2001-11-15
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT MC NALLY
PAUL HAYES
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
NORMAN HIMES
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES MC NULTY
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED TIRE WAREHOUSE AGENT:
JOHN MC CALL PROPERTY OWNER: LOUISE SILVERTHORNE ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 36 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 107-1-57 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-39
LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 140
ERIC ADAMZYCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Read the tabling motion.
MR. URRICO-This is Sign Variance No. 59-2001, there was a Motion to Table the Sign Variance,
“MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TIRE WAREHOUSE, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
274 Quaker Road. For up to one month, so that this can be reconsidered at one of the September
meetings, and in the interim, the applicant, John McCall, will seek a ruling from the County about the
possibility of having a sign in the County right of way, and when this is reheard, we need to see a
specific map, to scale, of the property, so that we know exactly what we’re granting, if we do, in fact,
grant relief.
Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 59-2001, Tire Warehouse, Meeting Date: November 15, 2001
“Project Location: 274 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a 35 square foot freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 plus feet of
relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6. It
appears, from the plan submitted, that the sign has been constructed entirely within the right of way
for Quaker Road. 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 sign in
the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the
sign to a more compliant location, at a minimum…on the subject property. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief may be interpreted as substantial being the plot
plan depicts the sign approximately 12’ off the property. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of
this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self created. Parcel History
1
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 98-3266 issued 10/8/98 100 sf wall sign;
Sign Permit 98-3251 issued 10/15/98 32 sf freestanding sign; Sign Permit 99-3328 issued 5/30/99
30 sf temporary wall sign; Sign Permit 00-3483 issued 5/10/00 32 sf freestanding sign; Sign Permit
00-741 issued 10/3/00 67.5 sf wall sign ****************** No permit application filed for current
freestanding sign Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of
this action. While the sign is an attractive sign, effectively meeting the separation from Quaker Road,
an approval for the placement of this sign, apparently in the County right of way, would not be
consistent with the purpose and intent of either the Sign Ordinance or the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. The applicant was granted permission from Warren County to erect a sign within the County
right of way with conditions. Also the permit expires on 12/31/01. Staff requests proof of permit
renewal as needed in the future. Prior to the 8/22/01 ZBA Meeting, the applicant was informed that
the sign, as it currently exists, is in violation of the ordinance and should be removed prior to the
application for or the approval of a variance. The sign has not been moved since the 8/22/01 ZBA
Meeting. As part of the 8/22/01 tabling motion, the board requested a specific map to better
understand what relief is being sought. On 11/08/01, an architectural map was submitted by Mr.
McCall, not a professional map created from a recent survey. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-Come forward. State your name.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Hi. My name is Eric Adamzyck. I’m the Store Manager over at the Tire
Warehouse. I’m standing in for John McCall. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend this evening.
He’s out of Town. Can I approach the Board? I have a draft letter for each one of you.
MR. STONE-Surely, please.
MR. ADAMZYCK-An apology from John.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ADAMZYCK-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-And then if you would read it in, I would appreciate it.
MR. ADAMZYCK-I sure will. It states at the top “To: Town of Queensbury ZBA Board From:
John McCall Re: Sign Variance Unfortunately, I have a previous commitment out of town and
cannot attend tonight’s meeting. Representing the company will be Eric Adamzyck the store
manager. The map showing position and location of the sign was drafted using our survey markers
and information provided by Mr. Remington the Warren County Superintendent of Public Works,
and also by using survey maps from Minogues on the east side and Murray’s on the west side. I wish
to thank the ZBA Board for their time. John McCall”
MR. STONE-Anything else that you want to say?
MR. ADAMZYCK-That’ll be it, sir.
MR. STONE-Do you know of any, I mean, Staff notes in their comments that there is permission
from the County for placement of this sign up until the end of the year.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Do you have anything additional to add to that?
MR. ADAMZYCK-Basically, we’re just here tonight to see if we can get approval for it, I believe.
MR. STONE-Okay, but we don’t know, even if we approved it, that the County would grant an
extension of that. That’s, I think, the question that Staff raised. Is that correct, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, but they did receive this from the County, indicating that they have
permission, the sign will be removed any time upon written notice of the County Public Works
Superintendent. Other municipal variances must be obtained as necessary, and it is dated good until
the end of the year.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it can be placed and removed any time until the end of the year?
MR. FRANK-They’re giving them permission to keep it where it is, but at any given time, they could
tell them, for whatever reason, to remove.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Exactly. I have that paperwork right here, sir.
2
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Okay, which says that they could tell him to take it out any time, and they don’t have
permission beyond the end of the earth. I mean, is that what it says, the language?
MR. FRANK-Pretty much, the sign will be removed at any time upon written notice of the County
Public Works Superintendent. The permit is good until 12/31/01, which I’m sure they can renew,
but.
MR. ADAMZYCK-That’s what it says in the paperwork I have in front of me, sir.
MR. STONE-But anywhere does it say it can be renewed?
MR. ADAMZYCK-No, it doesn’t. I don’t see that on here, sir.
MR. STONE-Nor do I.
MR. ADAMZYCK-No, I do not see that on there.
MR. FRANK-I don’t see that either.
MR. STONE-Okay. One of the conditions of the tabling motion was at least an acknowledgement,
there was asked to be an acknowledgement that this sign was, in fact, placed without a permit, and
we never did get anything like that. We have no application for the sign, except for the variance. Is
that correct?
MR. FRANK-That’s my understanding.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Adamzyck?
MR. HIMES-We were also, Mr. Chairman, supposed to get a more, very reliable map.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. HIMES-In the request, and all I see is this copy of what we had originally, plus, I think, a hand
drawn thing which is clear, a good job and all, but it’s not the bonafide map, as I understand.
MR. ABBATE-I think that was one of the stipulations at the last meeting, that a specific map to scale
be provided to the Board.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not so sure that this meets the criteria.
MR. STONE-That is a reasonable judgement.
MR. ADAMZYCK-I do have the survey of the property if you’d like to see that.
MR. STONE-Well, we would have liked to have seen it with the application, yes.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Did he send that to you?
MR. FRANK-I think he’s referring to.
MR. STONE-The original.
MR. FRANK-This is a copy of a survey, and they hand drew in the setbacks, and the dimensions.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. FRANK-On top of this map.
MR. ADAMZYCK-But they used Minogue’s, and they used the Murray’s Liquor Store, right next
door, to.
MR. STONE-But, I mean, it is not a survey.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Okay.
MR. STONE-There is no architect’s signature or stamp on this particular thing, therefore it is a copy
taken from a survey, maybe.
3
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. FRANK-The sign wasn’t located by a surveyor.
MR. STONE-It was not located, and I have to admit, I’m not even sure which is the sign on this
thing, because the new wood sign is an arrow pointing, which shows it on the property, but not in
what I would consider to be the right of way. Is that what you guys?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could address another issue here, if I may?
MR. STONE-Sure, please.
MR. ABBATE-I didn’t catch your name?
MR. ADAMZYCK-My name is Eric, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Eric. Would you help me on this, kind of clear it up for me. You have a copy
of the Staff Notes, I take it?
MR. ADAMZYCK-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You do, and if you would be kind enough to turn to Page Two, specifically Paragraph
Five, under the title, “Is this difficulty self-created”. Would you do that for me, please? I have a
copy here if you’d like it.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-As long as you return it to me.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Basically, would you explain to me what is meant, no permit application filed for
current freestanding sign, then you go back to your table, and then what does that mean?
MR. ADAMZYCK-From what it sounds like to me, from what’s written on here, it says no permit
was filed. Application was filed for current freestanding sign. By reading it, it sounds like to me
there was no permit filed.
MR. ABBATE-What are you telling me, that a sign was put up without a permit?
MR. ADAMZYCK-If it was, I was unaware of this situation.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not placing blame. I just want to make sure I understand that. Do you agree that
basically it’s saying that a sign was put up without a permit?
MR. ADAMZYCK-That’s what it’s stating on this letter, yes it is, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ADAMZYCK-You’re welcome.
MR. STONE-That is Staff’s position, of course.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-So, let me get this straight. I’ve got three maps, one that says 12 feet from the line,
one says 15 feet from the line, and one says 25 feet from the line. We really don’t know how far that
is from the line.
MR. STONE-You’ve got three? There’s the third one, okay. Right.
MR. MC NALLY-And do we have a sign permit in the original file for Staff?
MR. STONE-Not for this sign, there isn’t.
MR. FRANK-No sign permit was issued.
MR. MC NALLY-We just have the terms and conditions, no sign agreement.
4
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. FRANK-None could be issued because it wasn’t in a compliant location.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. The license from the County is what I meant. Did they file the original?
MR. FRANK-Yes, he did.
MR. MC NALLY-They did. Do you have a copy of it?
MR. FRANK-We have that, that’s correct. It should be attached to the Staff notes. I’m sorry, it was
an addition. I don’t know if it was attached to the Staff notes, but it was included.
MR. STONE-It’s not.
MR. FRANK-It’s not.
MR. URRICO-Do we know what the conditions are, of the County?
MR. MC NALLY-The conditions are here, I think.
MR. HAYES-That we did have a copy of.
MR. STONE-Bob, do you have a comment you wanted to make?
MR. MC NALLY-No. I just wanted to make sure that they had a license, that’s all.
MR. STONE-You’ve got that statement that Bruce read, I believe, that Staff read, and this piece of
paper that we have here is merely the County’s conditions for getting a sign permit from the County.
Or is this ours? It’s got to be them, because it’s Department of Public Works.
MR. FRANK-That was the work permit from the County to grant them permission to keep that sign
in the County right of way.
MR. STONE-Okay. So these are merely the conditions that they have to follow to have that sign,
and then that note that you read says you can do it up until the end of the year.
MR. FRANK-That was a special condition, what I had read off. The second page of the County
paperwork has 14 separate conditions.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. FRANK-Besides the special conditions which are on the first page.
MR. STONE-Okay. So this is what you had to do to put a sign up on County property, in a sense?
MR. FRANK-This is a permit to work in the County right of way. So I guess it’s kind of like a
standard form.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay. Okay. Any other questions? Let me open the pubic hearing, just so that
we can get back to talking about it, and we may even have left the public hearing open, but if we
didn’t, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor
of this Sign Variance? Anybody opposed? Is there any correspondence at all in there?
MR. URRICO-No, Mr. Chairman.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Bob, unless you have any further questions, Bob, why don’t you tell
us what you think.
MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t have a problem with the sign as it currently exists, because of the distance
from the road, paved surface of the road, but I do think, as a matter of practice, we should ensure
that we have a survey showing what kind of relief we’re granting, so that if there’s any question of it
in the future, we have something to refer to, and the tabling motion was very clear, that we wanted a
survey drawing showing us exactly where this sign was, so we’d know exactly how far over the line it
5
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
was, so there’d be no question in the future, if someone moves it from where it was when we
approved it.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-That technicality aside, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, provided the conditions
were met. I don’t want to approve it without that, or without some kind of guarantee that I would
feel comfortable with.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norman?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel the same as what Bob has just expressed, and in addition, I still
have a concern in connection with whether there might be any alternatives for signage, not just the
placement, but alternate, it’s not for us to say, you can do this, that and the other thing, but it might
be of interest to me, if sign people, and I know you had some trouble with misunderstanding, what
have you, with the sign company that you employed. We talked about that at the last meeting.
MR. ADAMZYCK-Okay. Exactly.
MR. HIMES-And that was, you know, I could sympathize with Mr. McCall because of what took
place, but maybe there would be some acceptable signage that could be suggested by a sign company
or what not that would be either compliant or more compliant and meet your company’s needs and
satisfy the Town’s needs a little bit more, and that kind of, I’m kind of a little bit hung up on that, in
addition to what Bob said. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m not going to be redundant, and my comments are not
directed at you personally, but we did have a meeting on August 22, and during that meeting we
nd
discussed a number of things, and there was a specific request from this Board that the applicant
provide specific maps to scale. As it is right now, I am not really sure just where this sign is going to
be, and that bothers me, Number One. Number Two, what bothers me is the fact that the sign went
up without a permit, and Number Three, the permit from the County will expire at the end of
December. So, taking all three of these things into consideration, compiling them, if you will, I’m
having a hard time, if I had to vote right now to approve this, I think the first stipulation was
ignored, whether it was on purpose or by accident, when we requested a specific map to scale, and
since we don’t have that, I would certainly be in no position to say, okay, let’s approve it.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Basically, I agree with the other Board members. I do want to add one thing. Your
next door neighbor there, NYC Dogs, they came in, a couple of months prior to that, with the same
type of application.
MR. STONE-No, wrong place. It’s not near NYC Dogs.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s on the same street.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-It’s in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. BRYANT-No, but it came to mind that we had that meeting with NYC Dogs. They had the
sane exact situation.
MR. STONE-Yes, we did.
MR. BRYANT-They wanted to put the sign in the right of way, and we eventually made them move
the sign five feet in from the property line, and I think that that’s the direction I’d like to see.
MR. STONE-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree. I mean, you’re put into a difficult circumstance here because you
can’t provide us with the exact answers that we need to grant minimum relief, and I don’t think
anyone here thinks that’s your fault, but we can’t go forward with granting relief, you know, in a
subjective or non-defined way. So I’m not in a position to go forward, as far as approving this
application in the same manner that the rest of (lost words).
6
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. I think a sign in the County right
of way requires extraordinary circumstances, and to date that hasn’t been supplied. I don’t see what
the circumstances are that would require that sign being placed there.
MR. STONE-Again, I understand that you’re filling in for the man who made the original
presentation, and who’s sign it is. We asked very specifically, and he was here, when we did this
tabling motion, and I’m just going to repeat it for the record. That we need to see, when it is re-
heard, we need to see a specific map, to scale, of the property, so we know exactly what we’re
granting, if we do, in fact, grant relief. Frankly, I’m going to be lenient and ask this Board to table
this for another two months, up to two months, so that we can get this thing. Maybe I’m only going
to do it for a month, because this sign is up. It’s an illegal sign. It has been up for an extended
period of time without any official request made by the applicant for this particular positioning of
this sign, and as I listen to my fellow Board members, certainly, at a minimum, we want those
numbers, because we don’t know what relief we’re going to grant, and at a maximum, I hear a little
unhappiness about the sign being placed at all, and unless the Board says I should be very hard, I
would propose that we table it for no more than one month, so that we get a survey. A survey is a
depiction of the property, done by a licensed surveyor, signed, stamped and sealed, with the exact
location of the sign, visa vie the property lines, the County right of way, and everything else that we
can imagine. Do I have the feeling that that’s acceptable to the Board?
MR. HIMES-Lew, I’m not saying it’s unacceptable. I’ll just say my opinion is that, for the reasons I
mentioned, I’d like to see some other alternatives, but also, in connection with what Al said. Now,
what we have here is that, because the sign was placed without a permit, and all the misunderstanding
with the sign company and all, again, perhaps it’s not your fault. In any event, it puts us in a position
where there’s no compromising here at all. It’s like go or no go. Here’s something that’s out there,
and not just a matter of some relief from a setback, but completely off the owner’s property by
considerable distance, from what I understand. So I’m just saying that we should not let ourselves be
put in a position where we think that, you know, if the sign hadn’t been there, who knows what
could have been worked out, you know. So I feel badly about that, and I just want you to know that
it’s not just the dimensions and the rest that I’m concerned about.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I don’t want to give the applicant the idea that if he does a survey, that we’re
going to consider the application. Because from what I’m hearing, the majority of the Board, they
don’t want the sign in the right of way. So, I mean.
MR. STONE-Well, as we did in the last one, we had that line, so know exactly what we’re doing if
we do, in fact, grant relief. We still have that option, and I don’t disagree with your feelings.
MR. HIMES-I have no objection to you tabling it.
