, from the height standpoint, you’re only going to
see a part of the house anyway, you know, less than you would see of a normal structure as you drive
along the road anyway. So, from the highway, the no impact, even though it is less than Code
requirements from your property line, and from the lake view, as Jamie pointed out, it’s quite a long
ways away, and as Lew said earlier, and Jamie, too, that’s somewhat uncommon. I might add, too,
that the modest height, how noticeable it might be, from the standpoint of a view, which is mainly
from a commercial boat yard. The area involved, it’s not like looking out across the lake. So I think
that’s important, too, in that I think it isn’t, I don’t think it’s going to be very imposing on anyone.
So I do support the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I want to compliment the
applicant for a well thought out, well presented plan. You answered all the questions we needed
answered, and basically I agree that, in this particular case, with these setbacks, I have no problem
with it.
MR. STONE-First, I want to thank you for listening to my thoughts today. We don’t always get a
chance, when we’re out on location, to talk to the applicant. You were very responsive to my
request, at least, for those dimensions, and they’re very helpful to me. I hope they were helpful to
the Board. I think Mr. Hayes captured my thoughts, too. Normally, any variation in height is one
that really raises the hair on the back of my head. I’m a strong supporter of the lake. I happen to
live on the lake, but having said that, the particular location that you have, and as I think was pointed
out, there is a marina between you and the lake, really, and even the lake that is right in front of you
is one where most boats don’t even go, and that’s one of the things we’re concerned about.
Sometimes we may dwell too much, as far as people are concerned, with the view from the lake, but
that’s important to us, but that area behind the island, I don’t even go in there, because you go in at
your own risk, I think, and if you want to bend prop it’s a good place to go. So there won’t be much
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
boat traffic. You’re not going to impact very much at all, and as I say, I think Mr. Hayes captured,
for me, and obviously for most of the Board, our particular thoughts. So, having said that, I need a
motion to approve this variance, both for setback relief and height relief.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2001 G. CHARLES & LISA
MUNZENMAIER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
McNally:
16 Renee Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 2800 square foot residential addition and
seeks relief from the setback and height requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 11 feet of
relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and three feet of relief from the 28 foot
maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant
would be that they would be permitted to construct the addition to their house as these plans depict.
Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives could be considered in this case, but the
applicant’s plans seem to be tasteful and well placed, based on the existing configuration of the house
and its existing driveway. Is the relief substantial relative to Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is in
this particular circumstance, for two reasons. I don’t believe that the height relief of three feet is
substantial, based on the fact that the applicant’s current residence is 200 square feet from the lake,
and that the height of the home will not, in this case, interfere with the view of any neighbor. There
is no neighbor behind the house, in this particular circumstance, that would be impacted in any way.
As far as the 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement, I believe that that’s moderate, and I
believe that that is significantly mitigated by the fact that there is significant vegetation between what
would be the furthest south point of this addition and the highway, and the fact that that buffer will
remain undisturbed going forward into the future. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I
believe that there’s a minimal impact on the neighborhood in this particular circumstance. The
applicant has expressed a desire to continue a coloring scheme that will also blend with the existing
house and with the natural surrounding area, and the particularly immediately impacted neighbor did
not object to the proposed plans in this particular circumstance. So there is no noted public
opposition. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that the difficulty is self-created, in that both the
height and the dimensional relief has to do with the applicant’s desire to place the addition where he
would like to and at that height that he wanted to, but in the cumulative sense, on this balancing test,
I believe it falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. In addition to my
motion, and contingent upon it, I would require the applicant to provide the Town with an as built
survey that indicates the placements, as far as the dimensional relief requested, and depicting the
height at the maximum point, as to height relief.
Duly adopted 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-Just a couple of, did you want throw in?
MR. STONE-We need an as built.
MR. BROWN-Do you want to do the height? Since you’re doing height relief, do you want to
confirm the overall height of the construction, or not? It’s just a thought. If you’re going to confirm
setbacks, do you want to confirm height? And I don’t know, somebody talked about landscaping. Is
that something you’d considered as a condition? I think Jim, I don’t know, just to remind you of
what you discussed.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Well, I mentioned the three feet. That’s the vested relief we’re giving him. So if he
builds above 31, he’s.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess, in order to confirm that, like we do with an as built survey, we confirm
setbacks from property lines. Do you want that survey also to reflect the height of the house? So
that we confirm that it’s done.
MR. HAYES-I think that’s a reasonable condition in this particular circumstance.
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-You have your variance.
MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you very much.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Best of luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2001 TYPE II PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO AGENT:
DENNIS J. TARANTINO, ESQ. OWNER OF PROPERTY: PATRICK A. & SALLY H.
RUSSO LOCATION: 6 NEVER REST LANE (GLEN LAKE ROAD TO END OF ASH
DRIVE) APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ONE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,274 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ZONE:
WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 39-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-59 LOT SIZE:
0.55 ACRES SECTION 179-16
DENNIS J. TARANTINO & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2001, Patrick A. & Sally H. Russo, Meeting Date: April 26,
2001 “Project Location: 6 Never Rest Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes demolition of an existing one family residence and construction of a 2,274 sf single family
dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17
feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit
to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred
location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant
location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 17 feet of relief from the 20
foot requirement may be interpreted as a substantial request. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate to substantial impacts 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, as
there appears to be an area available for compliant construction. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to
substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Relief of this magnitude may
support future arguments for such complete “replacement in kind” requests. There appears to be an
area available for compliant construction. A site inspection revealed discrepancies with the filed plot
plan. The drive, represented as dirt, is actually paved. How was it calculated for this application?
The paving appears to be much closer to the existing residence than as depicted on the filed plot
plan. Were additional field measurements taken? Is the impermeable percentage accurate?
Confirmation of the septic system proposed in this application has not been received as of 4/23/01.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-You’re on, sir.
MR. TARANTINO-Thank you, sir. First of all, I understand that Dave Hatin has signed off on this
project.
MR. STONE-Introduced yourself.
MR. TARANTINO-I’m sorry. Dennis J. Tarantino, agent for the applicant, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. TARANTINO-I do want to catch that last report. It’s my understanding that Tom Jarrett, who
works for us on this project, has been in touch with Dave Hatin. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-For the record, a confirmation of the septic information, design information, was
received yesterday or today. So the Building Department has confirmed that. There should be a
letter in the file that it’s consistent with the requirements.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-So that’s up to enforcement, then, essentially, as far as this application?
MR. BROWN-But typically it’s addressed before it gets before this Board so it’s not a concern.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s been addressed?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. TARANTINO-Secondly, of course this is the first I’ve heard the Staff comments, in reference
to our survey map, which was prepared by Mr. Rourke, but I would like to just give you some brief
background. This particular location, this particular improvement, has been in this location since
1941 when Dorothy Russo purchased the property from James McPhillips. The Russos are from
South Glens Falls. Dorothy was married to Ralph, also known as Massie Russo, Massie’s Restaurant.
In 1993, Dorothy Russo transferred this property to Patrick and Sally. So this is family property
which is intended to be continued as family property in the future. In balancing a request of this
nature, we really are talking about spacing of the property, and I’m sure you’ve all had an opportunity
to see the property in question, but to appreciate the variance request, you’d have to either view the
property from above, or from the lakeside, and when my office was first involved, we contacted
adjoining neighbors, because obviously this is, although we’d say arguably not substantial, 17 feet
certainly is a substantial variation. We found that both neighbors, both adjoiners, favor the variance,
because if we were compliant, we would, by spacing ourselves center, affect their properties
adversely, and I believe one of the neighbors is here tonight to support this application. So we feel
strongly that by continuing this location, it’s going to continue to improve the neighborhood where
we’re situated.
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, a question, again. Going for strike two for Staff. The house is presently
nonconforming, correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HIMES-So the, I think according to the calculations and the floor area worksheet, that the
proposed addition is about 61% increase. So would their also need to be a variance for, in
connection with the enlargement of the?
MR. BROWN-If this was an expansion of a residence. We’re talking about a removal and a
construction of a new residence.
MR. HIMES-And rebuilding. So there’s no?
MR. BROWN-There’s no expansion of a nonconforming.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Good. Thank you.