MR. STONE-Yes. That’s all. I want to table, I mean, listen to whatever tabling motion I make, and
help me if you’re not happy with it. I’m willing to go anywhere we want.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2001 TIRE WAREHOUSE – JOHN MC
CALL, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
274 Quaker Road. For a period of no more than, until a meeting in December, either the first
meeting or the second meeting. At that time, the Board would expect to have an exact survey of the
location of the sign, visa vie the property lines, the right of way, the pavement, and anything else that
a surveyor is going to look at, so that we know, one, where the sign is, and so that we know what
kind of relief we may or may not grant for the current sign, or what kind of changes we can ask in
the position of the sign, in order to grant approval for a sign, for any sign that requires a variance. If
the applicant does not return in time with the requested material, for a scheduled meeting in
December, then enforcement action will be asked to be taken by the Board, as to removal of the
sign.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. URRICO-Would it be helpful to know whether the County is going to re-approve that sign
permit that they granted? Next time we meet?
MR. MC NALLY-From my perspective, if the County doesn’t give permission by January 1 of next
st
year, that sign comes down. That’s what the license says, that they have to remove it once that
permission is taken away. Then I think we can condition our variance, if we approve it, so that if he
doesn’t have a license next year, or can’t show that he has one now, he doesn’t get one. That’s his
problem.
7
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-That’s what I was going to say, that that would come in the actual motion to approve
any kind of variance. We don’t have to put that in here.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, also, I think the Zoning Administrator wanted me to ask the Board if
they wanted to add another condition. If I remember correctly, and I didn’t review the August
minutes, no enforcement action was taken at the time, that he believed the applicant was going to
return in 30 days, after the August agenda, and here it is now 90 days after the August agenda, and
you still have a sign that’s not in compliance. I think he wanted me to add that to your ideas of
possibly having some kind of other condition.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just try something. If the applicant does not return in time with the
requested material, for a meeting in December, a scheduled meeting in December, then enforcement
action will be asked to be taken by the Board, as to removal of the sign.
MR. HIMES-Lew, would we want to, anyone who’s going to get any extension or whatnot of that
would probably be in the course of getting it pretty soon, since the present license expires.
MR. STONE-You mean the County?
MR. HIMES-Yes, that there, I mean, has there been anything, or is there anything going on in terms
of what the County’s going to do about next year?
MR. STONE-I think Bob put his finger on that one. If we take this up in December, if we grant
something, then we can say, this is obviously dependent upon County approval, for the foreseeable
future.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I’m just saying that by that time, normally, anyone would have gone to the
County to get the extension, and we would either have it or not have it.
MR. STONE-Well, I think the applicant has heard what you said, and will pass it along to Mr.
McCall.
MR. ABBATE-Lew, can I make a comment? When was this sign originally put up, October?
MR. ADAMZYCK-I believe it was October.
MR. ABBATE-October of the Year 2000?
MR. ADAMZYCK-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-So, in effect, you have had free advertisement for over a year. Illegal free
advertisement for over a year. Is that correct?
MR. ADAMZYCK-That’s what it sounds like, sir.
MR. ABBATE-No. Not sounds like. Is that correct?
MR. ADAMZYCK-You’re correct.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-It hasn’t been up there since October of last year. I put it up this summer,
I think June or July.
MR. STONE-I think the putting up of the sign is what triggered the whole thing. Okay. Do I hear a
second to that?
MR. HAYES-Second.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-So, if you would communicate a copy of this tabling motion with all its conditions, it
will be available in the next couple of days. Certainly, Mr. McCall can come in, and I would say, for
the record, that tabling motions usually are unanimous. The fact that there were two people who
didn’t want to table it should give Mr. McCall the tenor of the Board, in terms of our impatience.
8
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. ADAMZYCK-Yes, sir. Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH W. & CHERIE C.
LUKE D/B/A DIET CENTER AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: KENNETH W.
& CHERIE C. LUKE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESS DRIVE AND PARKING SPACES AND
SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS THE
SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRIVES.
APPLICANT WISHES TO USE A PORTION OF THE BAY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
FOR PARKING AREA. CROSS REF. SPR 36-2001, SV 66-2001 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-23
LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-66
TOM NACE & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2001, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Luke, Meeting Date:
November 15, 2001 Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of an access drive and associated parking spaces and seeks relief
from the Off-street Parking and Loading requirements for both the parking spaces as well as the
separation distance between the existing and proposed drives. Applicant wishes to use a portion of
the Bay Road right-of-way for parking area. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the
requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179-66. Specifically, the applicant
seeks 110.5 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 40 feet from the existing curb cut, and
112.1 feet of relief needed for the new curb cut at 37.9 feet from the curb cut of the neighboring
property. Also, the applicant seeks relief to construct 4 parking spaces, none of which are completely
located on the subject property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the site
as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the access
drive, which might, in turn, address the parking space issues. Also, additional parking to the rear of
the property may be explored. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 110.5 and
112.1 feet of relief from the 150-foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, while relief to
construct four spaces, two of which straddle and two that are completely in the right of way line for
Bay Road may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action.
Construction of another curb cut 39.5 feet and 37.9 feet from the existing curb cuts onto a Regional
Arterial highway may present a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood or community,
especially when considering the existing heavy traffic flow on Bay Road, which will probably increase
in the future with new developments. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Petition for
rezone 5-2000 res. 6/26/01 from NC-1A to MR-5 Site Plan Review pending to establish a
professional office use. SV 66-01 pending construction of a 6 sf sign in the Bay Road right of way
Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
applicant had Nace Engineering prepare a concept-parking plan. According to Mr. Nace, “due to
site constraints, this plan may not be ideal. However, it does provide (for the required) six parking
spaces and eliminates customers backing directly out onto Bay Road”. However, creating a new
driveway within the 95-foot separation of existing driveways may warrant careful consideration. It
appears as though the applicant is currently operating the business at the site. The applicant has been
granted permission from Warren County to construct two driveways and a parking lot partially within
the County right-of-way. The permit expires 12/31/01. Staff requests proof of permit renewal as
needed in the future. Additionally, the proposed handicap space does not appear to meet the
minimum size requirements (16 feet total including access lane). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-Before I get to you gentlemen, Bruce, do we have a copy of this? Is this the same kind
of permit that we just discussed?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-With the same stipulations, it can be?
MR. FRANK-They didn’t have any special conditions on their permit, besides the second page.
MR. STONE-But it still expires on December 31?
st
MR. FRANK-That is correct.
9
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. NACE-May I speak to that, Lew?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering. What we received from
the County is a permit to work within the County right of way. Okay. Those are granted to do the
actual work. Okay. The permission to construct and use the parking spaces within the County right
of way is implicit in that, okay, but the actual permit itself is to do the work, and the expiration date
simply reflects when we anticipate the work would be completed.
MR. STONE-Okay. So there is no permission to use the County right of way?
MR. NACE-Yes, there is permission, and it’s noted in the permit, the permission to actually use the
County right of way, and that the, but the actual permit itself, the expiration date that appears in the
permit, is typically used as a date when you anticipate that your actual construction work will be
completed.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying that there’s a double permission here. One is to construct two
driveways, and a parking lot, and by saying if you construct a parking lot, the inference is that you can
use it.
MR. NACE-And that statement actually appears in the permit.
MR. STONE-That’s definitely implied.
MR. NACE-Yes, exactly, but the statement is.
MR. STONE-Confusing at best.
MR. NACE-Well, yes, no, the statement is to construct.
MR. STONE-Would you, Mr. Nace, would you read in your letter, or do you want us to read it in?
MR. NACE-Sure, no. I’ll be glad to. The letter is addressed to Chris Round. “Dear Mr. Round:
Kenneth Luke requested that I look at his Bay Road property currently being utilized for the Diet
Center and determine the best way to provide the 6 parking spaces required by the Town Zoning
Code. Presently, there is a paved driveway and a new gravel parking area serving this property. The
present configuration does not provide for 6 spaces and requires that cars back out into the paved
shoulder of Bay Road when exiting. Based upon my inspection of the property and using a survey
map by Van Dusen & Steves, I prepared the concept parking plan which Mr. Luke submitted to
Warren County Department of Public Works and to the Town Planning Department. Due to site
constraints, this plan may not be idea. However, it does provide 6 parking spaces and eliminates
customers backing directly out onto Bay Road. I discussed the driveway separation of 40 feet with
Lisa at Warren County and she did not have any objections. Please let me know if there are any
further comments or questions. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E.”
MR. STONE-It appears to me that right now there is one large curb cut. Is that a safe assumption?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. STONE-Mr. Luke, do you want to say anything?
KENNETH LUKE
MR. LUKE-We have a curb cut, I believe, of 59 feet right now, which we plan on eliminating, that
59 foot curb cut.
MR. STONE-Is this supposed to be, on the drawing submitted, this oblong or this rounded
rectangle, is that supposed to be, is that the parking spaces, or is that a park let?
MR. NACE-The oblong space will be returned to grass, okay. The sidewalk goes through that space,
but the space around, within that oblong, other than the sidewalk, will be torn out and put back in
grass. Okay. So there is no curb there. It’s just a wide shoulder, and then there will be two defined
entry points, instead of the free for all.
MR. STONE-Okay. One of the questions that I had, I’ve got two. Was the signed moved?
MR. LUKE-Yes, the sign was moved.
10
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Per what we talked about. I thought so. As I’ve driven by, I kept saying it must be.
Why not use the back of the property? Is there a?
MR. BORGOS-If I may, for the record, Michael Borgos for the applicant. There is a septic system
and leachfield in the rear of the property, and if we were to put any type of stone or gravel, as you
know, that would make it an impermeable, within the Town definition, and that is not acceptable
over a septic system or a leachfield.
MR. STONE-Okay. There’s not even room along the side of the building, north side?
MR. NACE-No. The north side, right about five feet off of the existing driveway, is wet and in fact,
if the Corps wetland were to be flagged along there, I’m sure it would come well into the north edge
of this property.
MR. HAYES-Is there a variance that we can grant, Tom, to have a non-permeable surface over a
septic system?
MR. NACE-I don’t think that you could. That would have to be a Town Board of Health, because
that regulation falls under the Town Sanitary Code.
MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions?
MR. LUKE-We’d also like to keep as much green space as we can, also.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Luke, what type of traffic flow do you have to the business? Is it constant? Does
it come and go at certain times?
MR. LUKE-Everyone that comes is on a scheduled appointment, and they’re spaced about 15
minutes apart. So we might have four cars an hour coming to the building.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Would one of you address the Staff comments about the handicap space?
MR. NACE-The size of it? Sure. The Town Code speaks to handicap and typical arrangement of
handicap being an eight foot aisle, or an eight foot space and an eight foot aisle. That’s typically used
where you have two handicapped spaces sharing the same aisleway. The ANSI Code and the ADA
Regulations that speak to, in great detail, to handicap access on a single parking space define an eight
foot parking place and a five foot access aisle, which gives us the 13 feet that I’ve used. So what is
there meets with the ADA Regulations.
MR. STONE-Do we have one of these that shows the actual parking spaces? I’ve got a lot of,
maybe you can help me. So there’s four in front, going in parallel to Bay Road, and two in the back?
MR. NACE-Correct, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-Now I see where they are.
MR. NACE-It’s anticipated that the two in the back would be employee parking and the four in
front, where they can come in and out without having to back out onto Bay Road, would be
customers.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question?
MR. STONE-Please.
MR. MC NALLY-In the parcel history, I see there’s a petition to rezone. Is that still pending?
MR. BORGOS-That’s been granted. It’s been rezoned. It’s now MR-5.
MR. MC NALLY-And then site plan review says it’s pending.
MR. BORGOS-That’s pending this application right now.
MR. MC NALLY-So you do have an application?
11
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. BORGOS-Right. Once the Area Variance application is, hopefully, granted, we’ll go back to the
Planning Board to complete that site plan review.
MR. MC NALLY-And then there’s a variance application for the construction of a sign in the
roadway. That’s still pending with us?
MR. BORGOS-That’s already been resolved. The sign’s been removed out of the roadway and the
County right of way. That’s taken care of.
MR. MC NALLY-This was a home at one time?
MR. BORGOS-I believe it was.
MR. MC NALLY-When was it converted from a home to a business?
MR. LUKE-February of this year.
MR. MC NALLY-February, and, Mr. Luke, how long have you owned the house?
MR. LUKE-We bought the house in January of this year.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you reside there before you purchased it?
MR. LUKE-No, we did not.
MR. HAYES-What’s the level of scrutiny, as far as the Health Department, for having a hard surface
over a septic?
MR. NACE-It’s a Town Health Code, it’s not necessarily, well, Health Department also states that in
their regulations, that a leach field is not permitted underneath a paved surface, or a traveled surface.
So it’s part of the Health Department Code and Town Code.
MR. STONE-Since part of the removal of the water is evaporation, it’s.
MR. HAYES-I understand. I was just wondering.
MR. NACE-I think what they’re really speaking toward is that the ground under a traveled area tends
to compact and won’t accept water as easily.
MR. STONE-Okay. There’s good reason for it.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Nace, just so I understand, the dimensions of this property are what?
MR. NACE-Let me go back to the survey. It’s 100 feet of road frontage. The northerly property
line perpendicular to the road is 86 feet. The southern property line is approximately 82 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-It looks like about 45 feet between the back of the building and the rear property
line, ballpark?
MR. NACE-Ballpark, about probably 40 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-And on either side, the new parking area has got to be at least, that’s two parking
spots, that’s 16 feet wide?
MR. NACE-Eighteen feet.
MR. MC NALLY-Eighteen feet wide?
MR. NACE-Nine foot each, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And you said that there’s wetlands along the north side of the property?
MR. NACE-Yes. We looked at trying to do something along the north side, and I did not believe it
even feasible to extend back beside the garage at all.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
12
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Would you clear this up for me? I’m sure I missed
it somewhere along the line. You currently have a Warren County permit to work, to perform this
project, correct?
MR. BORGOS-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Does that permit, is that also an agreement, or an easement to actually occupy
or use the land for the purposes that you want?
MR. BORGOS-We believe it is. It’s implicit within that grant of the right to construct.
MR. ABBATE-You believe it is. I guess what I’m asking, the County has approved a permit for you
to construct your project, okay. I don’t see any documentation that the County says, in addition to,
we, as the County, agree for an easement so that you folks can actually occupy and use the land. I
don’t see that in writing.
MR. BORGOS-Maybe Mr. Nace can re-formulate what he said before.
MR. NACE-I don’t know if you have a copy of their actual permit, but the actual permit says
permission to construct two driveways and parking lot, partially within right of way, and then they
refer to the sketch. I think that implicit in that is if they allow you to construct a parking lot within
their right of way. That’s, the use of that parking lot is implicit.
MR. HAYES-Until they, they have reserved the right to revoke it.
MR. NACE-Actually, that was not part of their conditions.
MR. STONE-In the previous one, Bruce, under special conditions, did it, there was those notes, in
the previous application.
MR. FRANK-There was special conditions for the Tire Warehouse.
MR. STONE-But it did say revocable at any time.
MR. FRANK-That’s what it said.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Why they didn’t put those conditions on this one, I don’t know, but this does have an
expiration date of 12/31/01.
MR. STONE-See the problem that we’re having, Mr. Nace, is that you’re reading it one way to say
that it expires on December 31, to construct, and then you’re also saying, well, it doesn’t mean
st
12/31 to use, because if you construct it, then they will come, as the old line goes, and I think Mr.
Abbate is a little, I think, correct, in saying, I guess we’d like to see the English spelled out a little
better. I mean, I understand the implied and the explicit and all that sort of stuff, but I’ve seen
government do worse things than say, you can build it but you can’t use it. I mean, it’s happened.
MR. NACE-I would think we could get a letter from Warren County that would explain it and make
it clear.
MR. STONE-That certainly could be a condition of any variance that we grant, what we do get, that
it’s contingent upon that.
MR. NACE-Sure. I don’t see why we couldn’t get that.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in
favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JIM UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-Jim Underwood. A point that you may want to consider is that the sewer is
imminently going to go up to Baybridge, which is in the back, actually up the road past where this
site is, and so maybe you would want to consider temporarily granting permission until such time
that they hook up to the sewer, which they’ll probably be required to do anyway, and at that point,
then they could re-submit a plan for parking in the back, which is supposed to be what all the new
reg’s are going to be on the road there anyway. So that’s something to consider.
13
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Excellent point. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? In opposition?
Any letters, any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Then let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let me ask a question, unless you want to do it, Mr. Hayes. That grassy knoll, I hate to
use these wonderful expressions. That grassy area, it’s going to be at road level, sidewalk level, and
therefore easily driven on.