MR. STONE-It would become nonconforming if we make it so, with a variance.
MR. BROWN-It would be an expansion of a nonconforming if they were adding to it.
MR. STONE-I understand, but if we grant the variance, it becomes nonconforming, though, for
future.
MR. BROWN-Right. It still doesn’t make it a conforming structure just because it has a variance,
right.
MR. STONE-Right. That’s what I’m saying. All right. There were a couple of questions that Staff
raised which I don’t think you answered, about permeability. We have a paved driveway. Do you
have any idea about the percent of permeability on the lot?
MR. TARANTINO-What I can tell you, Mr. Stone, is that we contacted Mr. Rourke, when we
completed the application, and of course he prepared the map, and we asked him to give us those
figures, and so those figures that we have in our application came from Mr. Rourke, his calculations.
MR. STONE-I have to admit, I didn’t look. Where are we?
MR. TARANTINO-Site Development Data.
MR. STONE-Twenty-nine percent.
MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s less than 35.
MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Are you satisfied with that?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. BROWN-If that includes all the paved area, and if it includes the driveway as paved, rather than
dirt that’s shown on the map.
MR. STONE-Well, he shows paved, gravel and other hard surfaces, 4802.
MR. BROWN-Is that counting the driveway as paved or dirt?
MR. STONE-If the parcel is 20,000 square feet. The parcel area is claimed to be 20,700. Is that the
size of the lot, to the best of your knowledge?
MR. TARANTINO-I’m sorry, I was listening to my associate.
MR. STONE-Okay. The total area of the lot, according to the survey, I’m not sure, if it’s on here, I
haven’t found it. The total area of this lot is in fact 20,778?
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s it exactly, 20,778.
MR. STONE-That’s what the number says, yes.
MR. ABBATE-But is it actually, is your question?
MR. STONE-Yes. Is it actually?
MR. TARANTINO-To the best of my knowledge, yes.
MR. HAYES-So what’s in question has to do with the paved areas, essentially, as they impact?
MR. TARANTINO-Right, and my associate confirmed that when he spoke to Bill Rourke, he
counted that area.
MR. STONE-He counted the driveway as paved?
MR. JARRETT-He counted it as paved, even though it says dirt driveway, he counted it as paved, as
impermeable.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you stand behind these numbers as taking into account the driveway as
paved, and that brings the permeable area to, non-permeable to just less than 30%?
MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct.
MR. BROWN-And my other observation at the site was that the actual paved, I don’t know if you
have this survey map, part of your application, the paving, it goes basically right up to the building,
and almost to the front portion of the house as it’s shown on the map, and on this map, it doesn’t do
that, and I just, I mean, that could be another couple thousand square feet.
MR. HAYES-What’s the maximum percentage of impermeable in this?
MR. STONE-Thirty-five.
MR. HAYES-So the question is whether that would be six percent or not. I know what you’re
talking about. It hugs closer to the.
MR. BROWN-It’s closer to the building and closer to the lake. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-But that’s on the applicant’s side. If it goes over that, then that’s going to be
something they’ll have to deal with.
MR. BROWN-But do you want to confirm it now, or are you comfortable?
MR. HAYES-I don’t know if we’re going to be able to, right, without that measurement.
MR. MC NALLY-Is it an issue? I mean, it’s not something that’s on the table.
MR. STONE-It is something that we would have to grant a variance to, if it is over. Staff is
concerned that it might be over the 35%.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. BROWN-Only because what we’re talking about is rebuilding a house, albeit slightly bigger,
bigger than what’s there, and if it’s already out of compliance, do we want to make it more out of
compliance? That’s the only question I’d have.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but, correct me if I’m wrong, I mean, if it turns out that it’s more than 35%
impermeable, then that’s their problem.
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NALLY-They’re going to have to come back and get a variance, or they’re going to have to
take up part of their driveway.
MR. BROWN-And there isn’t really another forum to figure that out, unless you guys ask for it right
now. It doesn’t come up in the building permit process. It doesn’t come up as an annual site visit.
It’s something that maybe you could ask for here, if you felt it necessary.
MR. MC NALLY-A calculation or verification of that number?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. Okay.
MR. STONE-We need a true survey of the non-permeable areas, I guess is what Staff is suggesting
to us, and I certainly think that it’s a good idea.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think we need to adjourn it for this, though. It’s just something you can
make as a condition of the approval.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Just that you need an on site survey.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-At the same time, I wanted to throw out the concept of, I really think that in a
lot of cases over here on the lake, people have put in these macadam areas that are so large, and
there’s some question in my mind as to why we really need this just to park cars out there. I mean, I
consider it, you know, a driveway is one thing, but this is a substantial large area down there that’s
paved over, and maybe, as a condition, you know, maybe that could get changed to gravel, or
something.
MR. STONE-Not gravel. Gravel is non-permeable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But Number Two stone or whatever that is.
MR. STONE-I don’t care what you guys said last night. I mean, technically, gravel is non-permeable,
in Queensbury.
MR. TARANTINO-May I respond briefly to Mr. Underwood? Tom Jarrett’s with me tonight, who
worked on the septic. He can address the fact that we may have less with this septic system.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we might have a mitigating factor here. If you’ll see, I think in your package
there’s a sketch regarding what’s proposed for sewage disposal, and you’ll notice that we’re proposing
a leachfield or a leach bed right behind the new structure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’ll remove some of the paved area.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ve already told the owners they’re going to have to remove some of the
parking there, the macadam parking lot, to accommodate this system. So I think we can definitely
modified the impermeable area to come within compliance.
MR. STONE-Okay. So I think we will probably put a condition, if we get to that point, that we have
to know exactly what the impermeable is.
MR. JARRETT-Sure, that’s reasonable.
MR. STONE-So it has to be in conformity. I don’t care if it’s 34.9, or 25.9, it has to be in
conformity, as far as we’re concerned, at this point. Okay. Is that the two points that you were
concerned about?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. HIMES-Excuse me. Could I ask a question?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. HIMES-This is a shared driveway and all, isn’t it, in parking? I’m just flashing through my mind
here. I don’t know if I’m asking a sensible question or not. In terms of the impact of the driveway
and the parking area, does that all fall on this lot, or the fact that the people on the other side use it
also, right?
MR. STONE-Well, but the line goes down the middle of the macadam, I assume, and therefore
they’re responsible for their side.
MR. MC NALLY-All this macadam is on Mr. Russo’s property.
MR. STONE-It’s all on? Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-So what they do is, the permeability is per lot. So whatever it is on that lot,
whoever uses it, it doesn’t matter, but whatever it is on that lot, as a percent.
MR. HIMES-I was just thinking as like a credit to nothing being on, you know, that’s all I was
thinking.
MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re, yes.
MR. BROWN-If I could just for clarification, the applicant’s agent in his application noted that this
lot doesn’t have frontage on a Town road. That is, as much as I don’t like to admit it, an oversight
on my part in the notes, which is something you should get relief for tonight, to avoid another
hearing.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-A technicality, but it should be included in the relief.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that like a pre-existing condition, though?
MR. BROWN-It’s a pre-existing condition but once you take the house down, then you start again,
and to build a house it has to have frontage.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I know that particular rule. Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes. Remember, we have no footprint rule in the Town of Queensbury. That’s why
we’re here. Anything else you want to add?
MR. TARANTINO-Simply that in this process we do have the support of both adjoining owners.
We do have access, certainly, by insurable access to our property. We’ve had that since 1941, and
we’d appreciate the Board voting on this this evening. Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question, Mr. Tarantino? Looking at the papers, I was struck at how
so much relief is being asked, since the house is on the line. When I visited it, it occurs to me it
looks like every house is so close to their side lines. So they’re evenly spaced apart.
MR. TARANTINO-Exactly.
MR. MC NALLY-But I was just curious, on some of the paper, in the statement of consent, there’s
an attachment there, a drawing, and it shows Lot 11, Lot 10, and Lot 9, and that conforms to the
subdivision. I think that the applicant’s lot is Lot 10, and a portion of Lot 9?
MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-How did that happen? It looks as if it was built centered on Lot 10. The next
door neighbor’s house is built centered on Lot 9, but somewhere along the way the lines got shifted.