MR. NACE-The frontages all along there are that way. None of that is, because of the wide
shoulder, none of that is curbed.
MR. STONE-Would it be possible to put a little curb on the building side, so that it becomes a
definite curb cut that you can’t drive there? I’m talking just a small strip.
MR. NACE-On the building side, you mean on the back side of the sidewalk?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes, that would probably be, we’d, obviously, you know, Warren County would have to
be aware of it. I’m sure they wouldn’t want anything on the front because of plowing.
MR. STONE-Agreed. Agreed.
MR. NACE-But on the back I think something could probably be done there.
MR. STONE-Is that something that would be of interest?
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to be flexible.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. NACE-I think once the paving is done neatly, and that is landscaped, you know, a lawn is
actually established, that it’ll be fairly well defined.
MR. STONE-I wish you well in having people do that. There is a particular piece of property, on
Route 9, that has no parking spaces delineated in front of its building, and it’s constantly being used
for parking. I won’t mention the piece of property, but I see it all the time, up north of the drive-in
movie, and south of Suttons.
MR. NACE-I know where you mean.
MR. ABBATE-In the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STONE-In the Town of Queensbury, yes. No other questions? Let’s talk about it. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think that anything that could improve the safety situation, such as
you’re proposing, even though, as you say, it may not be perfect, anything that can keep multiple cars
from backing in and out would be an improvement. There’s a lot of pedestrian traffic there, as I
mentioned at the last meeting, coming and going from the Racquet Club, joggers, from the College, a
lot of traffic, as you know, and I would, a point that I noticed when I was visiting there this week, if
it were a perfect world, the property, the attorney’s office, just to the south, they have visitors that
were parked on the roadway, two vehicles there, and a vehicle in his driveway, and the space between
the two buildings, if there could be something done where that business or office and yours could
share a common driveway or access to your businesses, that would improve both situations. It’s too
bad that that might be not be able to happen. However, the activity that goes on in front of his
office is perhaps some kind of an enforcement issue, and I’d hate to see something coming up there
where we’d be facing the almost exact kind of requirement for variance that you’re asking for. So I
was thinking that, too bad something couldn’t be worked out where you would both have a snow
removal problem taken care of, in terms of what’s in front of you, or businesses where people are
parking, particularly his. Unfortunately, I probably cannot make that any kind of a condition. I,
however, feel that what you are doing is an improvement over what is there now, and I tend to be
sympathetic with the application. Thank you.
14
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Luke, I feel your application is reasonable, and if I were in reversed roles
with your position, I would certainly consider submitting this application to this Board. I don’t have
any objections, on the face of it. I think any kind of improvement would be great, and I think there
is a concern on your part for public safety, which is admirable, and I think we should support
businesses in the Town of Queensbury. I would have no problem supporting your application,
providing I could see something in writing, and your representative has indicated that the County not
only gave you a permit to work, but the County will agree to an easement to actually occupy the land,
and if that were granted and submitted in writing, I could sleep at night and certainly vote for
approval.
MR. LUKE-I personally talked to Warren County, and he did perfectly understand we were going to
park on the County right of way, and he said it happens all the time. He said you’ve provided for
safety there, and it’s a lot better than a lot of the others. So he was happy with it.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sure, I mean, we could say that this agreement, there is an implicit within the
agreement that, yes, we wouldn’t approve this unless we were going to say, okay, you can occupy it,
but the facts are it doesn’t say that.
MR. LUKE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-But as I say, I would feel more comfortable if I could see something, and you
indicated that you would not mind doing that, and based upon that, I would certainly go along with
the application.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I’m kind of torn between a rock and a hard place here. We just had a discussion
about a sign in a right of way, and now we’re going to put a parking lot and a driveway in a right of
way, but on the other hand, when I visited your building today, I did not pull into the driveway,
because I didn’t want to back out onto Bay Road. You’ve got a super dangerous situation.
MR. LUKE-Can I interrupt?
MR. BRYANT-Go ahead.
MR. LUKE-All the people that come to the Diet Center are there by appointment, and we do
explain to them how to maneuver in that parking lot so they do not back out and not only do they
not back out, we instruct them not to pull out at an angle, because you do have a visibility problem
there. So we’ve asked people to actually turn their car around and go out straight, and they have
been doing that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. It’s a very difficult parking situation, and it is a hazard. So, with that in mind, I
would go along with what Mr. Underwood said, and maybe this should be a temporary solution until
that time when, in the not too distant future, and there’s a sewer system and you can change all that
and move your parking area to the back. I mean, I would go along with this as a temporary
resolution.
MR. STONE-What’s your comment on the statement that was made about the sewer?
MR. NACE-I spent three years of my life working on the sewer project for Queensbury back in
1978, that included sewers on Bay Road, and they’re still not there. I’m not going to count the
chickens until they hatch.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-What do you feel about the probabilities, though, I mean, as far as, I know you don’t
want to speculate?
MR. NACE-I really don’t know, and to require somebody to put the amount of money into
blacktopping for a temporary thing that he may have to rip up in two years, because he wants to
solve a safety issue now, I think is a little onerous.
MR. STONE-Before we go on, a couple of questions. You say that the two directly in parking are
going to be staff?
MR. NACE-Right, because those are difficult, unless they’re, if the other two spaces beside them are
occupied, you can’t back out of those without backing out onto the road.
15
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Right. Will that be so marked?
MR. LUKE-Yes, it will be marked for employees only.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LUKE-Right, and employees get there before anybody else does.
MR. STONE-And stay later, that helps me. Okay. Who’s next?
MR. HAYES-I guess, first of all, I do accept that, implicit in the County work order, is the fact that
you’re going to use it after you build it. To me, that makes all the sense in the world, but the fact that
they’re implying that you can use it, I don’t know if that makes this plan, as I see it, a good idea. First
of all, the relief, compared to the Ordinance, is substantial. We’re talking about over 100 feet of
relief, more than once, and that’s a very large number in my mind, but I guess the hardest thing for
me to get over under this application is fatal, in my mind, is that this difficulty is self-created. The
applicant bought this property knowing it was a home, knowing it had limited property surrounding
it, knowing that the septic system was in the rear, knowing all these things, and then after they tried
to install a business in there, they said we don’t have any parking and we’ve got to do something
about it. Well, I don’t think that that is, I think that’s a classic self created difficulty in my mind. I
think that, if they felt that way, they should have investigated another piece of property, and if we’re
going to ask them for a remedy, such as paving this for a certain period of time and then
investigating the sewer, as Jim Underwood brought up, which I think is a tremendous idea, I think
that’s the cost of buying a business for a house. I think it’s a tremendously self-created difficulty. I
think the only thing that I could go for in my mind would be the exploration of a feasible alternative,
with the parking in the rear at some point. I do sympathize with the fact that this is a local business,
a small business, and that to grant some relief on the timeframe, I think that that’s a compromise I
could make, but in regards to this being a precedent that we set, which is putting parking lots in right
of ways on major County roads, I think that’s a dangerous precedent in this case. I mean, a small
portion of the parking lot, I think that’s fine. I think we’ve done that before, but to have it be, you
know, a substantial portion of it or a great portion of it into the County right of way, including
possibly backing out, if they’re not properly instructed, I think that’s a bad precedent to set, in this
particular case. So I would be opposed to the application.
MR. NACE-May I respond for just a second?
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. NACE-One of the things to keep in mind is that Bay Road originally was, when this house was
built, Bay Road was much narrower than it is now, and when they went through and widened Bay
Road, they took a very substantial right of way when they did that. So if you turned the time clock
back, you know, 20 years or 25 years, when Bay Road was widened, their property would have been
out probably at the edge of the road where it is now, and all this parking would have been on private
property, and that sort of created, with these smaller lots along Bay Road, it’s created that problem all
up and down the road. If you look down where the Chinese restaurant is, I mean, the right of way
there is right at their front door.
MR. HAYES-That’s true.
MR. NACE-And all these properties down at that end of Bay Road that had been residential have
gotten to the point now where they have no value. Nobody wants to live there as a residential
property. So they are turning into commercial, and it’s maybe in the technical, legal sense of the
word, it is self created, but yet in a broader sense, it’s not.
MR. BORGOS-And I think it’s exactly that change in neighborhood that we’ve seen that lead to the
change in zone to the MR-5, and you see it up and down the road. Next to the Harvest, two doors
down, there used to be a farm that had goats, between the Harvest and Lowe’s, and that’s all been
knocked down now and presumably that’ll be more of a commercial enterprise. There’s a couple of
other sites that have been developed, as you know. So that overall change in the neighborhood, in
the highest and best use of the property there, taking into consideration the widening of the road,
really takes it and moves it out of that self created thing, and towards something that, you know, we
try to look at the property and do what’s best for that parcel, and what’s best for the public safety,
and I think that’s the plan that’s been presented.
MR. HAYES-I guess, obviously, you try to do what’s best and highest for the parcel, but I think you
have to take into account the overall effect or even the precedent that stands, and, to me, I think
16
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
there’s too much that’s in the right of way, and I understand perfectly well that this is nearly an
impossible scenario to draw something that isn’t, with the requirement of six parking spaces, but the
original point was the lot or the house was just not big enough or designed to be a commercial
operation, and even in the Town’s re-zoning, correct me if I’m wrong, you said they rezone it to MR-
5, which is still a residential zoning. It’s not a commercial zone. It’s a residential zone, and that’s
what the Town chose to rezone it. So, to me, it’s still a residential, they still consider that a
residential lot, by zone.
MR. MC NALLY-And, you know, this isn’t an instance where we have a property owner who has
been there for 20 or 30 years, lived in the house, and seen the changes occur on the street. This is an
instance where a person has.
MR. NACE-That’s why I say technically it’s not, legally, it’s not, legally, it is self-created.
MR. MC NALLY-There is a broad view, but in this case, it’s the applicant that we’re looking at, and
that applicant purchased in January of 2001 and converted that use. So it’s not quite that kind of
analysis I think you should be thinking about.
MR. BORGOS-If you want to take that same view, though, you could look at it as the person who
was living there, no longer wanted to be around all this commercial activity to reside, and wanted to
leave that type of a situation.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask this. You made an interesting point, and I wanted to clear it up in my
own mind. You indicated that, a while back, that the road was a heck of a lot narrower than it is
right now. Are you stating that, under Imminent Domain, the town or the state or the county came
along and removed X number of feet from the frontage? How many feet was that? Do you recall?
Because I think you may have a point.
MR. NACE-I think, okay, previously I know it had been a 50 foot right of way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. NACE-And it does vary a little in sections. I think most of Bay Road is between 75 and 100
foot now, okay. So they took somewhere between 15 and 25 feet. Now I don’t know which,
whether.
MR. ABBATE-That was prior to you purchasing the property, though.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-When you purchased the property, the Imminent Domain was already in effect.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Unfortunately, I’m going to agree with Jamie on this one. I previously stated in
a previous application that extraordinary circumstances would require a move into the County right
of way, and I just don’t see it. While this is certainly safer than it was, the problem existed prior to
your purchase of the property, and it’s something that could have been considered. What the
situation was 25 years ago didn’t exist when he purchased the property. The road is as it is. So I
would be against it at this point.
MR. LUKE-May I make a comment, please?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. LUKE-When I was anticipating purchasing this property in January, we went to the Town of
Queensbury, and their words were, this is a no brainer. This is what we want on that section of Bay
Road. In fact, when I first started, I had a map prepared of just one property. I turned the map in,
and they said, well, let’s include the other two properties. I had the map re-drawn. Then they said,
well, let’s include the Dance Center. So I had the map re-drawn a third time because this is what the
Town of Queensbury wanted for that use of that property.
MR. HAYES-They zoned it MR-5, which is residential purposes.
MR. LUKE-I don’t know that the difference between MR-5 and BR-549.
17
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. NACE-MR-5 permits the business or professional use, without the commercial use. Okay, and
I think that’s what they had in mind. Because adjacent to this is also MR-5. Okay. The property
immediately adjacent to the north is MR-5.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Luke, do I understand that you have an interest in those other businesses on
Bay Road? Is that why you were doing surveys of them?
MR. LUKE-The Town of Queensbury asked me. I did not have any financial interest in any of those
other properties.
MR. MC NALLY-They actually asked you to put the survey together of someone else’s property?
MR. LUKE-Yes, they did. They asked me if I wouldn’t mind going to the other property owners
and ask them if they objected, or they would like to do it, and I was glad to help.
MR. NACE-This is for the rezoning to MR-5, to include those other parcels in the rezoning, okay,
rather than just rezone the one parcel.
MR. MC NALLY-So they were all rezoned?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-I see.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the five factors, I see that Mr. Luke would certainly be permitted to
develop a commercial use in a small residential home that was originally never constructed for that
purpose. So certainly that would be a benefit to Mr. Luke. As far as feasible alternatives, I do think
that there are alternatives. The suggestion that there be additional parking to the rear of the property
I think could be explored further. I don’t see any depiction of the septic system, and I think that
when a busyness comes into a residential property, there are costs in converting over to a business
suitable for existence along Bay Road that might include a reconfiguration of the septic system,
however costly that may be, I think on the order of several thousand dollars certainly. I also like the
idea that an exploration be done with the adjacent property owners, including Mr. Garfield
Raymond. It seems as if there is a joint effort to rezone these properties, and certainly the owners
have an interest of some kind together, which, in the sense of a septic system, might require a
boundary adjustment or an agreement to share a driveway, or something like that, that would allow
for parking to go to the rear of the property where I think it’s more suited. So I think that factor
would weigh against the applicant. I agree with Jamie that the relief is substantial relative to the
Ordinance. We’ve got 110.5 and 112.1 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement for the
driveways. That’s certainly substantial. I also think that four of the spaces being on the public
highway, of the six required spaces for parking is quite substantial. I think it’s bad policy to allow
people to park on the road generally, I mean, even if they have to. I don’t think it’s a good idea that
this Board should be passing that. I think that traffic and the dangers to pedestrians and drivers
along Bay Road is only going to increase in the future, not decrease, and I really don’t see this as an
instance where we are alleviating an existing problem. As a business, Mr. Luke has to have six
parking spaces, and without six parking spaces, presumably, he can’t occupy this property as a
business. So by approving those parking spaces in the front, at least cost, I don’t think we’re doing
the community a service. It’s too congested this area. It is really tight. It puts everything up front,
where the danger is to cars and pedestrians, and the only thing I can think of what’s going to happen
to this property is something akin to like Sherwin Williams on Glen Street. The entire front, before
the right of way, is narrow. It’s all paved, and it’s hard to get in and out, and the proposed zoning
code calls for parking to go to the rear. So certainly I think that that is something that we should
promote to the extent we can, and as Jamie noted, is the difficulty self-created? I have to say that it
is. I don’t know what Mr. Luke did say or speak with the Town. Certainly he didn’t speak with us,
but I know that this is something that I would have pricked up my ears. I’ve been thinking about
buying this property, and looked at the parking condition and the anticipated use. So, with all due
respect, I think that the remedy of a problem is not to cut safety in the front, but to do something
else other than this application proposes, and I’d be against it.
MR. STONE-Before I make a statement, I was negligent is not reading in the County action. I think
we probably read it in the last time we were here, but let me read it in again, just very quickly, if you
would. Read the whole thing. We’ll get it on the record again.
MR. URRICO-Okay. This is the “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
September 12, 2001 Project Name: Luke, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Owner: Kenneth W. & Cherie
C. Luke ID Number: QBY-AV-65-2001 County Project#: Sep01-43 Current Zoning: MR-5
18
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicants propose construction of an access
drive and parking spaces and seeks relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations.
Applicants wish to use a portion of the Bay Road right-of-way for parking. Relief requested is 18.58’
from the 40’ access drive maximum requirements. Site Location: 425 Bay Road. 4/10 mile north of
Quaker Road on left. Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-23 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also
been referred to the Town for site plan review (Agenda #41). The proposed action would require a
variance from the Town’s Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, which require each parking
space to be accessed by a 20’ drive aisle. The applicant also wishes to use a portion of the County
right-of-way for parking; it is not clear whether the applicant has permission from the County DPW
to do so. The applicant has a County DPW permit to construct a driveway entrance and pave the
area (attached), but the permit says nothing about using part of the right-of-way for parking. Staff is
checking on this and will have more information at the meeting. Due to the unresolved issue of
DPW permission to use the right-of-way for parking. Staff recommends discussion. County
Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning
Board 9/13/01. Would you like me to read in the motion to table from our last meeting? We
didn’t do that at all, yet.