MR. TARANTINO-Well, that’s a good question. We were talking about that this evening when we
got here, but looking at the abstract of title, the parcel that Russo purchased in 1941 in fact came in
just exactly as it is today, but again, if you see the properties from the lake, camp on the left by
Touba, Camp of Russo and Camp of Prenderville are perfectly spaced, as they exist today. So I think
there’d be more hardship to our neighbors if we followed the Ordinance.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying.
MR. STONE-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor? I propose, by the way, to read in these two statements of consent, just to
have them in the minutes rather than just in the record, when we get there. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LINDA WHITTY
MRS. WHITTY-My name is Linda Whitty. I live on the property behind them. Actually, it’s the
property behind the Clark residence, and it overlooks the Russo residence. I’m here, if I may say, on
my own behalf and also my parents, who are the Clarks, who are unable to attend, but I did come
over to the Town and we went through the plan together, and discussed it. I sort of wrote out
something. It makes it easier. As I said, I had an opportunity to view the plans in the Building and
Codes office, and we felt that this is a welcomed asset to the neighborhood, both aesthetically and
otherwise. Might I add that they did a nice job with the plan, the design and the position of the
building. They have always been respectful, responsible neighbors, and it is nice to see them on a full
time basis. We do have some concerns, and those concerns really have been addressed. So I would
just like to just re-echo them if I may. We had trouble finding the well on the map, but eventually
that location was discovered, and between the new well position and the septic, these are the
questions we came up with. Has the permeability rate for the new septic been figured based on a dirt
driveway, as indicated on the map, or has it been based on the paved driveway which exists on the
property? And if the driveway continues to exist as it is, will there be vehicle traffic over any part of
the leachfield or any sensitive area of the new septic? On the overall, we are in favor of the Russo’s
proposal, so long as there is careful consideration and appropriate guidance on the part of the Town
to protect the quality of the lake. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Next?
MARK BROWN
MR. BROWN-I’m Mark Brown. I live on Birch, on the end of Birch. I’m on the other side of
Clark, about the same distance she is, and the lot lines are generally, as I’ve looked at the survey
maps, they’re measured from the lake back, and the way the houses are situated, it kind of bends
around, but they’re pretty much lined up, and we can see the house from two of the bedrooms, and
our house (lost words) and it’s not offending like it is. We can see it from the parking lot. What I
would, we’ve got a lot of water problem over here in my parking lot, and I hope they don’t raise the
elevation of their property when this construction, so that the drainage drains through Clark’s into
my yard, because I’m already getting it from Birch Road and from all the other neighbors, and at
times I’ve got a foot deep of water there, and I’d rather not add to that, but otherwise I’d be, because
to get through Clark’s yard, it’s got to go uphill just a little bit, as it is present. So if they just keep it
the way it is, it won’t add to it, but if they backfill in between their house and the whole, as it comes
away from the lake, it slopes uphill generally in everybody’s yard in varying different degrees. If they
raise their back yard when they raise the structure, I will be a little bit annoyed if I end up with more
water in my yard now, but otherwise, I would be 100% in favor of them having their house It looks
nice the way they’re all lined up, the same way as they are now, and my house is nine inches off the
property line at one point and thirty-five foot on the other side, and as far as I can tell my place was
built in like 1907, before the properties were subdivided. So, they surveyed off my surveys when they
were doing some of this initial work, and I’m not, I hope to get along with the neighbors.
MR. STONE-Technically, Craig, you’re responsible for your own stormwater, correct?
MR. C. BROWN-Sure, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-So if they do anything that gets on to your property, they have to mitigate it. That’s,
Mr. Brown’s, one of his responsibilities.
MR. BROWN-I just don’t want to add to what’s there.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. BROWN-If they keep that elevation there.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MARK PRENDERVILLE
MR. PRENDERVILLE-My name is Mark Prenderville, and I’m in favor. I’m the next door
neighbor, and I own the property that they had the easement across to come down. They’ve been
great neighbors for many years, and I can shed a little light on why the buildings are built the way
they are. Our house was there in 1904, and it was part of an association at one point, and when the
association broke up, part of the land went to the next door neighbor, and part of the land went to
us, and that’s why the house is built where it is now, and then the Russo’s, or whoever owned it at
that time, built on their property next door. As you look at all the houses from the lake, they’re all
set about equal distance apart, and they all are located on one side of the property. If they did have
to move into the middle, to conform, it would be a hardship not only for me, as a next door
neighbor because I’m close to that line, but also for Mrs. Whitty, because it would affect her view
from back in her house down to the lake, I believe.
MR. STONE-I was surprised she didn’t say that. I figured she was going to.
MR. PRENDERVILLE-Also, one thing to remember is they’re two feet from the line now. They
are moving to three feet from the line. So that is giving a little bit of setback. They’ve been great
neighbors over the years. They’re honest, hardworking, very good people, and I’d like to say I’m
100% in favor of their building. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I meant to ask you a question, just for edification. You say they have an easement
through your property. So you own around behind where the drive is?
MR. PRENDERVILLE-Back in 1985, the Clarks and my parents purchased a piece of property in
back of the houses, up to the road that’s up there. The line, as you look at, yes, Ash Drive, it goes at
an angle up.
MR. BROWN-But this is in the packet, the Prenderville to the north.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PRENDERVILLE-That’s it. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Anybody wishing to speak for, I’ll
go back to for. Anybody against? Anybody in opposition? Any correspondence? What I would like
you to do, just for the record, is read in, summarize the beginning up here and just read the filing
with the Zoning Board of Appeals, for these two pieces, just to get it into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding this
application, and it’s from Mark Prenderville, “The undersigned consents to the application of Patrick
A. and Sally H. Russo to demolish the existing two story frame dwelling and to construct a year
round residence in the same or similar location notwithstanding that said new construction may
violate the existing town code for the Town of Queensbury.” The undersigned consents that an
original copy may be filed with the Queensbury Zoning Board, and that’s essentially what this is.
MR. STONE-Okay. And then read the other one, basically the same language.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Basically the same language, again, on that one, and this one is from Riza &
Jacqueline Touba, owners of Tax Map Parcel 39-1-44, that’s the parcel just to the west, and it’s
basically the same thing. “The undersigned consents to the application of Patrick A. and Sally H.
Russo to demolish the existing two story frame dwelling and to construct a year round residence in
the same or similar location notwithstanding that said new construction may violate the existing town
code for the Town of Queensbury.”
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Then I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Mr. Tarantino, you may come back up. Do you have any responses to anything that
you’ve heard that you want to comment on?
MR. TARANTINO-I don’t believe so.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-The one neighbor expressed some concern about runoff, and I presume this
construction is not going to result in any runoff onto his property?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. TARANTINO-Not if Mr. Jarrett does his job properly. We don’t anticipate a problem there.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Jamie, let’s start with you.
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess this is the second case in my mind that looked worse on paper than it did
after the presentation by the applicant, and I guess Mr. Tarantino is to be complimented in that
capacity. As I look at this, the benefit to the applicant is obvious. They want a new camp, and while
the one they have is nice, it’s, I can understand why. Feasible alternatives, in this particular case, I
think it’s a point well taken that, in this particular case, feasible alternatives, it might actually impact
several of the neighbors adversely in this, by centering it on this lot. So while this Board is going to
maintain a high degree of examination toward replacement style variances, because of their
implications and any precedent they’d be setting, in this unique case, I think that feasible alternatives
are negative by comparison to placement of the replacement home where this one is. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly it is. Seventeen feet of relief from the twenty foot
requirement, there’s no way to not call that significant, and I think that the applicants have
acknowledged the same, but that relief, that dimensional relief, again, is actually consistent with the
surrounding neighbors. They all, by testimony, are relative close to their property lines, and that, in
the cumulative sense, actually makes for good setbacks from each other. So, I’m not sure what the
official language for that would be, but that’s the result. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or
community, I don’t believe that there really will be any in this particular case. I think they’re minimal,
certainly. As long as the Russo’s agree to comply with the permeability requirements of the Town
and the concerns of immediate neighbors, I think that replacement of the camp is going to be an
addition to the neighborhood. If I was next door, I think it would be a positive. So, as a matter of
record, as far as I can see, we have all four sides of this property with strong neighbor support, and
that’s important to me. I mean, I think that they’re the ones that are immediately impacted, as far as
this small neighborhood, and they’re all for it, in this particular case. So, is the difficulty self created?