MR. STONE-Please, go ahead. I’m sorry.
MR. URRICO-This is from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, “MOTION TO TABLE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE, Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption seconded by Paul Hayes:
425 Bay Road. For up to 62 days, so that the applicants can get written permission from the County
for the use of their right of way for partial parking, and that they come up with a design which would
minimize the opening onto Bay Road while providing the relief from backing on to the right of way
as much as possible, and as part of this, I think we need a more accurate drawing to show exactly
what the incursion is into the County right of way and exactly where the property lines are and all
that.
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNally”
MR. STONE-This is not an easy situation. Obviously, there is a great deal of concern being
expressed by certain members of the Board as to the incursion. They’re looking at the balancing act
that we’re supposed to do for an Area Variance, balancing the benefit to the applicant versus the
detriment to the community. We certainly raise a number of questions about putting the lot in the
back, and I think Mr. Nace, at least for the moment, makes a very good point. You can’t park on top
of, you don’t want to put parking on top of a septic system. The public, in the guise of Mr.
Underwood, made a very good point about the future of the sewer, and if the sewer goes through,
obviously the need for the septic system is negated, and certainly parking could be in the back.
Having said all that, I’m inclined to do my own interpretation of the balancing act, and certainly the
applicant would be permitted to have the parking places that he is required to have to conduct
business in the Town of Queensbury, including the handicap spot. I’m not sure, given the nature of
the property as it is currently constituted with the septic system and the wet area on the north side,
that there is a feasible alternative other than these particular parking spaces. I’m comforted by the
fact that the County appears, and I certainly agree with Mr. Abbate that I would like to see it in
writing, that the implicit becomes explicit. So that we know, in fact, they’re giving permission to put
parking spaces on the right of way. Strangely, I am not troubled by the relief being asked, because
right now I think it’s one big curb cut, and I’m more disturbed by that because anybody can park
anywhere there, and back in, back out, if you, any way you want. So the curb cut is, to me, in this
particular case, an artificial barrier to granting this variance, and I’m inclined to say this is going to be
an improvement, in terms of the open space there and people driving in ad lib, if you will. The effect
on the community, in one sense, has already been decided by the Town Board. By making this MR-
5, it recognizes the fact that there will be a lot more commercial business, a lot more commercial
operations there than residential operations, and we certainly see that with the building going on on
the other side of the road, and obviously the other anticipated buildings to the south. I guess
another professional center is supposed to be going in somewhere down there. So I don’t see that’s
a problem. Obviously it’s self created. I think that’s a given. Mr. Luke did buy the property with
certain knowledge a forehand. I would be more comfortable, however, in granting this, if the
applicant would be willing to put some kind of barrier between the sidewalk and the house, to
delineate the parking spaces from the grassy area. I think a six inch wide concrete, raised concrete
isn’t going to disturb anything and it’s not going to be unattractive or anything else, too. So, with
that condition, I am prepared to vote yes on this application. As I look at the numbers, I find a
19
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
preponderance of people willing to approve this. I would ask Mr. Abbate if he would make a motion
to such a, to approve this variance.
MR. ABBATE-Now, before I make the motion, Mr. Chairman, were there not some stipulations that
we wanted to include?
MR. STONE-Well, I’m suggesting we stipulate the, well, we get the piece of paper that you’re
interested in.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-And I would like to see, for my own vote, I would like to see, and I saw acquiescence
on the part of the applicant, of some kind of curbing material, a raised stone that means you can’t
drive in directly off of Bay Road.
MR. ABBATE-To prevent cars from going in.
MR. STONE-Yes, from going over this attractive grassy area that will be constructed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. We’ll give it a go.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C.
LUKE D/B/A DIET CENTER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Allan Bryant:
425 Bay Road. Mr. Luke is requesting construction of an access drive and parking spaces, and seeks
relief from the Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements for both the parking spaces as well as
the separation distance between the existing and proposed drives. Mr. Luke also wishes to use a
portion of the Bay Road right of way for parking areas. The relief required, Mr. Luke requests relief
from the requirements of the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations Section 179-66, specifically
he seeks 110.5 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 40 feet from the existing curb cut,
and 112.1 feet of relief needed for the new curb cut, 37.9 feet from the curb cut of the neighboring
property. Also, Mr. Luke seeks relief to construct four parking spaces, none of which are completely
located on the subject property. The benefit to the applicant, Mr. Luke would be permitted to
develop the site as he requested. Feasible alternatives, well, we discussed feasible alternatives. There
were some suggestions that perhaps the parking could be done, if not on a temporary or permanent
basis, in the rear of the building, the issue was raised in terms of septic systems and what have you,
and there are little, if any, feasible alternatives to meet the requirements of the applicant. The relief
is, in effect, substantial to the Ordinance, 110.5 feet and 112.1 feet of relief from the 150 feet
requirement may be interpreted as substantial, while relief to construct four spaces, two of which
straddle and two that are completely in a right of way for Bay Road, may be interpreted as
substantial. Effects on the neighborhood, there may be effects on the neighborhood. It is my
opinion that the effects would be positive. Given the fact that the applicant would agree to do
several things, one, to have constructed a curb which would prevent vehicles from going over grassy
areas and what have you, and that would be a public safety factor. The other consideration, in terms
on the effect on the neighborhood, or the effects on the Town of Queensbury and the County,
would be that the applicant agrees that they will provide the Board, or certainly the Town, a letter of
authority, if you will, and explicitly granting permission to occupy this particular area which was
approved. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe it is. I think there were some good explanations.
The individual purchased the property knowing full well that there was limited parking. It is self-
created. However, I don’t believe that this self-created provision is, in itself, the sole reason to
disapprove an application. In this particular case, I think that the request would be an improvement
to the business, would improve the public safety of customers going in and out of the business, and I
think overall it will be an asset to the Town of Queensbury, and based upon this, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully request that Area Variance No. 65-2001 be approved.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you.
20
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2001 JEAN M. HOFFMAN PROPERTY OWNER: JEAN M.
HOFFMAN PROPERTY LOCATION: 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING DOCK/BOATHOUSE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 800 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE SUNDECK ABOVE AN
OVERSIZED 1,100 SQ. FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF. SPR
50-2001; BP 2001-64; BP 2001-601 BP 2001-602 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 NEW TAX MAP NO.
227.17-1-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60
JEAN HOFFMAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-2001, Jean M. Hoffman, Meeting Date: November 15, 2001
“Project Location: 93 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of an existing dock/boathouse and construction of an 800 sq. ft. boathouse sundeck
above an oversized 1,100 sq. ft. dock. Relief Required: Applicant requests 400 sq. ft. of relief from
the maximum allowable 700 sq. ft. for docks of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations per § 179-60.
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 structure in the preferred
location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of two docks,
which would more than accommodate the desired 1,100 sq. ft. of area proposed. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the ordinance?: 400-sq. ft. in addition to the 700-sq. ft. maximum allowed
may be interpreted as moderate to significant. 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 being other feasible
alternatives are available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 30-2001;
7/12/01, shoreline setback, expansion of a nonconforming use structure (withdrawn). SP 15-2001;
second floor addition of 624 sq. ft., structure; expansion of a nonconforming structure (withdrawn).
BP 2001-601; 8/7/01, 696 sq. ft. dock BP 2001-602; 8/7/01, 550 sq. ft. dock BP 2001-664;
9/18/01, 174 sq. ft. deck SPR 50-2001: November review dependent on this application. Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration may be
given to the construction of two compliant boathouses/sundecks, which wouldn’t require a variance.
it is not unreasonable to consider a proposal allowed by the code by which the applicant could gain
the desired result….boat shelter and an outdoor lakeside recreation area. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. URRICO-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14,
2001 Project Name: Hoffman, Jean Owner: Jean Hoffman ID Number: QBY-AV-91-2001
County Project#: Nov01-21 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing dock/boathouse and construct an 800 sq.
ft. boathouse sundeck above an oversized 1,100 sq. ft. dock. Relief is requested from the maximum
allowable square footage requirement for docks. Site Location: 93 Cleverdale Road. Tax Map
Number(s): 227.17-1-9.1 Staff Notes: See agenda item #20. Local actions to date (if any): A public
hearing has been scheduled for November 15, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation:
Approve with condition that the proposed land bridge is removed from the plans and the stairway to
the sundeck must originate from the dock.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning
Board 11/15/01.
MR. STONE-One question before I get to the applicant. These building permits for docks, they say
that, were they granted?
MR. BROWN-They’ve not been issued.
MR. STONE-Okay. So they were applied for.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-So they applied for two and one deck.
MR. BROWN-The deck is an addition to one of the buildings on the property. The docks are
separate docks.
MR. STONE-In addition to the one that’s already there?
21
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. BROWN-I think to replace the one that’s there. Well, why don’t we, you can address that. Go
ahead. Introduce yourself.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Hi. Jean Hoffman. We put in two docks, an “F” and a “U”, with a separation in
between them, but I wanted a deck on it, and Craig said, no, you can’t do that. You have to do what
I presented to you.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOFFMAN-So those we kind of buried, and created a whole new set. That’s all. As far as the
little deck is concerned, there’s a little guest house on the property. We’ve put a deck on the guest
house
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add?
BILL KENNERY
MR. KENNERY-Hi. I’m Bill Kennery. I’m an attorney in private practice, and I’ve worked with
Mrs. Hoffman for some years, and she asked me to be here with her tonight.
MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add to this application?
MR. KENNERY-Not in terms of the application. I mean, we substantially rely on the materials that
we submitted in writing. Mrs. Hoffman feels that in terms of the balance, and she asks that you
respectfully consider that the benefit to her outweighs any perceived potential detriment to anyone
else. We tried to anticipating some balancing test, and anticipate, perhaps, what the factors might be,
in terms of potential detriment, that someone might raise, and we anticipated those factors to be
health, safety, or welfare of the neighbors, and we couldn’t pinpoint any detriment with respect to
health, safety or welfare of any of the neighbors, in terms of the initial balancing test for the variance.
The benefit to her is as set forth in the application. I won’t belabor that. With respect to the
character, we’ve provided some photographs that indicate both of the adjacent property owner’s
dock areas so that you can see those, and I know all of you are, I’m sure, acquainted with the
property. With respect to the benefit, though, I think there is some significant point to be made with
respect to the application, and that is with respect to the decking, if the applicant did go forward with
what is permitted under your, or what we believe is permitted under your Ordinance, and that is two
separate, 700 square foot docks, she wouldn’t be in a position to attain the uniform decking that’s
proposed on the rendering that you have, and in fact our perception, if you will, is that it would be
less aesthetically pleasing, both from the shoreline looking out and from the water looking in,
because it would involve the introduction of two separate structures instead of what is proposed and
before you in the rendering of a single structure, and from the applicant’s perspective, that is perhaps
the most significant benefit, if you will, to be pointed out, particularly with respect to the, when you
look at the photographs of the two adjacent property owners and the way they’ve set up their
boathouses. In addition, if you notice in the application package, what we tried to provide is an
indication of what is there now, and you can see that the dock itself that’s there now is outlined in
red, I believe, with a red line, and if you look at it, it’s kind of askew from the shoreline, and we
propose to clean that up I think, at least from the applicant’s perspective, or reconfigure it so that it
is straight and true with that shoreline. From our perspective also, one of the things that we ask that
you consider is we suggest, respectfully, that we are actually asking for less dock space on this
application than we might otherwise be permitted. We suggest that the square footage is in the range
of 100 plus or minus square foot less, in this application than what the Ordinance provides. We
believe that when you measure the shoreline, she would be permitted to have two docks, each of
which would be 700 square feet, and finally, I know certainly in sitting here and having paid attention
to these matters in the past, the self creation issue always crops up when you’re in these seats, and we
haven’t built this structure. We haven’t introduced any of these structures. It’s not as if we’re here
asking you to approve something that we built, something that is pre-existing.
MR. STONE-We’re pleased.
MR. KENNERY-Thank you very much for your consideration.
MR. STONE-As I understand, the current dock will go?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-And this new structure will be put in its place?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Using the current techniques of cribs, not continuous cribs?
22
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, so the fish can go through.
MR. STONE-So the fish can go through. I’ve always found fish can go through anywhere they
want.
MR. HIMES-A question for the applicant, and also one for Staff, or maybe anyone here on our
Board. This drawing, is this a land bridge?
MR. STONE-Yes, and that’s gone, according to the County. Right?
MR. BROWN-That’s the County’s recommendation.
MRS. HOFFMAN-The County’s recommendation was to take it off, but apparently Warren County
never passes a land bridge, from what I understand.
MR. STONE-I thought the Park Commission didn’t pass land bridges either, or both.
MRS. HOFFMAN-The Park Commission, I talked to Molly.
MR. STONE-Molly Gallagher.
MRS. HOFFMAN-That didn’t seem like a problem, but it’s a problem with Warren County.
MR. HIMES-It’s not with us?
MR. STONE-It’s our choice. It remains to be seen.
MR. HIMES-Everybody gets so uptight about it.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, that’s up to you to do, but I have two of them on the left hand side, and I
have three, if you skip one, then I have three down that way. So there’s five of them, because we’re
up on a hill.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-We know that from previous applications.
MR. HIMES-The 40 foot length, which is the maximum allowed, does not include this land bridge,
or whatever is connected here? That would make this actually exceed 40 feet?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. BROWN-The 40 foot measurement that you may be referring to is a maximum dock length,
and that’s measured from the mean low water mark, and I think that’s what that 40 feet is intended
to depict on this drawing.
MR. STONE-I think we’re below the mean low water mark right now, I’ll tell you, up there.
MR. HIMES-All right. The other thing I had for you, ma’am, is you have almost 250 feet of
frontage?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir.
MR. HIMES-That’s what I thought, from the other map that we have here, all those things
connected between. Thank you.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Thank you.
MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-Are you proposing to waive the ability to build any other dock?
MRS. HOFFMAN-I don’t want any other dock.
MR. MC NALLY-But you would stipulate and make that a condition of any approval?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Sure, absolutely. That’s all I want, and I don’t want it high. I want it low because
of the antique boats.
23
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. HAYES-Being 14 feet?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Talking to Craig and Laura, we kind of put it where it’s supposed to be, but ten
to one it’ll be built lower, because it’s better for me if the deck is really lower than higher. I don’t
have a Sea Ray with a bridge on it that’s coming in. I have stuff that’s, you know, four foot off the
water.
MR. STONE-It was built when people were smaller.
MRS. HOFFMAN-But the deck will be lower.
MR. HAYES-What’s the dimensions, 16 feet allowable?
MR. BROWN-For a flat it’s 14.
MR. HAYES-Fourteen.
MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open a public hearing? All right. Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed?
Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, Mr. Chairman. There’s a letter addressed to Charles A. McNulty, Secretary,
Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury “Dear Mr. McNulty: I am writing in regard to Jean
Hoffman’s request to build an 800 sq. ft. boathouse sundeck above an oversized 1,100 sq. ft. dock.
My property adjoins hers on the north side, and I have no objections to the building of such a
structure. Sincerely, Leigh Beeman 7 Overlook Drive Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. STONE-Any other correspondence?
MR. URRICO-That is it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I have a question. The letter that was just written was one of your adjacent
neighbors?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Mrs. Beeman, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MRS. HOFFMAN-She just had a boathouse built.
MR. BRYANT-Is she the owner of the larger dock in the picture?
MRS. HOFFMAN-No. She’s got one that’s.
MR. KENNERY-She would be on the left as you look at the photographs. The dock on the right is
the southerly dock with the whips.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Right.
MR. KENNERY-Hers would be on the left.
MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s Miss Dawson’s.
MR. BRYANT-That larger dock on the right, how big is it, compared to what you’re proposing? Just
out of curiosity. I mean, I saw the dock, but it’s hard to estimate, in feet, what the dock is.