I don’t think it is entirely. I think that the configuration of these lots and the placement of the
Prenderville’s house and the Touba’s house on the left in this particular case, I think that this goes
back decades in this particular circumstance, and I don’t think it’s a self-created difficulty. I think
this difficulty was created by the nature and placement of all the existing homes in that
neighborhood, and therefore, in the cumulative sense, I think most of the test falls in favor of the
applicant, outside of substantial relief, and I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Like Jamie said. When I opened up my packet, and I saw that they were going to
build a house right next to the line, I said something like a cold day in Hell, as far as that, because
whenever we see this, and they’re going to take down a house to the ground and build a new one, we
make them (lost word), but when I got to the site, it only makes perfect sense that the house would
be built where it is, because of the history of it, and also, you know, the purpose of the setback
requirement is to give yourself some elbow room on either side, and you’d be going against that
public purpose by making them center it on this particular lot, given the circumstances that are here.
I don’t find any effect on the neighborhood whatsoever. I’m in favor of it, and the other thing is,
when I open up the packet, is I was surprised to see that it’s only a 2,200 some odd square foot
building. It was nice to see that someone wasn’t going to put a 10,000 square foot house on a
lakefront home. This is a modest, very comfortable home and a nice place. It’ll be in keeping with
the neighborhood.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I would agree. I believe that this is a reasonable request. I think that, as
Jamie indicated, that this construction will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. I think the
location makes perfect sense, as Bob has indicated, and I think if we coupled this with conditions of
approval dealing with impermeability areas, what have you, I would have no problem supporting the
application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with what Jamie and Bob and Chuck have said. I’d add only
one thing. I don’t think it’s come up. It’s a slight but perhaps important item, that you’re actually
moving it back a little bit to be in compliance with the shoreline setback. They’re within 50 feet now,
and they’re moving it to 50 feet, even though it’s only a half a foot or so that they’re going, which is
commendable, and we’re glad that that was taken into consideration. Otherwise, I agree with what’s
been said, and I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. URRICO-In adding my metaphor to the growing list on this Board, I’ll compare this to Alice in
Wonderland, where nothing is quite what it seems on paper, and I admit, when I looked at this
packet when it arrived, I was a little shocked at what you were asking, but visiting the property, and
hearing the presentation, I understand why, and as far as the weight of the community, which would
have been a negative from my standpoint, would be the equivalent of straightening out the Leaning
Tower of Pisa, that if you put this in the center, it would have a cumulative effect on the
neighborhood of everybody having to conform, and that certainly wouldn’t be better for the
neighborhood. So, I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board.
MR. STONE-Any more metaphors?
MR. URRICO-No, I think I’ve used them up.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Living over on the lake, I paddle by these three places over here all the time,
and the one thing that always strikes me with them is that, you know, they’re the classic old style
camps on the lake, and somebody had the forethought, even back in the early 1900’s, to lay them out
in such a manner that none of them are offensive to each other, and I think that the present, you
know, structure as it stands is in the right place. The one that you had proposed is a well thought out
design, and I think it preserves that look of the old camp and I think everybody in the neighborhood
is satisfied, you know, I’m satisfied, too, that this is the best way to go.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur. I have no metaphors, but I have to admit, it took me a little
longer than it might have taken Mr. McNally. I wrote down, after looking at the property, without
having the benefit of this gentleman’s kayaking by the property all the time, and other people having
maybe an airplane to fly over, of this uniformity, I wrote, no, but I want to congratulate you on your
presentation, because it was extremely helpful, to me, to allow me to say this is really a good project,
and we’re not really giving away anything, particularly when you consider that the house is still up
against a hill. I know it’s a hill because I walked down it, because I went to the wrong property first.
I came down through the side, so there’s definitely, there’s protection from the other house, and
when you consider everything else that was said by the group, particularly Mr. Hayes, I have no
problem with this thing. The one thing I would ask, as I call for a motion, I would like two things to
be included, one is that the matter of permeability. I would just like to make sure that this is, well,
it’ll be a new house, so there will be an as built, but that it does reflect the permeable and
impermeable surfaces on the property. I would also like something, if we can get it in, to relieve the
concern expressed by Staff that relief of this magnitude may support future arguments for such
complete replacement. So I would like the kind of discussion.
MR. HAYES-Special circumstances.
MR. STONE-Yes, in the motion.
MR. HAYES-And we need this, too, this is the motion.
MR. STONE-Yes, the motion about the public right of way. We’ve got to have that, too.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2001 PATRICK A. & SALLY H.
RUSSO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
6 Never Rest Lane. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing one family residence and the
construction of a 2,274 square foot single family dwelling, and seeks relief from the setback
requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side
setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and relief from Section 179-70, requiring
40 feet of frontage on a public road. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be
permitted to essentially rebuild a new camp in the location that their existing home sits. Feasible
alternatives. Feasible alternatives have been discussed in this matter, but I think the general
consensus is that the current location of the home, as a rebuilt site, is preferable to feasible
alternatives, in that the home is now placed in an area that provides adequate room between the
existing camps and also a balance in the neighborhood. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? Certainly 17 feet of relief from a 20 foot requirement is substantial, and the applicants
have acknowledged same. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that, through
testimony and also letters and other public input that, in this particular case, the effect on the
neighborhood or community will be a positive one. The new camp will be a compliment to the
neighborhood and certainly upgrade an addition or an improvement of the existing septic field will
be a positive on the neighborhood as well. So I think, from that perspective, in a cumulative sense, it
will be an improvement on the neighborhood and a compliment. Is the difficulty self-created? I
don’t believe that it is entirely self-created. I think that the placement of this home, as a replacement
home, has to do with the pre-existing locations of the existing camps, both this one and the camps in
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
the immediate area, and, therefore, this difficulty was created decades ago, and this is not created by
the current applicants. As a contingency to this motion, I would like to make it contingent that the
applicants understand and comply with the requirement that the non-permeable surface on this
parcel not exceed 35%, as stipulated by the Code. I think, as a further stipulation to confirm the
permeability, we’re going to require an as built survey that confirms the dimensional relief requested,
which is substantial, and also to confirm that the permeability requirements in the front, the setback
from the lake are all met, so, essentially, compliance with the Code.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. TARANTINO-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2001 TYPE II TERRY KARANIKAS AGENT: N/A
OWNER OF PROPERTY: TERRY KARANIKAS LOCATION: 19 QUEENS WAY;
KINGSWOOD ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 432 SQ.
FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: MR-5 CURRENT OLD ZONE: USE R-3 (R-5 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING AMENDMENT ON SEPT. 5 , 1973) OLD TAX MAP
NO. 70-4-19 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.61-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.01 ACRES (RESIDENTIAL
CONDO) SECTION 179-18 (OLD ZONING R-3)
TERRY KARANIKAS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2001, Terry Karanikas, Meeting Date: April 26, 2001
“Project Location: 19 Queens Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 432 sf residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement
of the old R-3 zoning district. R-3 was the zoning designation of the property at the time of the
subdivision approval; June 8, 1974. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot
requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. The current zoning; MR-5 allows for a 10 foot rear
setback. The property is surrounded by common lands of the subdivision/Home Owners
Association. Has the applicant received an approval, if necessary, from the HOA? SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I’d just like to explain what I just handed to you, and
I’m sure the applicant can do more. It’s a revised application. The addition square footage goes
from 432 down to 288, and it’s not 18 feet off the back of the house it’s only 12 feet off the back of
the house, effectively removing itself six feet further from the property line.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So I’ll pass it to the applicant.
MR. HAYES-So he’s now requesting four feet.
MR. BROWN-Six feet less than what he was before.
MR. HAYES-So he’s requesting four feet of a thirty foot setback?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I’ve got an HOA approval for 12 feet only, and that’s pending, you know,
architectural drawings and what it’s going to look like, which I haven’t gotten to that point, other
than the sketches that you see.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re requesting, therefore, six foot of relief from the thirty foot minimum.
MR. KARANIKAS-Four feet.
MR. STONE-Four feet.
MR. BROWN-Four feet of relief.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, sir. Anything you want to add?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I’m Terry Karanikas. I’ve lived at 19 Queens Way for 10 years now. I
moved there with my wife and one son, and it was large enough, and we like it there, and we’ve
recently, and I have a daughter, also from another marriage that would come from New Hampshire
and stay over in the summertime and stuff, and we recently had two children in the last three years,
and obviously it’s too small for me now, and I really my area, and I had asked, we just bought the
property. We’ve been renting for say nine years of the ten years, and I was asked by the owners to
buy it, and I had told them that we were thinking of moving out if we couldn’t build out, and they
had said other people have done up and out, it shouldn’t be a problem, and so what I did is I asked
my next door neighbor at the time, was the only one Bob Scarano, to go out, have dinner with me to
tell him what the Antis’ were asking me to do, and I had asked him if I could build out without
opposition from him, and he had told me at that time that he didn’t have a problem with it. So I said
well, please tell me if you do, and I’ll have the consideration of moving on, because we obviously
need to move on, once my daughter came out of the crib, and he said he didn’t have a problem with
it. So I asked the Board if I, well, I had to buy the place first, because that was the first
consideration, because I knew everybody else had gone at least 12 feet, and in one case there was one
18 there that I guess was on the original building option, I guess, at the beginning of the (lost word)
built, and they had granted me the 12 foot pending architectural, make sure it looks like the same
design as what’s there, and there’s three other, I think three other, 12 foot additions. So they said
that they felt that the 18 foot wasn’t something I could do and I wanted to do it, but they would go
12 feet. So I have the resolution in there, as far as what they allowed me at that time, and I guess I
kind of screwed up when I went for the application. I forgot about my patio. So I put it in for 18
because I wanted my patio, and he said that I could build back to 12, and have my patio, if I got the
variance for it, but then, obviously, everybody got my information, because they’re entitled to it.
They got a little upset. So I said, okay, I’ll just make sure I get my 12 feet, and submit the plans
before the building permit, and I’m here today.
MR. STONE-A couple of questions. One of my concerns, looking at the property, was the
condition of the fence back there. Now I know not many people see that, but would you be willing
to make that fence up to aesthetic qualities?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, of course. What happened is that the, we were having problems with trees
falling on our buildings in the last two years. So I had some trees removed, and that’s what
happened to the fence last year, and I had had the intention of building another fence, you know, as
we’re going to build the back. Right now I think it would make a good construction fence until I was
done, and then I’d make a nicer fence around it, you know, to keep the children in.
MR. STONE-I mean, it would help me, in granting this, if you would agree, when we get there.
MR. KARANIKAS-I think I put in there that the existing fence would be, obviously, upgraded, I
think. I’m not sure.
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Karanikas?
MR. MC NALLY-May I ask, Craig, the property had a septic tank and field originally, and now the
field is being replaced by a seepage pit, drywell, is that what’s happening?
MR. BROWN-I think probably Mr. Karanikas has further information.
MR. KARANIKAS-It was a pit.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s always been a seepage pit?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I think in the, I don’t know which page it is, but it shows this map here,
and it shows the seepage pits, the existing ones.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So by bumping out this house, you’re going to have to have to put in a new
seepage pit?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I have approval for that, from the last Board, Board of Health, two days
ago, I guess it was.
MR. BROWN-Yes, the Town Board gave a septic variance.
MR. KARANIKAS-And it was approved.
MR. STONE-And you got permission to put it on HOA lands?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, as long as I don’t go into other people’s property.
MR. ABBATE-Did you receive a letter from the Homeowners Association?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, it’s on the last page.
MR. STONE-It’s in the minutes, it’s there. I read it. Signed by the applicant, who is the Secretary of
the organization.
MR. KARANIKAS-There have been other people that have needed it at the time. Obviously, I was
like, well, I need one also because I knew that 12.
MR. STONE-I’m only making a joke. I mean it’s nice to be able to sign your own permission.
MR. HIMES-Excuse me, but the letter that’s in the file, does that pertain to the septic part of it going
on to the land, as I recall in here somewhere reading that, and what I was wondering about is the
Homeowner Association support for the extension itself. Is that in writing? I don’t think I saw that
in the file. Maybe it is in there.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think this is this. Yes, I missed it.
MR. MC NALLY-You showed two photographs.
MR. KARANIKAS-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-These are photographs from where?
MR. KARANIKAS-That’s from our condo.
MR. STONE-I couldn’t make heads or tails out of it.
MR. KARANIKAS-Actually, I didn’t take the other three photos of the other ones that are in the
back, but those are the two that, I was showing 18 feet and then somebody went up, and that
precedent I thought was warranted that I could do it as long as Bob was okay with it, and I guess.
MR. STONE-These are other homes, not yours.
MR. KARANIKAS-Right, other condo units.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And you’re showing bump outs of 18 feet, by these photographs, at other units, is
what you’re saying?
MR. KARANIKAS-Right. That one on the bottom was originally, I guess, an option that they could
do when they were building the condos, and the other ones that I didn’t show were built after. They
didn’t need a variance because they were, 12 feet was fine. I guess mine I need one. So, that’s why
I’m here, and the one that shows the second story, I was just showing that somebody had built up
above their footprint, and it’s a two story.
MR. STONE-Okay. I had trouble finding what.
MR. KARANIKAS-Okay. Because one side is garage, and he had built another section of his house
above that garage. So it’s kind of like this. You probably just didn’t pick out
MR. ABBATE-Your modification has been reduced from 432 to 288. Am I correct on those
figures?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-It’s two story, though, right?
MR. KARANIKAS-That’s all I’ve been allowed by the Homeowners.
MR. ABBATE-And four foot from the six foot minimum is what you’re also requesting?
MR. HAYES-From the 30 foot minimum.
MR. ABBATE-The 30 foot minimum.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. KARANIKAS-Now, if I want to put my existing patio in there, is that a problem?
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. KARANIKAS- See, that’s where I got confused.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s a stone patio?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, well, it’s block stone, yes, pavers.
MR. MC NALLY-So that doesn’t impact the Town Building Code. The Homeowners Association
may have your own rules, but
MR. HAYES-It’s not a structure, essentially.
MR. BROWN-It’s an at grade stone patio.
MR. KARANIKAS-I must have misunderstood them, like it was going to be a deck I was putting
back there.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re starting from the same, you’re not increasing the height of the
building?
MR. KARANIKAS-No.
MR. STONE-You’re starting from the ridge line.
MR. KARANIKAS-What happened at the meeting is that the other person, the picture there, the
roof, the snow comes down and knocks out other people’s fences or whatever, and the concern with
them is that if I did the same thing, it throw snow in each one of these back yards. So, I said okay, if
you go with it, I’ll shoot it back. It’s not a great pitch to do, and I’ll have to probably watch it, but
I’m willing to take care of my own snow off my own roof.
MR. STONE-So this is going to be a flat roof type?
MR. KARANIKAS-Whatever that pitch is that’s on the front dormer.
MR. STONE-But I mean it’s going to go straight back the whole width of the house?
MR. KARANIKAS-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor of this application? In favor?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH POWERS
MR. POWERS-Hi. My name’s Keith Powers. I’m Treasurer of the Association. I don’t have a
problem with him. What we did, we voted to give him 12 foot clearance or, you know, setback that
he could build a 12 foot, as long as he, you know, he’s going to keep the same roofline. He’s just
going to pitch it back. I don’t have any problem with the building of it at all. I mean, he needs the
space. The Board, we still have to approve it, and if we move it forward, then I don’t have a problem
with it. Okay.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-You said, I’m sorry, you said your Board had to approve it still?
MR. POWERS-Yes. Well, when the plans come in, you know.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Because we’ve got some approval already. So, is that?
MR. POWERS-We granted him, yes. We gave him permission to seek for 12 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And then you’ve got to final approve the plans. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. POWERS-Yes. He’s going to give us, I guess, architectural drawings of it and what not.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Elevations. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor?
ANN BLANCHARD
MRS. BLANCHARD-I’m not speaking either way. I’m just going to speak. I’m very tired and it’s
very late, and I know you are volunteers, and so am I. I’m here tonight.