MRS. HOFFMAN-This is Mrs. Beeman’s. This is Dawson’s, and this is Beeman’s. Is that what
you’re looking at? Or this one?
MR. KENNERY-The one with the white mooring whips on it? Is that the one that?
24
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MRS. HOFFMAN-This is a side photo of what I have now.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know that.
MRS. HOFFMAN-And basically the new dock will just be a little bit bigger on both sides. So it’s
basically going to be that big.
MR. BRYANT-How does it compare, in size, to your neighbor’s dock? It’s hard to visualize this size
dock.
MRS. HOFFMAN-They each have, Mrs. Beeman and Mrs. Dawson both have, basically you can put
one big Sea Ray in or you could put two antique boats in. Basically the same with Mrs. Dawson, and
then they have the whips and they have the other boat on the outside, and if you go one down,
you’ve got Judge Moynihan, which is a big one. Mine will probably be a little bit smaller than Judge
Moynihan’s, and then if you go up to Owens, Lupe Owens, it’ll be basically the same size as theirs.
Theirs is open-sided. Judge Moynihan’s is closed sided.
MR. STONE-And yours is going to be open-sided?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. STONE-And you’re going to drive straight in?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Right toward the house?
MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, from the lake right in.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? The only concern I had, and as I listen, I’m not terribly
concerned with it, was the deck, which appeared to be oversized a little bit. I mean, if we’re talking
700 foot dock, then the deck would be 700, and you’re talking 800. I know we’ve got a much bigger
thing here. Does it have to be that big?
MRS. HOFFMAN-When they drew it up, it’s just what, where the bracing comes up from the
bottom, that’s where they put the deck, because that’s where the bracing was. Now I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Is this even spacing or uneven spacing for the three slips?
MRS. HOFFMAN-It’s 10 and a half and 10 and a half and 14 in the center.
MR. STONE-And 14, okay. Why 14?
MRS. HOFFMAN-I don’t know. That’s what it came out to be, but with the beams going across,
can’t we just move those in? I mean, it’ll go down and you’ll have a foot or two, and then it’ll slant.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I would have liked.
MRS. HOFFMAN-We can do that. I don’t see any problem with that.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, you would be willing to have a 700?
MRS. HOFFMAN-As long as nothing’s structurally wrong, because I don’t know where that goes.
MR. STONE-No, I understand that.
MRS. HOFFMAN-I can bring it in a foot on each side. I don’t think that’s going to matter.
MR. STONE-Okay. It would help me.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I don’t know about the rest of the Board, but let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck
Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Quite frankly, Counsel made a compelling argument for approval
of your application. I went through it in detail. He emphasized benefit. We should consider benefit
to the applicant, and I kept that in abeyance until I knew that there would be no objections, and
25
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
apparently the only correspondence we’ve received was a letter favoring your application, which was
your immediate neighbor. There was no one at the public portion of this meeting that objected to
your application, and, on balance, based upon what you currently have, and what you wish to have, I
feel that it is a reasonable request and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I really don’t know, at this point. I agree with what the Chairman says about the size
of the deck. It is an oversized deck. I’d like to see that come down a little bit. The reason I asked
the question about the neighbors docks is because as you’re looking at the dock, I wasn’t even able to
tell. It might be a senior thing, I couldn’t even tell how many slips they had, and I was just trying to
visualize that on the waterfront, because you do say in your application, two docks may hinder the
view. I’m just wondering if it’s your view or the lakeside view.
MRS. HOFFMAN-Craig and I went over that. We can put two docks. You can either put them 20
feet off each boundary line, or you can kind of put them together with a little piece in between, but
it’s just, what we’re proposing it a whole lot smaller than what we are allowed to build. I just like
something little and kind of Adirondacky and low.
MR. BRYANT-I can understand what you’re saying. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I’m uncertain.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think the benefit to the applicant is relatively straightforward.
She’d have a little better protection, more protection for her boats. As far as feasible alternatives,
clearly there are feasible alternatives, but in this particular case, I don’t like them. I like the current
plan better. The idea of two boathouses, I’m not sure that would be an improvement to the
neighborhood, quite frankly. So, as I look at the plans and I listen to the explanations involved, it
looks like a very tasteful plan to me. It does look Adirondacky, and the fact that it’s see through, it
doesn’t have sides, I think that also mitigates a little bit of the size of the proposed dock, as far as the
impact from the lake, which is important in this case. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I think it still is. I think, you know, 400 feet of relief is more than minimal. There’s
really no doubt in my mind about that. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I don’t think
there will be. I think that this is actually fairly consistent with the other docks along the shore there.
Like I said before, it’s open. There has been some express neighbor support. No objections. So in
my opinion it’s fairly consistent, and I think the neighbors implicitly, the neighbors feel the same
way, and is the difficulty self-created? A little bit. I mean, you want the dock and it’s more than what
the Code calls for, but I think basically three out of the five factors weigh in favor of the applicant,
and I’m okay with this application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. As I look at the criteria, I think they overwhelmingly, in my estimation, favor
the application, and I think it’s a very attractive plan. I think it would actually have a very positive
effect on the neighborhood. I think it’s well put together. Even the, I would like to see the sundeck
come in a little bit, maybe 50 feet on each side, to bring it into compliance, or closer to the 700
square feet, but other than that, I think it’s a very nice plan. I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I would approve the project for the reasons Jamie’s suggested, subject to this
condition expressly made that there be no further boathouses or docks along the frontage of this
parcel. With that understanding, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. I’m in favor of the application, to make it short, for reasons given by the other
Board members, and also the fact that it’s a 200 to 250 foot frontage up there, and so a nice dock,
and the way the land joins the lake there, the low aspect of what you happen to like anyway, probably
so you can see out, is a factor, too, in that it isn’t going to be some huge structure when viewed from
the water either, probably, given all the frontage she has. So I’m in favor. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree. I think it’s a benefit both to the community and to the lake itself. I
think the fact that you have such a large piece of property, and well maintained to your credit. When
I was out there the other day, I was impressed that it’s been cleaned, not cleaned up, but where you
put in the new system, the septic system is very attractive, well planted. So I think it’s a very nice
piece of property, and I think by putting in one dock, slightly oversized, but less than the area of two
docks, I think benefits the lake. I think it benefits the community. I think the balancing test, I, too,
will congratulate your Counsel. I think he made a very good presentation, straightforward, not
26
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
emotional, stated the facts as he saw them, and I think we basically agree with that. I would ask, in
any motion, on the basis of, if the Board is will, I would like to see the deck at the, 700 is what is
allowed, I would like to see it at 700 feet, and since the design is not, I’m sure the design can be
worked out that way. So, having said that, I would like a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2001 JEAN M. HOFFMAN,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
93 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing dock/boathouse, and
construction of an 800 square foot boathouse, which we have modified during the course of this
meeting, and agreed upon that this will be reduced from 800 to 700, boathouse/sundeck above an
oversized, 1100 square foot dock. The relief requested, the applicant requests 400 square feet of
relief from the maximum allowed 700 square foot for docks of the Shoreline and Wetlands
Regulations per 179-60. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the
desired structure in the preferred location with the reduction in the sundeck, as mentioned above.
Feasible alternatives would call for two distinct docks, which would be acceptable with the amount
of property involved. However, we feel, in this instance the Board feels that a consolidated dock
would be better, all around, for the community and for the applicant, and does no damage to Code.
Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four hundred square feet, in addition to the seven
hundred square foot maximum allowed for one dock, may be interpreted as moderate to significant.
Effects on the neighborhood or community, well, moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. We tend to feel that this will be a positive effect rather than a
negative one. So I move that we approve this with a condition. The first condition that there would
be no further docks along the frontage of this parcel, with their consent, and as a stipulation of this
Board. It was mentioned previously that the sundeck would be reduced from 800 square feet to 700
or less.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you very much.
MR. KENNERY-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2001 TYPE II JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: JOHN P.
MATTHEWS PROPERTY LOCATION: 18 CEDAR POINT ZONE: WR-3A, CEA
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK
RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE. A PREVIOUS ZONING BOARD APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. CROSS
REF. SPR 52-2001 CROSS REF. AV 58-1997 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/14/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.19-
1-1 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-Okay. This is dated 10/30/01. It says “Dear Planners & Zoning Board: I am
submitting for approval to construct a year round home on Lake George. I received approvals in
October of 1993 variance # 58-1997 but due to other commitments, I was unable to start
construction. The plan has been revised to accommodate concerns which surfaced at the last
submission. Also the roof line was changed to bring the appearance lower from the lake side of the
property. Thank you for your consideration. A copy of resolution #58-1997 is being submitted with
the application. Sincerely, John P. Matthews”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-2001, John P. Matthews, Meeting Date: November 15,
2001 “Project Location: 18 Cedar Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 2300 sq. ft. second story addition and the construction of a 672 sq. ft. attached
garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from setback to shoreline as well as relief for ht
expansion of a non-conforming structure per the WR-3A requirements; § 179-16, § 179-79. Criteria
for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
27
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
applicant: The applicant would be permitted to modify an existing summer home to a year round
residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives appear to be limited due to the location of the
existing home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 43 feet from the required
75-foot minimum shoreline setback could be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 01-93; 3/2/93, replace
existing dock with a new compliant dock. AV 58-1997; 10/15/97, side setback relief, and expansion
of nonconforming structure. SP 42-97; 10/21/97, enlarge and conversion of seasonal home to year
round. SPR 52-2001: November review dependent on this application. Staff comments: Minimal
to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This variance application is
requesting the same relief as was requested in AV 58-1997, which was granted but has expired.
Consideration may be given to addition to the back of the home, in a more compliant location.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-County?
MR. URRICO-I don’t see anything from the County.
MR. STONE-Is there a County, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BROWN-The County Recommendation was No County Impact.
MR. STONE-Okay. No County Impact, okay. Why don’t you read the old motion.
MR. URRICO-Okay. This is the, “MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1997
JOHN MATTHEWS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Hayes:
Cedar Point Road on Lake George. The applicant proposes a 1565 square foot expansion of a
nonconforming residential structure in a WR-1A zone. The relief required is three fold. One, as pertains
to Section 179-79 which restricts expansion of nonconforming structures of which the present camp is
to a 50% threshold. In this case, the building area of the old plus the new, with the removal of the
existing garage would go from 2195 square feet to 3760 square feet, an addition of 1565 feet, well over
50%. The structure is currently located within the 50 foot shoreline setback. The screened in porch is
approximately 32 feet from the shore at its closest point. The new structure will be built upwards and
backwards from that closest point, but because of the zoning requirements we must consider a relief
from the 50 foot shoreline setback of 18 feet. It should also be recognized that the new structure will
also invade the 50 foot setback in the northeast corner of the furthest back area by a matter of two to
three feet. The proposes project also requires relief from the setback requirements of 179-16, specifically
the required side setback is 20 feet. The proposed setback is 19 feet, as far as new construction is
concerned. It should be noted that the existing structure is currently nonconforming at 9.1 feet from the
property line. It is noted that the shoreline setback request of the 32 feet is based on the conversion of
the porch/deck to living space. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to
construct additions and to winterize an existing summer camp. The alternatives are limited because of
the 50% expansion rule and the fact that no new construction or conversion activities within 50 feet of
the shore are allowed. The relief from the 50% rule of nonconforming structures is probably substantial,
but it certainly would be an improvement to the overall property. The setback relief, as far as the one
foot is concerned, is certainly insubstantial. The relief of 18 feet recognizes the fact that the current
building currently sits at that point on the land. Minimal impact, as far as effect on the neighborhood or
community is anticipated. The difficulty is not self created in that this nonconforming use is at 32 feet
currently and, yes, the expansion could be considered to be self created, but in order to make an
acceptable full time residence, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to community.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas
NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally
ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham”
MR. STONE-Before I turn it over to you, there’s two statements I want to make, and a question. One,
there was reference in there to 50 foot. It is now 75 feet. It’s our Waterfront zoning three acre, and it is
now 75 feet distance from the shoreline. The other thing is that this is a new Board. We have, at least
28
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
three of us have three or four years under our belt, being on the Zoning Board, and I don’t mean this
prejudicially. It’s just it’s a new Board. The question I have for you. Is this exactly the same as the
previous application, with everything, the heights and the decorative situations and everything? Is it the
same application?
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-My name is John Matthews, east side Lake George. The plans have been re-
designed. The footprint is basically the same as what we applied for the last time. The areas which
were addressed at the previous acceptance have been addressed on this plan, whereby we changed
the access to the garage, which previously was to come in from the north easterly side of the
property, but there was an objection from the neighbor on that side that we should not be entering
from that side of the property, so I revised the plans to show that aspect of it, and I submitted some
submissions along that, when they did approve it, but they weren’t finalized at that time, as they are
now. I also changed the roof lines on the front of the building. I had them going in a contemporary
style, and when you looked at it from the lake, they all met the height restrictions, but when I looked
at it from the lake, it just became not as attractive, to me, as it would be to see the house blending
into the hillside more, rather than seeing a point sticking up, a very high wall on the south east
corner.
MR. STONE-So the lake’s there, you’re this way?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, exactly.
MR. STONE-It slopes up and over.
MR. MATTHEWS-Exactly, and those are basically the only changes, other than the finalizing of the
floor plan inside, which wasn’t really depicted last time.
MR. HAYES-What about the total square footage of the addition? I mean, where does that sit
compared to the original application?
MR. MATTHEWS-With the changing of the garage, and the maneuvering around there, I think we
added a couple of square feet to the square footage of the building.
MR. HAYES-When you say a couple, do you mean two or a small amount?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, a small amount. I mean, I don’t have it figured.
MR. HAYES-It it material?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, not in my estimation.
MR. STONE-Can you describe this stone cap? As I look at this elevation, I see this stone cap
extending above the 28 feet allowed.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, it does, and it shouldn’t have been drawn that way. That is supposed to be
right at the 28 foot mark.
MR. STONE-The peak of the roof is going to be, as we go through, is going to be no higher than
28? Any point, relative to the ground, vertically?
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So this depiction I have here is incorrect.
MR. MATTHEWS-He showed it as a chimney with high peaks sticking up on the top of it.
MR. STONE-There’s two things. If you look, the chimney is here, but if this is 28 feet from this
point, that line seems to come in about here, and this is all above it. Craig, did you guys look at that?
MR. MATTHEWS-This point here is this distance further away from the.
MR. STONE-We’re right here, and it says 28 feet, and if I go up here 28 feet, I come in the middle
of the stone cap. Am I correct, Staff?
MR. BROWN-It appears to be that way. We talked about this.
29
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. MATTHEWS-But this wall is like 40 feet away from.
MR. STONE-That’s okay. It’s wherever it is, versus the grade at any particular point. It’s a running
28 feet per grade, and it’s anywhere from this side of the house to the other side of the house.
MR. HAYES-Just so you understand, if there’s no relief granted, then it can’t be.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s contrary to what was explained to me. They explained it to me that it
went to the eaves.
MR. STONE-Staff comments, please.
MR. BROWN-We had this discussion, that the chimney seemed to be taller than the 28 feet, and you
mentioned that you could shave that off anyplace necessary.
MR. MATTHEWS-This part right in here.
MR. BROWN-Right. I think what the issue is, if you extend the 28 foot line, that’s the part that’s
over 28 feet.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s no problem. That’s what I told him was drawn too high.
MR. BROWN-Okay. The rest of this looks like it’s okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-But what I was getting at is this is this far back from where he’s looking at it
from here.
MR. BROWN-Right. They understand that. It’s measured, you start from the lake and work your
way back along the contours, and that’s where you make the 28 foot measurement from. Anyplace
on that line is where you measure. So, that’s the part that they’re concerned with right there.
MR. MATTHEWS-Okay.
MR. STONE-So in other words, you would agree that it exceeds 28 feet, at some point, and,
therefore, the application is flawed? Because it wasn’t advertised that way.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think he’s seeking height relief.
MR. STONE-Well, this drawing would indicate he’s seeking height relief.
MR. BROWN-Well, if you don’t give it to him, he can’t build it that way.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-No, my intention is to comply with the height requirements.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. So, in other words, this drawing is, therefore, not
part of the application anymore, in a sense.