MR. STONE-Name, please.
MRS. BLANCHARD-I’m sorry. My name is Ann Blanchard, and I’m here as President of the
Homeowners Association at Kingswood. Our full Board is here, along with a couple of
homeowners. We are governed by a set of by-laws. Our by-laws clearly state that no addition can be
added, etc., without written approval from the Board of Directors. As you’ve probably gathered, Mr.
Karanikas happens to be on the Board and happens to be the Secretary. We don’t even know what
you have before you tonight. We discussed the 12 foot additions. I have one on my back which is
10 by 14. He’s talking, now he’s gone from 18 to 12, but he’s also talking 24 and he’s talking two
story. We met on Tuesday night and indicated that we would need to see an architectural blueprint,
it was shown here tonight. We also need to seek input from the others. There are 28 units at
Kingswood. There are 28 homeowners, and then we will proceed. So I’m simply here to let you
know that there is a Board, and we do have by-laws, and we have to live with them.
MR. STONE-And all we’re discussing tonight is the back edge of the possible extension, where does
that sit, visa vie the property line, and that all we’re talking about.
MRS. BLANCHARD-And that’s it.
MR. HAYES-And if he has a private agreement with you, that’s enforceable amongst yourselves.
MRS. BLANCHARD-So this is just for the back?
MR. STONE-This is just for back.
MR. MC NALLY-Setback relief from the rear property line.
MR. HAYES-And it does not supercede your private agreements either. I mean, this is the public
portion of it.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay.
MR. STONE-In other words, you couldn’t, even if you wanted to give 18 feet, let’s say, he could go
back 18, he’d still have to come to us because that wouldn’t meet the setback requirements. So, all
we’re saying, all we would say tonight is that the northern edge of this house is okay. We’ll grant
relief to go as far north as he wants to go, to the extent, on his property, the property line. That’s
what I mean when I say that. Within his property, he is required to maintain 30 foot from the
property line. He is asking relief from that 30 feet.
MR. HAYES-To be 26 foot.
MR. STONE-That’s all he’s asking us.
MRS. BLANCHARD-And also there was a letter faxed over by Bob Scarano.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got that.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you got that.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’ll read that in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read that in.
MRS. BLANCHARD-So, I just, for our satisfaction, I just wanted to make sure that.
MR. STONE-We are doing nothing to take away your jurisdiction.
MRS. BLANCHARD-But my question is this. If someone did propose to put on a back porch, let’s
say eight by ten, would they need a variance from the Town?
MR. STONE-If it doesn’t, if it’s closer to the property line than 30 feet.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Than 30 feet.
MR. HAYES-It depends on where it situates compared to the rear property line. Everyone’s going
to be slightly different, by definition.
MRS. BLANCHARD-So as long as there’s 30 feet, you don’t need a variance?
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay.
MR. STONE-But they still need your permission.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-And we are not superceding that in any way.
MR. HAYES-We don’t intend to.
MR. STONE-We don’t intend to.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-So the Homeowners Association with then review this.
MRS. BLANCHARD-The Board of Directors will, and hopefully we’ll get, we have a couple of
homeowners here tonight. I think we need to get input from the other homeowners, and then we’ll
see an architectural blueprint like was presented here earlier tonight, and then we’ll make a decision.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Have you seen what they’ve submitted?
MRS. BLANCHARD-We came over last week and got the original. We did not see what he
submitted tonight, no. None of us have seen that.
MR. MC NALLY-From what I see it looks like it just reduces it from 18 to 12, basically.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HAYES-The same width.
MRS. BLANCHARD-The same width.
MR. STONE-It’s the total width of the house.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Of the house, of the building.
MR. HIMES-And it’s the septic that’s the thing that’s involved with the (lost words).
MR. STONE-No, they gave permission to put the seepage pit on HOA property.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. HAYES-They’ve done that with other people, apparently.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Both the Town and the Homeowners Association?
MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-But the septic tank will be 10 feet from wherever he’s going, and it’ll be far enough
from the property line to be fine.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Right.
MR. STONE-It’s the seepage pit that encroaches on HOA property and they’ve given permission for
that.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. We have.
MR. HAYES-That’s not part of what we’re handling here.
MRS. BLANCHARD-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. BLANCHARD-Thank you for your time, gentlemen.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak, either way?
JOHN SULLIVAN
MR. SULLIVAN-My name is John Sullivan. I live at 9 Queens Way Drive in part of the Association,
and the person with me is Catherine Jones, who lives next door to Mr. Karanikas on the other side of
where Mr. Scarano lives. First of all, I feel some personal involvement here because I was the one
that helped Mrs. Jones access and purchase the property and come up there with the idea what she
was purchasing, and the very first thing I want to say is, if you go back 12 feet is one thing. There are
homes that have gone back 12 feet, both with permanent, year round and also sun porches, mine
being one, and was there, excuse me, when I purchased the property, but if you go back 12 feet and
go two stories, then it definitely impacts them, Mr. Scarano and Miss Jones’, property. It also
impacts on their privacy and also their view, and it would block off one section of her windows in
her dining room completely. The other problem that I see, and I don’t know if this addresses your
situation, either, that also then you start the problem, since they are so close, of there’s going to be
water problems, water drainage problems off the roof, both in the snow, in the winter and also in any
time of rain. She also presently has an extension off her, the side of her, directly next to Mr.
Karanikas’ property, his building. Incidentally, the property is outside his common property on our
buildings, and I think her extension from the roof to take the water off now goes back at least I think
12 feet. If he goes back another 12 feet, now you’ve got to go beyond that with an extension to, just
to take the rain off, without getting some type of drainage, and I’m not an engineer or anything else
like that, but I know that could be a problem, both to her, and maybe to even his property in the
future.
MR. STONE-Again, that argument is, I think, for the Homeowners Association.
MR. SULLIVAN-Right.
MR. STONE-Really, all we’re concerned about is the back wall, technically. We’re actually
concerned with even less than that.
MR. SULLIVAN-Right.
MR. STONE-We’re concerned with the closest point of this back wall to the property line.
MR. SULLIVAN-To the property line, I understand that.
MR. STONE-If it were canted it would be one little point, but it’s the closest point.
MR. SULLIVAN-It’s my understanding there’s several questions that asks, talks about hardship and
unavailable difficulty because of this. Mr. Karanikas bought this property I believe last summer. He
had lived there prior as a rental. He knows there’s an Association. He knows there’s a process. I
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
would think, if I was to buy a property, and I already looked at it and thought that I would want to
build on to it, that before I closed, that I would certainly take legal advice to find out, you know, that
I would put a purchase offer down with a contingency, before I just went ahead and purchased the
property, no matter how good the deal, if I wasn’t going to be able to, later on, do what I needed to
do. So I question that, in a projection of difficulty, finding being pinched by circumstances, and I
really have a problem with that. I’ve also heard, as far as the roofs, and taking care of the snow is
concerned, none of us, as homeowners, have permission to go on the roofs ourselves. None of us
have permission, it’s my understanding, according to the By-laws, to contract an outside agent, unless
approved by the Board, and gone through the Board’s approval, and also the Board’s contracting, to
making sure that there’s liability and other insurance’s. So that’s, you know, I hear that as a quick
response as saying, we can do this, but my understanding, according to our By-laws, that is not
permissible. That’s all I have to say at this point.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak?
ED ROBITI
MR. ROBITI-Good evening. My name is Ed Robiti. I live at 7 Queens Way in the same
development. There was a question earlier, I forget who asked it, relative to the fence, replacement,
repair, whatever, of the fence.
MR. STONE-I did.
MR. ROBITI-Fences are specifically prohibited by the By-laws. That’s Number One. If the fence is
taken down, because it is there. The fence is there and it’s probably a nonconforming use right now.
If the fence is taken down, the possibility of putting up another fence is questionable, and I don’t
know if that comes within your purview or if that is something that’s strictly, again.
MR. HAYES-Private agreement.
MR. ROBITI-By private agreement.
MR. STONE-As long as the fence meets the height requirements of the Code, and it, I mean, we
have a Fence Ordinance part of our Code. As long as it meets that, then it we don’t get involved. If
he wanted it to be seven feet high, then he would have to seek a variance, but the fact that he can put
it in, if it meets the Code.
MR. ROBITI-But if the fence has to be taken down, the fence that is presently there, if it has to be
taken down, to be replaced, is that a problem for any of the Planning Board to consider?
MR. HAYES-It’s a problem for the Homeowners Association.
MR. MC NALLY-I had a sense, Lew, maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong, I think Mr. Stone was
concerned because of the condition of that fence.
MR. STONE-Yes, the condition is what I was talking about.
MR. ROBITI-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that if it was something that was okay, he might make it as a condition that it
be replaced with a new one, so it would look better, but, if the Homeowners Association prohibits
them all together, then we don’t have any say in that, unless maybe he wants to help you guys to have
it done.
MR. ROBITI-Well, that clarifies it greatly to know that we’re talking about, that your only concern,
at this point, is the back wall, as you say, the distance from the setback.
MR. STONE-The back wall, but we have the best interest of the Town of Queensbury. We have a
balancing act, as you may have heard all evening long, between the benefit to the applicant and what
we call the detriment to the community. Now, granted, I realize behind there is, I guess it’s a drive-in
theater back there, but the point is, it can be seen, it can be seen by someone visiting or who lives in
Queensbury, and some of the times, when we get a variance, we put certain conditions on it, just
because it’s an opportunity, the applicant is seeking something and we’re saying it would be better for
the community if this looked better.
MR. ROBITI-Right.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. STONE-And we can put that condition on. Now, if we were to put that condition on, and your
rules would still take precedence over having a fence. All we would say, if you’re going to have a
fence, it ought to look nice.
MR. ROBITI-Okay. There was something that I noticed in the application process that was relative
to being detrimental to the character of the surroundings.
MR. HAYES-That’s part of the test.
MR. STONE-That’s part of the test. The community, in this case, is your area, primarily.
MR. HAYES-The neighborhood.
MR. STONE-The neighborhood.
MR. ROBITI-But the consideration as to whether it’s detrimental to the character of the
neighborhood is a consideration for us on the Board.
MR. HAYES-And us.
MR. STONE-And us.
MR. ROBITI-And you.
MR. STONE-But certainly you. I mean, you have your rules and regulations.
MR. ROBITI-Okay.
MR. HAYES-We just can’t get into the enforcement of private agreements. You have your own
attorneys for that.
MR. STONE-I mean, yes, that’s a good point. If, in the middle of the night, the applicant, and I
don’t want to use his, but an applicant, somebody put in an addition, if they could do it overnight,
and it met all of the other Code requirements, we could not say take it down. You could say take it
down, as your Homeowners Association.
MR. ROBITI-Okay. So the architectural approval, then, is in our ballpark.
MR. STONE-It’s in your ballpark.
MR. HAYES-By your By-laws, whatever they are.
MR. STONE-By your By-laws.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, we can tell him that he can bring it back an extra four feet, so it’s a 26 foot
setback, incepted of the required 30, and that’s not much relief actually. It’s kind of minimal, but to
go up two stories, the full length of the lot, glass siding, whatever, that’d your business.
MR. ROBITI-Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it very much.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read this.
MR. STONE-All right. Read that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is a letter from 18 Queens Way, Queensbury, NY, 12804, dated
April 20, 2001, Charles A. McNulty, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, RE: Area
Variance No. 27-2001, Terry Karanikas, 19 Queens Way, “Dear Mr. McNulty: I would like to
request that the variance request above be denied. Mr. Karanikas is requesting that the area of his
structure be allowed to be increased by over 42%.” I guess we’d have to change that now, because
it’s no longer the 18 feet. Right?
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, “This would be done in a townhouse community that consists of 7
buildings of four units each. One architectural feature of this community is the uniformity of these 7
buildings. Of course, an addition of this magnitude is a major alteration and degrades the community
be virtue of creating such a large difference between one building and the other six currently similar
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
buildings. The area of this addition would occupy at least 18’ of the total depth of 37 ½’ of the back
yard of this property. There are four very similar back yards behind Mr. Karanikas’ building. One
would be half occupied by this addition. This would be a very disruptive structure. As a next door
neighbor, I am concerned with the effect of the structure on my back yard as far as drainage and the
absence of sunshine. Mr. Karanikas’ stated purpose is to provide more bedrooms. Again, the
character of the community and owners’ property values should be considered. This has always been
a quiet area with one or two people occupying each unit. With townhouse widths of only 24’, higher
population densities are degrading to the peaceful nature of this area. Allowance of this variance
would be a step toward conversion of our neighborhood from a quiet, slightly upscale community to
a low income housing project for tightly packed families. I believe this change would be very
distressing to our large older population. This addition would produce a dramatic deterioration to a
neighborhood that has not changed in the 20 years that I have lived here. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, Robert V. Scarano” And that was by fax.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?
MR. KARANIKAS-That was my dinner buddy.
MR. STONE-Any other, you want to respond to anything that you’ve heard?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, I mean, as far as keeping it small, communities are small families, I mean, is
that something that you guys try to do, as far as? Okay. I just wanted to know.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Are there any other questions? Any comments that you want to make?
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question, just to clear this up for me. This picture that you’ve submitted
to us, the top portion of it, this was an extension?
MR. KARANIKAS-That top one? That was an extension two stories up.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That was approved by the Homeowners Association?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. KARANIKAS-By our prior Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. So there is precedence for this? Okay. Thank you.
MR. KARANIKAS-And the two other people that sat up here, one was the President, and the other
one has, their extension is 12 feet up, and that’s why they allowed me to do 12 feet, because it had
the precedence of 12 feet. That other picture shows 18 feet, and I didn’t want to make any waves.
Obviously, I want to get into my bedrooms.
MR. ABBATE-This is 18 feet here?
MR. KARANIKAS-No, the other one.
MR. ABBATE-This one here?
MR. KARANIKAS-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Both of these were approved by the Homeowners Association?
MR. KARANIKAS-One of them was pre-built, I mean, built when they were building it.
MR. ABBATE-Pre-existing, okay, the bottom one.
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, and then the other one.
MR. ABBATE-And this was an addition?
MR. KARANIKAS-Right.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MC NALLY-You said that there were three other additions?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-What were they like?
MR. KARANIKAS-They were single story additions.
MR. MC NALLY-Single story, kind of like the bottom picture here?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And were they built with the original structures also?
MR. KARANIKAS-No.
MR. MC NALLY-They were added on afterwards?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. They, I’m not sure if they were full length. Like I said, I didn’t take any
pictures of them, but they are built out 12 feet.
MR. HAYES-There might be some rebuttal.
MR. STONE-Yes, let me re-open the public hearing. If you have some rebuttal, if you think
something has been said.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
ED ROBITI
MR. ROBITI-My name is Ed Robiti, 7 Queens Way. The two pictures that you have, the one on the
bottom is the original footprint of the house. That is not an addition. The woman who had that
built, when they were building the entire building, had them copy a house that she had in
Connecticut, as it turned out. She wanted it built like that. So that was not built as an addition.
Now we’re talking back in the 70’s, okay. That was built on the, so that’s the original footprint. The
picture on top, the gentleman, and I wasn’t on the Board when this happened, but it was like seven
or eight years ago, put a second story over the garage, so he didn’t extend the building. He went up.
Okay, and that’s why I was getting, that’s not an extension.
MR. ABBATE-So the garage is pre-existing.
MR. ROBITI-The garage is pre-existing. He built on top of the garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. Have there been any extensions similar to, of 12 feet?
MR. ROBITI-Yes, sure there have.
MR. STONE-So there are some in there?
MR. ROBITI-There are some, but they are all one story in nature. I have one myself. It’s one story.
It may not even be 12. It may be 10 by 12 or 10 by 11, but, I mean, it was professionally built.
MR. STONE-Okay, but there are some.
MR. ROBITI-But there are some, but all of the other extensions are single story extensions on the
back of the building, usually put on as a little family room or a sunroom.
MR. STONE-Again, that’s your, you have control of that, we don’t.
MR. ROBITI-I know what you’re saying, but I did want to clarify because I was getting the feeling
that you were hearing about extensions, that being another extension, and it is not.