MR. BROWN-Subject to revision.
MR. STONE-Subject to revision?
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s part of the application, but there’s no request for height relief. I think it’s on
the table now. You know that it’s not going to be constructed over 28 feet. Everybody’s
acknowledged that. I don’t think it’s a problem.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, then let’s go on. I have a question. When I was out there today, there
was a truck on site, Castaways Marina. Is any kind of business being conducted on this property?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. That’s my truck that I use for the marina, but we’re not using it, so I parked
it under that lean to.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to get that on the record, that’s all. Questions, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-One clarification if I may, sir, please. Is it your position that the application that you
are requesting be approved, that the peak of the house at no time will exceed 28 feet in height? Is
that your position?
30
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-From a vertical drop?
MR. MATTHEWS-My position is that it will meet the Town’s height restrictions.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. No more than 28 feet. Okay. That’s fine. That satisfies me. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-You have an existing one story structure, right?
MR. MATTHEWS-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-And it’s about 32 feet from the lake?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And are you going to take that down and start from scratch on that portion? I
would think it’s kind of an old building, but what are your plans for that area, then, just generally?
MR. MATTHEWS-I’m going to utilize that first floor. I’m going to level the roof and build upon
that.
MR. MC NALLY-Have you taken down any of the old walls, or put in a new floor?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. They’ll probably be removed and upgraded into six inch insulation and
what not, through.
MR. MC NALLY-What kind of foundation is down at that end?
MR. MATTHEWS-As one of the permits that are documented on the, I put a whole new stone and
poured concrete foundation under that, back in 1993, I think. Shortly thereafter, I bought the
property.
MR. MC NALLY-You plan on using the same foundation.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, that had a permit, and I excavated underneath the whole building, dug it all
out by hand, so that it would have a foundation under it.
MR. STONE-Any other questions at the moment? Let me open the public hearing, then. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HOWARD KRANTZ
MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. I just wanted to tell the Board that I’ve known John and Diane.
MR. STONE-Name please.
MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, and I’ve known John and Diane and their family for close to 30
years, maybe more, and every project John and his family has gotten involved with, whether it’s the
Heritage Apartments or the Marina, or the property at Glenwood, all has looked one thousand
percent better after he’s worked on it than before. I mean, he’s had a major impact on properties.
He loves the challenge of improving something. For example, one of my gripes about Queensbury is
too much blacktop right to the road. If you know the Glenwood property, even at three feet of an
island that he created and planted trees there is something you don’t usually see. I think Bob talked
about Upper Glen, where they could do the same thing and they haven’t. So, regardless of what
those drawings look like or don’t look like, the area is going to look a lot better when that house is
built, if you go by anything else, his track record in Queensbury.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed?
Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is a record of a phone conversation from Mary Carol
White, 15 Wild Turkey Lane. Miss White objects to the project. She feels an additional garage in a
residential neighborhood would be out of character with the community. Mr. Matthews is in the
construction business. What will the garage be used for? Message taken by Craig Brown.
31
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Any other correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No, that’s it.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions before we talk about it?
MR. MC NALLY-In your initial plan, sir, did you have a garage at the lake house side?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You did. I don’t remember.
MR. MATTHEWS-I’ve got a copy of the old plans here.
MR. MC NALLY-The garage at the top of the hill, you use that as your workshop?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. Storage and hobby shop.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know.
MR. MATTHEWS-There was a two car garage attached, the same size, to the plan originally.
MR. STONE-Then let’s talk about it. Allan, why don’t you start.
MR. BRYANT-Based on observation of the property today, and the application submitted, I
understand the benefit to the applicant. I don’t think that it would be a change in the community.
You’re building right on the footprint.
MR. MATTHEWS-Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-So those conditions actually existed prior to this. I would be in favor of the
application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with Allan. I was for this project four years ago, and with no major
change to the square footage, or encroachment onto the lake, I would be in favor for the same
reasons that I was then. I don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood or community, based
on this. In fact, he does some quality workmanship, as Mr. Krantz has pointed out. It actually could
be a compliment. I’m in favor as I look at it.
MR. STONE-All right. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I’m familiar with John Matthews’ work, and I have no doubt that when
he’s done, that piece of property will be much better than it was before. His work speaks for itself,
and I’m totally in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I think I’ve had the pleasure of having seen some of Mr. Matthews’ work on this
parcel, from what it was before and what it is today. The tennis court area and certainly the
workshop are things that were added since I was last there, and he did a decent job with them. I was
always troubled by the construction of a second floor on a building so close to the lake, because even
though it’s an existing footprint, it certainly is a significant increase in the actual building area at the
lakeshore, but that is true only at one corner, and I’m willing to have the benefit of the doubt this
time, and hope when I come there next time, to see a building as nice as the workshop perhaps is,
not as intrusive to the lake.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, understanding how nice the place will probably look and how nice
everything that’s there now looks, I still look back, you know, the thing, you’ve got a lot of property
up in back. Nice flat knoll there which, if you look out over the lake, and what if back some years
ago when the expansion was going to be done, if it was said then, well, why not move back here.
Everybody wants to be close to the lake. That’s understandable. So the first expansion gets done,
32
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
Area Variance 58-1997, and a little while later, now it’s going to get a little bigger, and we might be
thinking, well, wouldn’t it be awful to tell you to tear everything down and move back, and build up
there and start from scratch, but something keeps knocking on the inside of my head saying that
might not be such a bad idea, from the standpoint of the lake and so on, although it would certainly
be an additional expense. So at this very moment in time, I’m not favorable to the application, but I
kind of want to be. So when the time comes to vote, I’m not sure which way I’ll go, but right now
I’m saying no, I’m not sure I would support it as submitted.
MR. MATTHEWS-Can I talk to that?
MR. STONE-If you wish.
MR. MATTHEWS-Sure. One of my main reasons for utilizing the existing structure in the basic
footprint was so as not to take down anymore trees, and open up any large areas on the lot than
already are. I mean, if everything were to come down, it would leave that great big open spot on the
lakeshore, and then of course if you’re going to want to build up in the back, you’re going to want to
clear so that you can see the lake.
MR. HIMES-Yes, I understand.
MR. MATTHEWS-And the way the ledges were set up along that, I was able to build within the
confines of the ledge so we wouldn’t have to blast and make a great big hole. So those are my basic
reasons.
MR. HIMES-I have to agree with what you’re saying, I guess.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Matthews, it’s a beautiful piece of property, no question about it. I
went over the five basic criteria, and what impressed me was the fact that this is going to be a year
round home, Number One. Am I correct in that assumption?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, you’re correct.
MR. ABBATE-But also I noticed that, in that section, dealing with feasible alternatives, you indicated
that you were quite concerned, you did not want to clean out any trees, etc., etc., remove any of the
beautiful rock formations and what have you, and that indicates to me that you have a real concern,
not only for the lake but also for the Town of Queensbury. Your application, to me, is reasonable,
and I could not find anything in here that I would personally object to. Your reputation proceeds
you, and I am convinced, in my own mind, that whatever endeavor you take on will be an
improvement for that area, and I would be in a position to say, I would vote for an approval.
MR. STONE-I’ve heard all the comments that have been made by everybody and the thing that
impresses me most about your willingness to turn the house, not turn the house, but turn the roof so
that it goes up from the lake, rather than being the point as you described it, which would be the full
28 feet right at the closest point to the lake, and in this case, you’re going to go up and it’s just going
to slope away, and the eye is certainly going to view it from the lake as less obtrusive than having a
big “V” there as one looks from the lake. I think Mr. Hayes summed it up very well in his
comments. I don’t like a structure that close to the lake, but it’s there, and I think what you’re
offering to do, particularly with the consideration that you’ve given to the lot, the look of the lot and
the clearing of the lot, and I, too, know that you will do a good job in building this house, and as long
as you follow the, have stated your willingness to follow the rules of the Town of Queensbury in
regards to the height, I have no problem with this application. I wish it could be further from the
lake, but it can’t be because that’s where it is and certainly I think you have a, it’s certainly your
benefit to improve that piece of property. Having said that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2001 JOHN P. MATTHEWS,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
18 Cedar Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 2300 square foot second story addition,
and the construction of a 672 square foot attached garage. The relief required, the applicant requests
relief from setback to shoreline as well as relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure per
the WR-3A requirements, 179-16, 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be
permitted to modify an existing summer home to a year round residence. The feasible alternatives,
alternatives appear to be limited due to the location of the existing home. I’d like to also mention
that the applicant’s desire to keep the trees in their same location and not to disturb the property
anymore than necessary is one of the reasons to keep it where it is. Three, is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Forty-three feet from the required seventy-five foot minimum shoreline
setback could be interpreted as moderate to substantial, but again, be it noted that it’s going on to the
33
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
existing footprint that already exists. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Moderate
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. I make a motion that we accept this
application. The Board also requests an as built survey, as a condition of the variance.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Craig, you don’t think it’s necessary to talk about the height at all, since it was never
asked for?
MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Matthews acknowledge he’s not going to build it over 28 feet. The
building permit, the plans that come in for the building permit will be revised, or the permit won’t be
issued for the construction.
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. BROWN-So we’ll address it that way.
MR. STONE-Now, is this one that requires, should we require an as built survey, or is it automatic
on this thing?
MR. BROWN-It’s not automatic for an addition. I think that there’s a portion of it, the garage
portion, that’s going to be within that 75 foot setback. It shows 40 feet. If you want to ask for a
survey, you can certainly do that.
MR. STONE-Yes. Would you put that in there. That we would like an as built survey.
MR. URRICO-The Board also requests an as built survey, as a condition of the variance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else, gentlemen? Everybody understand the motion? Second, please?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2001 TYPE II MYRON S. & BARBARA RAPAPORT
AGENT: HOWARD I. KRANTZ PROPERTY OWNER: MYRON S. & BARBARA
RAPAPORT PROPERTY LOCATION: 16 BURNT RIDGE ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA
APPLICANT PROPOSES BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE MINIMUM SHORE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/14/2001; ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY CROSS REF. AV
865, AV 915, AV 1046, AV 55-1991, AV 63-1997, SPR 47-91, SPR 39-97, SPR 51-97 OLD TAX
MAP NO. 5-1-17 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-19 LOT SIZE: 1.20 ACRES SECTION
179-16, 179-60
HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2001, Myron S. & Barbara Rapaport, Meeting Date:
November 15, 2001 “Project Location: 16 Burnt Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes adjustment of boundary line running from Burnt Ridge Road to the shore of
Lake George. Relief Required: Applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the minimum shoreline
requirement of 150 feet per the WR-1A requirements; § 179-16(F). Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The
applicant would be permitted to take 25 feet of width from his southern parcel and add it to his
northern parcel where his residence is situated. 2. Feasible alternatives: Leaving the property line
as is. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 35 feet out of 150 feet 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,
34
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
etc.): AV 865; 10/19/83, const. sing. fam. dwell. w/both side setbacks 10’. AV915; 6/20/84, 2
additions to dwelling with less than required shore setbacks. AV1046; 12/18/85 addition 13’ x 13’
study; 30’ relief from 75’ shoreline setback. SPR 47-91; 10/15/91, construction 10’ x 24’ bedroom;
exp. nonconforming structure. AV 55-1991; 10/16/91 construction of 10’ x 24’ bedroom; 20’ relief
from 75’ shoreline setback. AV 63-1997; 11/12/97, addition to living room and to deck; relief from
all setbacks. SPR 39-97; 10/28/97, same description as for AV 63-1997. SPR 51-97; 11/25/97,
same description as for AV 63-1997. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The shoreline is currently 140 feet wide; therefore, the applicant
is requesting a 25-foot boundary line adjustment. The resulting lot width after the adjustment, if the
variance is granted, will be 115 feet. The average width of the five neighboring lots to the north and
five to the south is 109 feet. A review of the tax maps appear to indicate the subject property line
was originally in the position proposed in this application. Was it? Why and when was it moved?
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting, but just a point that I discussed with
Craig and with Bob McNally, on the next item that’s about to be read, the history, that is not the
history of the parcel for which the Area Variance is sought.
MR. STONE-Does Staff agree?
MR. BROWN-I would agree. It’s the history for the adjacent parcel where the land is going to. It’s
kind of involved in the variance.
MR. STONE-Let’s read it, because we’ve all got a question. I can’t say all of us, but be prepared to
answer why, because none of us totally understand what you’re trying to do. I mean, I’ll tell you that
very clearly.
MR. HAYES-Not what he’s trying to do, but why he’s trying to do it.
MR. STONE-Why he’s trying to do it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, the motive behind it.
MR. STONE-County? Probably no impact.
MR. BROWN-There’s No County Impact.
MR. STONE-Just so, all right, No County Impact.
MR. URRICO-No County Impact.
MR. STONE-Okay. Before you start, Mr. Krantz, as I say, the basic question that I have, and that a
number of us have, is why. The other thing is, you provided, or the applicant provided, a survey,
stamped, dated, which seems to indicate a fait accompli, and I’m surprised that a surveyor, if I’m
understanding this correctly, would say the property line is, in fact, where he says it is when it is not,
according to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Could you explain that?
MR. KRANTZ-Well, I’m not the surveyor, but I represent Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport, and when I
received the map as to what they chose to do, I looked at the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and
saw that, while the lot size still meets the Code, the frontage did not, and apparently Mr. Dickinson
was not aware of that, and I brought that to his attention, and I told Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport that they
would need one Area Variance for this shorefront. So I don’t believe Mr. Dickinson was aware of it.
I think this was requested by Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport of the surveyor.
MR. STONE-Yes. I’ve heard surveyor come in here and say you can’t use my survey, you can’t
modify it and attribute it to me.
MR. BROWN-I think, at this point, this is a picture of what they want to do. I don’t think the
property transfers have taken place yet.
MR. KRANTZ-Right. For example, Mr. Stone, the strip that would be moved from the south to the
north, I think Mr. Dickinson is .24, less than a quarter of an acre. So he was doing for Mr. and Mrs.
Rapaport what they wanted to achieve.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-And I don’t think he was aware that it needed an Area Variance.
MR. STONE-I’m sure he didn’t. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Tell us what you want to tell us.
35
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. KRANTZ-Well, he wants to, they want to gain privacy, and they particularly want to gain
control over the easement area. That was very contentious with the previous neighbor. The
previous neighbor to the south was Mohr, and not withstanding a valid easement to use the road, not
so much the road, but the easement area that you see there, that kind of rectangular-ish area, which
was a turnaround area, serious disputes arose between Rapaport and Mohr, which, notwithstanding
the easements, there was blockage with vehicles. It resulted in a lawsuit, and the lawsuit was long. It
was expensive, and it was only resolved by Rapaport buying the Mohr property. That’s how it was
resolved, and now that that’s been accomplished and that has been settled, Mr. Rapaport wants to
control particularly that turnaround and easement area, so he does not have any problems with any
subsequent owner of that southern parcel.
MR. BRYANT-But if he’s bought the property, the problem is solved.
MR. KRANTZ-Well, this property is going to eventually be sold to a third party.
MR. HIMES-He told me it’s for sale now.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-Right. I believe that’s correct.
MR. STONE-But there would be no attempt, it would be sold with provision that there is one house
on this particular piece of property.
MR. KRANTZ-Yes. If I could just quickly go over the Staff notes.
MR. STONE-Sure. Go ahead.
MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. That’s the reason, for privacy and for control
of the turnaround area. As far as the feasible alternative, as Staff notes says, leaving the property line
where it is. Well, that’s not an alternative. That’s just no. An alternative is another way of achieving
the same goal. That the relief is moderate, I don’t disagree with that. Minimal effects on the
neighborhood, I agree with that. That it’s self created? Sort of. I mean, if he hadn’t had this
problem with Mohr, we wouldn’t be here because he wouldn’t have bought the property. Again,
under Parcel History, all of those items reflect the property to the north, which is not seeking the
variance. It’s benefiting from it, but it’s not the property seeking the variance, and I’m not aware of,
especially in view of the fact that Staff properly noted that there is minimal effects on the
neighborhood, I, frankly, don’t understand minimal to moderate impacts anticipated, or may be
anticipated. I’m not aware of any impact that would affect negatively the community or any nearby
property owners, and as far as the last question, and I represented Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport when they
bought this property back in the late 70’s, early 80’s, as well as reviewed this title, there were lot line
movements back in the 1940’s and 50’s. What the reasons were back and forth between them, as a
matter of fact, if you look at the Dickinson map, you see some faint parallel lines going down there, a
strip of 30 and a strip of 20. I remember these were moved back and forth between the owners, but
I honestly, you know, it was before I was practicing law. So I honestly don’t know the answer.
MR. STONE-May I suggest your applicant would have been better served, not by you, but better
served if he had said what he wanted to do. Because all of us, unfortunately, we get suspicious, and
we’re looking at why, you know, this is a perfectly valid explanation you’ve given me, and it’s on the
record and I now understand, but it would have been so simple to put that in.
MR. KRANTZ-Well, he was, it wasn’t a pleasant experience, the lawsuit, as a matter of record, up at
the Warren County Clerk’s Office. It was expensive. It was very, especially with an immediate
neighbor, and it was something he would have rather have not have aired, frankly, but the question
was asked, and I answered it honestly.
MR. STONE-Well, he could have said we need the area to protect us from this other lot. That’s
okay.
MR. KRANTZ-They couldn’t even get their parking in, and if you see the, see those tight contour
lines approaching that easement area?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. KRANTZ-That is severe ledge there. I mean, they even looked at the possibility of trying to
blast that out. There was just no feasible way to resolve this other than, as it turned out, buying out
Mr. Mohr’s property.
36
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Krantz?
MR. ABBATE-Well, for my part, that answers the motivation for all of this, quite frankly. Needless
to say, Mr. Mohr no longer resides there.
MR. KRANTZ-No. The closing was 2001, late ’99, 2000. Over a year ago, well over a year ago, yes.
MR. HIMES-Just a question in connection with the rest of that road, the turnaround area he has
protected now, but how about the rest of, it’s very narrow little roadway. It goes right up, the asphalt
drive.
MR. KRANTZ-You mean through the southern parcel.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. KRANTZ-Right, and the Rapaports, I think both their vehicles are four wheel drive vehicles. I
think they have Subarus, if I’m not mistaken.
MR. STONE-Yes, but if they were to sell that property, are they going to get into another problem
with an easement?
MR. KRANTZ-Well, they’re going to, they’ll retain an easement, but the biggest problem, Mr. Stone,
was not going down. It was at the turnaround area. Rapaport needed to turn around there and
Mohr needed to turn around there, and these two fellows didn’t agree it was nighttime out, and it
wasn’t good. It wasn’t good.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-Well, I hope nobody parks on the asphalt drive.
MR. STONE-They have a carport up in the back, right? That’s another entrance onto their property.
MR. KRANTZ-I don’t think they use that. I’ve never seen that used. I know them socially as well.
I don’t know what that’s used for, to be honest with you, but I don’t think they park there and walk
down, not to my knowledge.
MR. STONE-It would be a tough walk, or harder to walk back up. Any other questions, gentlemen?
If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In
favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-None, Mr. Chairman.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-They would be willing, I would trust, or a stipulation that they would sell this, or it
can’t be subdivided because it’s one acre, and that’s the minimum lot size. So I’ll shut up. Anything
else, gentlemen? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Counselor. I guess my major concern was when I
read the application as submitted, and the Chairman pointed this out, I was leery because there
seemed to be a hidden agenda. Well, of course, now that you’ve explained that, adequately, there is
no hidden agenda, and you’ve explained exactly why some information that would have cleared this
up was not listed in here, which makes sense. I have no quarrel with. Based upon your presentation
for your client, and taking into consideration the five criteria for granting Area Variances, based upon
your position as explained to this Board, I would have no problem with approval of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. Initially when I read the documentation on this, I was
against it, and basically, going along with the Staff notes, the feasible alternatives which was just to
leave the line, there was no real reason, in your documentation, as to why you would do this, but now
that you’ve presented that, I can understand it. Does Mr. Rapaport have intention of selling the
property soon?
MR. KRANTZ-I think it’s on the market. I believe so.
37
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. BRYANT-With that in mind, and in view of your explanation of the motive, I would be in favor
of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think the resounding question was why, and that has been answered in this
particular case. Thirty-five feet of relief, in this particular case, taking the average shorefront, is not a
problem for me, and all things considered, and quite frankly, this was a dispute where one neighbor
bought out another. That’s a way to solve a problem. So, I mean, many of our cases would be easier
if they were solved that way. So, to me, that kind of finishes it. So, I think, on balance, with what
knowledge we’ve gained, I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of it for the reasons given. The mystery has been solved and I’m
satisfied with the ending.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of it. Normally I would be a stickler and say, hey, it’s supposed to be
150 feet, let’s keep it as close to that as possible, but when you look up and down the lake, all the lots
are about the size of 115, 109, 100. So there’s no real effect on the community, and to be perfectly
honest with you, unless you went down there, which no one ever does unless they’re visiting the
property, no one’s going to be affected by it whatsoever. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m in favor of the application. I agree with the reasons given by my
fellow Board members. Thank you.
MR. STONE-It’s amazing when we get answers to the one basic question that obviously troubled all
of us. I think the more important thing to me, in terms of the lot size, it is a one acre lot. We don’t
have enough of those in our one acre zoning area. The fact that the lakefront will be a little reduced
doesn’t really trouble me because we certainly have room enough to put a dock on. We put docks on
much less lake frontage than 115 feet, and as someone said, the mystery is solved. I have no
problem, and I would call for a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2001 MYRON S. AND BARBARA
RAPAPORT, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman
Himes:
16 Burnt Ridge Road. In this case, the applicant proposes adjustment to the boundary line running
from Burnt Ridge Road to the shore of Lake George. Specifically, the applicant requests 35 feet of
relief from the minimum shoreline requirement of 150 feet, pursuant to the WR-1A zone
requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-16, Subsection F. The benefit to the
applicant would be that they would be permitted to take 25 feet of width from their southern parcel
and add it to their northern parcel, where their residence is now situated. That would effectively
increase the length of their lake frontage and the width of their lot. Feasible alternatives would be to
leave the property line where it is. However, given the lot sizes, there’s no real likelihood that there
would be any further subdivision or development of separate primary residences along these parcels,
and therefore that’s not an alternative. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I would
characterize it as moderate, as Staff has done. The effects on the neighborhood or community are
non-existent. This seems to be a dispute and resolution between two neighbors, and the only effect
it will have is on these two neighbors, and not on the neighborhood or community, and is the
difficulty self-created? Not really. The original lots are what they are, and this is simply a resolution
of a private dispute which is probably the most practical that they can make it. For all these reasons,
I would move the approval of the variance.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
38
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. Thank you very much, and I also, what I do from time to time, is thank
you for volunteering your time. A lot of people in the audience don’t realize sometimes that you’re
unpaid and you’re giving up your evenings.
MR. STONE-Moderate pay.
MR. KRANTZ-Moderate pay.
MR. STONE-For mileage.
MR. KRANTZ-Do you? Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s what it works out to be. Right?
MR. HAYES-Minimal to moderate.
MR. STONE-Minimal to moderate.
MR. STONE-It’s not substantial.
MR. KRANTZ-And you obviously take your work seriously, and you’re to be commended.
MR. STONE-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Counselor. However, a buffet would suffice.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2001 TYPE: II JOSEPH AND NANCY POLONSKY
AGENT: CURTIS D. DYBAS PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH AND NANCY
POLONSKY PROPERTY LOCATION: 98 BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT
ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING
GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 528 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 14-2000 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 9-
1-18 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16
CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2001, Joseph and Nancy Polonsky, Meeting Date:
November 15, 2001 “Project Location: 98 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing garage and construction of a 528 sq.
ft. two car detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21.3 feet of relief from the 30-
foot front setback, and 14.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirements, and relief to
develop a Floor Area Ratio of 29% where 22% is allowable per § 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 garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 21.3 feet of relief may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance (71%)
for the front setback, and 14.4 feet may also be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance
(72%) for the side setback. Also, an additional 7% of relief above the 22% maximum floor area ratio
may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty
self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): AV 55-1995; 8/23/95, demolition of 2000 sq. ft. house and replace with a
2500 sq. ft. house, setback relief (second 1 year extension denied 8/23/97). AV 5-1998; 2/18/98,
setbacks and FAR relief. BP 98-379; 7/1/98, demolition of structure. BP 98-380; 10/13/99,
temporary c/o; 2670 sq. ft. single family dwelling. AV 14-2000; 2/23/00, expansion of deck and
setback relief sought. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The proposed new garage will have the same front and side setbacks that exist now.
Consideration may be given to the impact of essentially doubling the size of an already non-
compliant structure without any improvement to the existing setback violation. Was a new garage
considered in 1999 when the house was built? Could provisions have been made at that time?
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. URRICO-There doesn’t seem to be any County action.
MR. STONE-Okay.
39
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. DYBAS-My name is Curtis Dybas. I reside at Deer Run, Lake George, NY, and I’m acting as
agent for Nancy and Joseph Polonsky. I think the application pretty well sums up what the proposal
is, is to demolish an existing one car garage down to the top if its existing slab, and leave the
foundation, expand on the foundation and slab, and construct a new 24 by 24 foot two car garage, on
two of the lines of the existing garage, and not exceed the 16 foot high ridge height.
MR. STONE-The two sides are the side toward the adjoining property and the roadway?
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. MC NALLY-On the opposite side of Bay Parkway, there’s a cleared area with gravel laid down,
sufficient for perhaps three cars. Do the Polonsky’s use that for parking?
MR. DYBAS-That is their, currently is their parking area.
MR. MC NALLY-Who actually owns that property?
MR. DYBAS-It is my understanding it is in Association ownership, and nothing can be constructed
on that property, including septic. That is my understanding.
MR. MC NALLY-So the Polonsky’s are part owners of, or members of the Association, if you will?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that Association gives them permission to park there.
MR. STONE-That is the so called Otioka Association. They do own all the interior land there. In
terms of giving permission to park, I’m not sure, but most of the people who live on the lakeside
around there do park over there.
MR. HIMES-One question. It’s a fairly new residence. Why wouldn’t the garage be done at the time
that the residence was done?
MR. DYBAS-I was not involved in the residence construction or any part of it. I can’t answer that
question.
MR. STONE-It was a question posed by Staff notes, by Staff. Is any consideration been given to
pushing the garage slightly closer toward the house, toward the lake? I mean, I know the opening
there, is, what, 13 feet 8 inches, making this, while getting a little relief. I mean, there’s no effort
made to get any relief at all from the current nonconforming situation.
MR. DYBAS-There is that possibility, but you have to give something up, and mainly you’re giving
up permeability, and you’re basically destroying, you’ve got to dig out the entire foundation to do it.
It could be a consideration.
MR. STONE-Well, you’re not using the total foundation. You’re using just part of it right now. You
are decreasing permeability now, with the new.
MR. DYBAS-But if you pushed it back, the gravel area in the Town of Queensbury is considered
non-permeable.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. DYBAS-So that’s one of the reasons, and obviously the second reason is you’re using the
foundation and the slab that’s there. You’re adding to it, granted, but if you do push it back, even if
you push it back off the front foundation, you might as well tear the whole thing out at that point.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, first of all, in terms of permeability, according to your numbers, there’s an
additional eight percent that this can be.
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. STONE-Secondly, regardless of what the permeability percent is, the property is responsible for
its own stormwater, in some manner.
MR. DYBAS-That is correct.
MR. STONE-So, I mean, we can go down to 65 and still the applicant has to take care of the
stormwater. The other thing in your favor, and I want to bring it out because I was noticing the Staff
40
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
notes talked to a floor area ratio of 29%. Currently, the property is at 26%. I mean, it’s over by four
percent now. I’m trying to think, was that granted, that must have been granted in the relief.
MR. BRYANT-It was. It was granted in ’98, it says.
MR. STONE-That’s right. I’m forgetting that’s there, yes. Okay.
MR. DYBAS-It can be pushed back. It would benefit pushing it back. It would be nice to get a car
length in front of the doors. It would just give you that much more parking on this site.
MR. STONE-I don’t know if that’s good or bad. You said it.
MR. DYBAS-That was, the original proposal as submitted was trying to keep the maximum
permeability of the site and also use the foundation. If it’s the wishes of the Board to decrease that
space between the garage and the house to gain more setback along the road, I’m sure that my client
would be more than happy to entertain it.
MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I bring it out. I don’t know whether, what it does for me except that I
appreciate your consideration of it.
MR. ABBATE-How many vehicles do Mr. and Mrs. Polonsky currently own?
MR. DYBAS-Two.
MR. ABBATE-Two. So they would be able to take both these vehicles and shelter them during the
winter?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is that the intent, to use the garage?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, it is. They’ve sold their home in Allenville and this is going to be their permanent
residence.
MR. ABBATE-I had one other comment here. I notice in Section Five, where they indicate, will the
variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood, and apparently Mr. Polonsky wrote in there that the roof stormwater will be retained
on site?
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And that he intends to put, gravel retaining troughs will be placed along the eaves
sides.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And I’m assuming that if we made that a stipulation, there would be no problem.
MR. DYBAS-There would be no problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No, Mr. Chairman.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-So we’re now back to any other questions before I ask Jamie to tell us what he thinks?
41
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the County Recommendation was for No County
Impact.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I thought we said that earlier.
MR. BROWN-I thought you didn’t find it.
MR. STONE-But you said it and I repeated it, I thought. Maybe that was the one before. I don’t
know. So there is No County Impact. Okay.
MR. HAYES-I think the Staff notes accurately depict how I feel about the project. From a linear
perspective, you’re not encroaching any further to the property lines than the current garage already
is, which of course would be of great concern. While the relief is substantial to the Ordinance when
you consider it on a percentage basis, the fact that it’s not changing in my mind makes it not as
substantial, as far as an impact on the immediate neighbors or the neighborhood. The fact that the
applicant is proposing construction of a 528 square foot garage, to me, that is a moderate sized
garage. This is not, we’re not being asked to create something that would look severely
disproportionate to the lot, toward the neighborhood, or in my mind, as some other garages that
attempt to actually gain pseudo living space above the garage, and we’ve dealt with that in certain
circumstances, but I don’t think that’s the case here. There’s no evidence to that effect. I personally
believe that leaving the garage where it is, versus pushing it back, is actually better, from an aesthetic
perspective, than having more gravel and more cars parked in front. I think, in the end, from a
feasible alternative perspective, they’re limited based on the nature of the lot, and in fact this may be
the best alternative if we’re going to build a new garage on this site. Is the difficulty self-created? In
most cases, difficulties are self-created. They want a new garage. They feel that they need it if they
sold their house. I guess that makes it self-created, but it’s been pointed out by other Board
members in the past, and I believe it to be true, that we live in an area where if this is their primary
residence, if they have two cars, a two car garage is not a stretch. It’s probably a reality, a necessity.