MR. ABBATE-I’m glad you clarified that.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. ROBITI-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody clarified? Can I close the public hearing again? Well, we’ll try again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Any comments? Well, if not, let’s talk about it. We’ll
start with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got a little camp on Loon Lake that’s part of a Homeowners Association, and
those Homeowner’s Association meetings are exquisitely painful sometimes. So I sympathize with
the applicant and I sympathize with the other members of the Homeowner’s Association, but we’ve
got a very limited application in front of us. We’re not here to decide whether it’s two floors, the full
length of the lot, plastic siding, shingles, or whatever. We’re here just to decide whether it’s possible
for this applicant to extend back a distance of 12 feet, which is four feet into the 30 foot setback.
The benefit is certainly that this applicant would be able to build an addition, which is something that
other members of this community have been allowed to do, although the extent of that is something
subject to the Homeowner’s Association’s discretion. There appear to be very few alternatives for
him to build and get additional space, other than going to the rear. The relief, I don’t feel, is
substantial relative to the Ordinance. He has to build at least 30 feet from the rear line. He’s asking
to be allowed to build 26 feet from the rear line. Four feet of relief on thirty is not that much. The
effects on the neighborhood or community, from just the distance relief, the dimensional relief, four
feet, I think is minimal. Now, building two stories up, building the full length of the lot, that’s a
different story. That’s for the Homeowner’s Association to decide, not for us, and that may have a
more substantial impact, but you guys can work that one out. Is the difficulty self-created? It’s self-
created in the sense that you’re the one that’s chosen to go back. It’s not self-created, though, in the
sense that you are in a town home, and there’s only so many places that you can build to purchase a
property where the expansion opportunities were limited. On balance, though, I think I would
approve the variance, and leave you folks to your own decision as to the rest of it.
MR. STONE-Okay?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would also echo Bob’s comments that I don’t believe 26 feet
rear line, requesting four feet, is substantial at all, and you have indicated that your family is
increasing. I think there is a logical progression to wanting to have more space. I don’t believe that’s
inconsistent with human beings, and what have you. We’re addressing a very limited area here.
You’re proposal of 288 square feet, which ends up to be, I think you’ve indicated 12 by 24 addition.
I don’t think I’d have any problems with it because indeed the feasible alternatives are just about nil,
so to speak, because of the situation, townhouses, etc., etc. So, on balance, I would support your
application.
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with Bob’s comments, and I would just like to add the Staff
comments that the current zoning, MR-5, allows for a 10 foot rear setback. We have to stick to what
we’re called upon. However, this is just another ingredient that tends to make me support the
application. So, I’m in favor of it also. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Speaking specifically to this issue, four feet of relief from the thirty foot
requirement is only thirteen percent, and I do not have any problems granting that, or voting to grant
it but I would suggest that people get together here. I mean, it’s all in our benefit that communities
get along, and rather than fighting each other, maybe trying to sit down and work this out. We’re all
trying to live, and maybe some communication among your neighbors, neighbors with you,
Homeowner’s Association, might go a long way toward making this process a lot smoother after it
leaves our desk here. I’m all set.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think the amount
of relief requested is very minimal. I don’t think it’s really going to have that much impact on the
back property line or anything like that. As a member of the community, I would echo Roy’s
sentiments. I sit here trying to figure out, you know, if I were a member of the Association what
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
would I do. That’s not really my domain to do that, but the only other suggestion I could think of
was, you know, maybe you could do a build out over the garage and do a one story in the back. So,
that may be something you want to consider as an alternative, if things don’t go the other way, but
it’s a hassle, but, you know, I think you guys have to remember that we’re all young. We all grow old,
and keep in mind, do something reasonable for everyone.
MR. STONE-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree with my other Board members. I think, in this particular case, four
feet of relief on a thirty foot requirement, pretty close to definitionally, is minimal, in this particular
case, and I think the applicant, even though he was requested by his Homeowner’s Association to do
it, the very fact that it’s now back six more feet, you know, in my mind is something for our area of
examination, has to be considered. It’s no longer 10 feet of 30. It’s only four. I think Bob went
through the parts of the test very well, and I agree with what he said, and I also think that Norm’s
point that, in this particular case, under the current zoning, and typically in clustering of this
magnitude, a 30 foot setback would be, you know, is a very generous one. So, in this particular case,
a 26 foot setback, in my mind, is adequate. So I think, on balance, considering everything that’s been
said, I think I’m in favor of the application, as it sits.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree. Fortunately, tonight, ours is the easy job. Obviously, you’re going to
have to, as the applicant, you’re going to have to face a group who are concerned about their quality
of life, and that’s very important to them, and they have a right to be concerned and to examine your
request very strongly, very carefully. Our job is easy. As the Board members have said, four feet of
relief from a thirty foot setback is really minimal, and I have no problem in approving this variance.
I will say one thing, a note that I wrote, and this is to the people in the back of the room who
represent the Homeowner’s Association. I thought the land between the property lines and the
drive-in theater could look better. That’s an observation that I made when I drove back there, and I
was round and round that circle, I have to admit, a couple of times. It’s just a comment. Having said
that, I need a motion to approve this variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2001 TERRY KARANIKAS,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
19 Queens Way, Kingswood Estates. The applicant proposes construction of a 288 square foot
residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirement. Applicant requests four feet of
relief from the thirty foot minimum rear setback requirement of the old R-3 zoning district. R-3 was
the zoning designation of the property at the time of the subdivision approval, June 8, 1974. The
benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition. Feasible
alternatives, they appear to be very limited. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four
feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or
community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the action, in,
from our standpoint, in view of the Town zoning apparatus, we will recognize that they have some
issues to settle with their homeowners association, in connection with effects on the neighborhood
and community, but as far as the community is concerned, we’re concerned with, it’s minimum or
nil. Is this difficulty self-created, well, yes, as I see it only in that you want to create an addition, but
your choices are so limited that it’s kind of hard to blame you for what might be perceived by some
as a problem. We haven’t seen any real drawings at all. So we would like, as a condition of approval,
an as built survey showing the dimensions, the distance from the line, the actual property line.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. HIMES-And we did, I think, have an agreement, did we make it a condition, we cannot make it
a condition about the fence, I don’t believe?
MR. STONE-I think we’ll leave it to the Homeowner’s Association, in this particular case.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
MR. MC NALLY-Best of luck.
MR. BROWN-You’re all set, Terry.
MR. STONE-You’re all done.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
MR. KARANIKAS-Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-We’ve got to re-do one part of an old one. So, just hang on.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I ask one general question? How do you find out how much setback
you have on your house?
MR. BROWN-I’d defer to a licensed land surveyor.
MR. STONE-A surveyor is how you’ve got to find out.
MR. HAYES-You mean for you personally, how much setback?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-We were told, we thought that we had 50 feet behind our houses, our own
personal property.
MR. HAYES-You would want to look at your deed.
MR. STONE-You would want to look at your deed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’ve got it and it doesn’t say anything.
MR. STONE-Well, get a surveyor to look at it. Get somebody.
MR. HAYES-Well, you’d want a lawyer to look at it first, because it might not even be true, before
you get it surveyed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I thought there was a plan somewhere we could look at.
MR. ABBATE-Get a good attorney. I can name a couple if you wish.
MR. STONE-Okay. We have a matter to finish up.
MR. HAYES-All right. Okay. Gentlemen, on the Sutton application, we should have done a
SEQRA before we made a motion. So what I’m going to do is make a motion on the SEQRA, and
then we’ll re-vote on that exact same motion, okay.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT FORM EAF SHOWS THAT THERE
ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Paul Hayes
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
BASED ON THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION, I MOVE THAT WE RE-VOTE ON
THE MOTION MADE FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 STEVE AND DONNA
SUTTON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. MC NALLY-In other words, we’re being asked to simply re-affirm what we did earlier this
evening.
MR. ABBATE-Including this portion that we just voted on, that’ll be a part of the re-vote?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve done that.
MR. HAYES-It’s the same thing, yes. The answer is yes. We’re re-voting, having made the
environmental motion, we’re re-voting on the exact motion that we voted on earlier today.
MR. ABBATE-Fine.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01)
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks, guys.
MR. STONE-Did we adjourn? Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
47