So I think, on balance, I could be in favor of this application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. This is one of those situations where, when you look at the request on
paper, it doesn’t quite match what the property is, and in this case, I think the relief requested is
reasonable. I think it fits the criteria that we’re asked to measure it against, and I think most of the
criteria, we come out in favor of it, at least in my estimation, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got to be the nay sayer, I guess. I understand that the applicant needs a
garage, but we have, in this case, an instance where the applicant has a garage. It’s just that they
would like a second one, space for a second car, and I think that, in places along the lake in the Town
of Queensbury, I’ve been kind of uniform of opposing garages at the roadside. I remember we’ve
had several applications at Sunnyside. We’ve had lots of applications on Rockhurst, and in other
locations sporadically throughout the Town, where if you build a garage, nine feet from the road, I
don’t think it’s appropriate putting a garage in that area, as close to the roadway and as close to the
side line. So I find that the relief requested is substantial. This is a tiny lot, and the garage should not
have been built where it is now to begin with. It is there. They’ve got one already, but to make it
bigger is just going to compound the problem, and I do see this as self created. I was not here to
approve, at least I don’t remember Mr. Polonsky’s garage, excuse me, home, but I do remember it
being built, and I remember the brouhaha that we had with the deck at the rear. Clearly, this was
built in anticipation of retirement. It was built in anticipation it was going to be a year round
residence, and no provision was made regarding a garage, which perhaps if it had been built into the
house could have been alleviating some of our problems. So, with all due respect, I can’t support
this application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I feel a little uptight about this. I agree with what Jamie and the
other Board members say, and I agree with what Bob said, too. I have been thinking about, well, it’s
better to have it as far away from the lake as possible, and not to have all the additional gravel by
adding a driveway to get it away from the road, but it is right on top of the road, but again, it’s not an
uncommon thing on the lake, and maybe the leisurely life that people lead out there, they aren’t
driving around 50 miles an hour, that the likelihood of danger or accidents being caused by the
proximity of the garage to the road may not be a horrendous safety situation, and then I also looked
at something like the resident next door, and you know, this huge, huge place, and I’m parked and
I’m looking at them both thinking, well, here’s this little garage, and I kind of have to come down,
for some of the other Board members have mentioned of being in favor of the application, in spite
of the fact I’m very suspicious as to why it wasn’t done when the house was built, because it wasn’t a
42
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
matter of affordability or anything else, and I would like to have an answer to that, but I don’t think
I’ll ever get one. To make a long story short, I think I’ll vote yes for the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bob made some valid points. However, I would
like to take those points that Bob made and then add several words, fair and reasonable. What is a
fair and reasonable approach? What would be my position if I were Mr. Polonsky, selling my home
in I think it was said Allenville, and moving up to this beautiful area, I want to make it a year round
home. Sure, I have a single garage there, at the present time, that was built with the house. The
question came up, well, why didn’t I have a two car garage? Well, we’ll probably never know the
answer to that, but fair and balanced, 528 square foot of a garage. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
It is a year round. I think in this area if one has two cars, a two car garage is almost a necessity today.
So based upon fair and balanced, I think I would go along with approving the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I think something should be said for planning. In 1998 when they
applied for the permit, the variance for the floor area ratio, and I know a couple of us have talked
about the setbacks. The new garage really doesn’t affect the existing setbacks. It’s going to be
basically identical. I think in the floor area ratio case, though, when we were building a 2600 square
foot house to replace an existing 2,000 square foot house, we should have thought about future
needs for the garage, and as I looked down through the Staff notes, feasible alternatives, they say that
the alternatives appear to be limited. I disagree with that. I think the alternative is to replace the
existing garage with a one car garage. You’re out of room. There is no more room to build a two car
garage on that lot. So I agree, somewhat, with what Mr. Abbate just said, but fair and balanced, in
1998, we already exceeded the floor area ratio, and we shouldn’t even be here now. So I would be
opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-I find myself, as I often am, conflicted. I’m, as everyone knows, a very staunch
supporter of our waterfront zoning and every once and a while you find yourself at odds with your
own thinking. I think Mr. Bryant made a very cogent argument just now, in terms of why wasn’t it
anticipated that we were going to need a two car garage for this particular piece of property, and then
maybe scale down the house a little bit so that we don’t go much beyond the floor area ratio that we
had before. That’s one that’s given us a great deal of trouble, the floor area ratio. I hardly agree with
it. I understand, however, it does cause some problems from time to time, but I really do believe
that 22% isn’t a bad number, everything else being considered. I am troubled by the fact that,
something that was said earlier, not during this discussion, about parking across the street. I would
not like to see this garage put where it is, and at the same time, continue to have a fair amount of
parking across the street on a, I can’t say overnight, because obviously people have guests who come
up for a short period of time and that’s the place they’re going to have to park, but I don’t want to
get in a situation where I’ve now got a 500 some square foot garage, eight and a half feet from the
road, and cars parked immediately on the other side of the pavement. You tend to get an effect very
similar to the effect that exists next door, all day long during the construction phase of this house
that was referred to, when there are approximately 14 cars on one side and a fence on the other. I
don’t know what kind of condition we can put on this. As I say, we can’t say no overnight parking
because obviously if you have a guest up for the weekend, they want to be able to park somewhere.
So I am troubled. I also am aware of the argument of the permeability, although I do think that we
could decrease the permeability, still stay legal and at the same time ensure that the property owner
take care of the stormwater, but, when I look down, so I guess, on balance, I’m inclined to say no,
only because I think there is a feasible, limited alternative that I would like to see the applicant
consider, but, having said that, I notice that the votes are there to approve this variance, and I would
call on one of the people who said they would vote for it to give me a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2001 JOSEPH AND NANCY
POLONSKY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
98 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing garage and the
construction of a 528 square foot two car detached garage. Specifically, the applicant requests 21.3
feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback, and 14.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback and
relief to develop a Floor Area Ratio of 29%, versus the 22% which is allowable in Section 179-16.
The benefit to the applicant would be they would be permitted to construct the garage as they desire.
I believe that feasible alternatives are limited, in this circumstance, based on the current placement of
the existing garage and also the dimensions of the lot in general. Is the relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance? I believe that that is two-fold. Certainly 21.3 feet of relief is substantial, relative to
the Ordinance, but I believe that this is mitigated by the fact that that particular amount of relief is
the current amount of relief, and therefore no additional side setback requests are being made in this
particular circumstances. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there would be
very moderate, if any, effects on the neighborhood or community, in this particular case. Is the
43
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
difficulty self-created? I believe that it is, but it’s mitigated by the fact that there’s evidence that the
Polonskys have sold their primary residence and now need a two car garage in this that will be their
primary residence. Based on that fact, I believe, marginally, the test falls in favor of the applicant,
and I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
MR. STONE-There you go. Four, three, it passes.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001 TYPE II DONALD AND LYNN KING AGENT:
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. AND JIM MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: DONALD
AND LYNN KING PROPERTY LOCATION: 23 ANTIGUA ROAD ZONE: WR-3A
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 781 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND 945 SQ. FT. PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE ON THE
SAME PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND FOR A SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THE SAME LOT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN OVERSIZED GARAGE (1,256 SQ. FT.) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-7 NEW TAX MAP NO.
239.17-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-12, 179-16, 179-7
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Read Mr. Lapper’s letter.
MR. URRICO-Okay. This is addressed to Chairman Stone, dated October 31, 2001, “On behalf of
Don and Lynn King, I am hereby submitting an application for an Area Variance for the replacement
of an existing carriage house. The site plan drawings prepared by Jim Miller and the building
elevations prepared by Howland Construction, Inc. have been submitted under separate cover. I also
enclose a check in the amount of $50 to cover the application fee. The proposal involves the
removal of an existing 159 square foot cabin and the construction of a new two story 1,256 carriage
house to replace the existing carriage house. The existing front (Antigua Road) setback of 15.25 feet
is proposed to remain. While the site would permit the new carriage house to be relocated to comply
with the thirty foot setback, it is not feasible due to the site constraints. There is an approximately 8’
grade drop from the 30’ setback line towards the lake. If the new carriage house was to be
constructed in a compliant location the grade change would require that the building be much taller
and much more visible from the perspective of the lake to account for the grade change and to
enable cars to enter from the road elevation. The compliant location would also be less desirable
because the existing location is farther from the lake and better shielded from the lake. As indicated
on the elevation drawings, the carriage house has been designed with a second story shingled roof
rather than siding to give the appearance of a smaller building. Additionally, a variance may be
required from § 179-12C(5) for the construction of a second principal building (residence) on a lot
less than two acres in size. In discussions with Zoning Administrator Craig Brown he suggested that
we apply for both variances. However, if the lot under consideration is only the lot located within
the Town of Queensbury, it contains no principal building. My recollection is that when the ZBA
considered the application of Robert Wall (two parcels to the south) the ZBA determined to consider
the variance (in that case floor area ratio) based upon only the land within the Town of Queensbury
and did not consider the entire parcel which included land located within the Town of Lake George.
We are therefor submitting both variances in case the Board determines that the second principal
variance is required. The existing well will be replaced with a lake water intake to comply with the
DOH separation distance requirement. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of your
November meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2001, Donald and Lynn King, Meeting Date: November 15,
2001 “Project Location: 23 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of existing 781 sq. ft. garage and in its place, construction of a second 945 sq. ft. dwelling
(carriage house) built above an oversized garage (1275 sq. ft.) Relief Required: Applicant requests
14.75 feet of relief from the 30’ front setback requirement, and for a second principal building on the
same lot per 179-16, 179-12. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum
for the construction of an oversized garage (1275 sq. ft.) per 179-7. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives include replacing the old garage with a new garage within the
44
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
allowable 900 sq. ft. and without a second principal residence. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 14.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot front setback requirement could be
considered moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 375 sq. ft. above the 900 sq. ft. allowed
for a garage could be considered moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. A second
principal residence might be considered substantial being the applicant shows no cause other than
desiring a second residence. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects
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 are other feasible alternatives such as replacing the old garage
with a newer, larger garage within the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowed. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Moderate impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. The application does not appear to show cause other
than desiring another residence above an oversized garage. The applicant could replace the old
garage with a new and larger compliant garage. Setback relief would be the same as the existing
garage. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Gentlemen?
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Don King, and Jim Miller. I disagree
strongly with how Craig, and respectfully, with how Craig characterized the variance. It seems like
we’re asking for a lot and I’d like to try and convince you why we don’t think that we’re asking for a
lot here, and I think Craig was correct that I didn’t really give the justification for why we’re looking
for the apartment over the new carriage house. To begin with, it’s a unique lot because it’s in both
towns, and we’ve seen that before on Antigua Road. The footprint of this single story, and I’m sure
you’ve all seen the property, of this single story house built in the 1920’s, is approximately 1800
square feet. So we’ve got a main residence that is undersized, based upon some of the monster
houses that are being built on the lake, but in general, 1800 square feet is not something that this
Board would usually consider a large dwelling. Instead of doing everything that we’re doing to come
before the Queensbury Board and to put this in the back of the property, the applicant could go to
Lake George and add a second story or make a substantial modification to the Lake George building
which would be much more visible from the lake, if they want to put the addition within the main
structure, and instead we’re trying to do something to create some additional living space, but to do it
in a much more subtle way, to put it in the back by the road and away from the lake. I think we have
to discuss the issue first, as to whether or not this is a second principal residence and whether the
Board wants to look at it in this case as we’re looking at just the Queensbury parcel versus the whole
parcel, but before we go there, I just want to explain that, Jim, could you just jump ahead to the
elevation drawing? The reason why the three car garage on the bottom floor exceeds the 900 square
foot allowable is an architectural reason. It’s not that they have to have the 30 foot width of the
garage, but in order to minimize this, we think that that is an attractive design, and in order to
minimize the size of the house, it’s designed by Howland to have this, the large shingled roof. So it
really appears as a one story dwelling, and for that reason, and you can see in the floor plans, there’s
really only a four foot wall on much of that space upstairs. So it’s a way, although the footprint is
larger, it minimizes the square feet of the upstairs apartment, so that you can do it with shingle and
just make it a more attractive and really more minimal dwelling, and that’s really the whole reason
why we’re here to ask for the variance. Beyond that, if the Board determines that we’re just looking a
the Queensbury lot, like you have as I pointed out in a neighboring property, if we just look at
Queensbury, this is the only principal residence. Then we don’t have to ask for the, I believe we
don’t have to ask for the variance for more than 900 square feet because it’s only detached garages.
If it was a principal residence, it would be no problem having a three bay garage, but in general, I’d
like to ask you to look at what we consider to be an attractive carriage house, similar in design and
size to what’s there, although admittedly larger than the one that’s there, putting it in the same
location, and you heard my application, my justification of the application why, if we move it closer
to the lake, we wouldn’t need the side setback relief, but that would probably be more of an impact
in the neighborhood and it would appear as a bigger building because we’d be really messing with the
grade and moving a lot of dirt, and that’s probably not what this Board would want. I guess I think
the first thing is probably for the Board to tell us how you want to view, in terms of what variance
we’re asking for, whether we’re looking at the Queensbury lot by itself or whether we’re looking at
the whole parcel, as the Zoning Administrator has suggested.
MR. STONE-What’s the size of the total parcel?
MR. MILLER-A little over three quarters of an acre.
MR. STONE-The total lot is only three quarters of an acre?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-It’s actually one of the larger lake parcels in this area, of the residences, compared to
some of the other ones we’ve talked about.
45
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Lapper, I see on the drawing a new leachfield?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And an existing absorption field. Is this something that’s planned or is that
something that’s going to be in place?
MR. MILLER-The existing absorption field is a system that serves the existing main house and Tom
Nace developed and designed, what we would do is, if this new building was constructed with the
unit above, rather than try to expand the existing system, there would be a separate system installed
for the new building.
MR. MC NALLY-So this is a proposed new leachfield?
MR. MILLER-Yes. The one on the north is proposed.
MR. HIMES-I, too, when I visited the area, I thought the house, the residence on the lake is modest,
and kind of a charming looking thing, and I thought pretty much the same thing of the existing
carriage house, so to speak. It looked quite big. I was kind of thinking, gee, how can they build
anything bigger, and I thought that was quite charming, too, with the gables and the rest. I’m getting
so I appreciate any older than I am, but let’s say that, it would seem obvious to me that, given how
small the residence is, that a little extra space would be needed, and I was wondering why, I’d hate to
see it happen, but why it wasn’t done on the principal residence, and then I thought that, well, let’s
say that this happens, that what would prevent you all from saying, a year or two from now we will
add on to the principal residence which is on the Lake George side, I guess. So that way you’d have.
MR. LAPPER-That is, all we can say, I don’t know what a future owner might do, but that is
absolutely not the plan.
MR. HIMES-No. I’m not asking you to answer that. I’m just saying this is kind of what’s going
through my mind, in connection with, on the one hand I can certainly see if you have company or
what not, you know, it’s pretty crowded.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It would be a shame to mess with the lines of the existing house.
MR. HIMES-And the house being what it is, and then I think, well, the structure that’s there now
appears to be quite large. I don’t know what might be able to be done to that to convert it into some
kind of living space. However, that’s the thing we’re arguing about is the second residence. So how
it’s done, I guess, is neither here nor there. So the fact that, as far as you’re thinking now, you
wouldn’t tinker with the residence, the basic residence. You have no plans to remodel or add on or
anything to that?
DON KING
MR. KING-Over the period of the 12 years that I’ve owned the place, I’ve discussed it with three
different architects, from time to time. Invariably we go around full circle, and the architects say, it’s
really difficult and not desirable, to change the character of the existing house. It’s a cottage. It’s
modest. It’s 1800 square feet. It is, I’m at a point now where I have children that are married and
I’m beginning to, I have two grandchildren, and, you know, when people start coming, and this is a
full time residence for us. When people start coming in the summertime, all of a sudden you have
guests, and then family come. All of a sudden the house is just a little too small at 1800 feet to really
accommodate too many people, being your full time residence, because you have your office there,
whatever, you know, that kind of thing. So the garage was really thought of as being a full time
residence. This goes back to the discussion with the Polonskys. Now that this is a full time
residence, I really need a good two car garage, but I also have an antique boat. I have an old wooden
boat. The reason for the three car issue was to have it big enough so that I could put my boat in,
which I like to work on, and I’ve worked on ever since I’ve owned it for five or six years, so that I
can have it accessible to me during the wintertime. When I have, I’m in the construction business.
My season runs from the first of April until the middle of December, and when I have my free time,
it tends to be in the wintertime, and I would like to have that accessibility to work on my hobby,
which I have a limited time, for three months, or something to do. So there’s the reason. The
upstairs almost became an afterthought. Well, if we’re going to build a garage big enough to handle
two cars, were not going to go, physically, I don’t think, when you look at the little shed that’s on
there right now, it’s almost not going to be any bigger than it is right now, except the roofline gets
extended a little bit farther toward the lake, over the top of that existing shed.
MR. HIMES-You mean the shed that’s attached right to the end of it? Yes, that’s what I was
thinking.
46
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. KING-Yes, which was an afterthought that somebody put on after that carriage house was
built. That carriage house was really the carriage house for the house on the Pointe, when that was
all one big estate. It’s not my property, but there’s a house where the motel is, and that carriage
house was part of that estate property, a long time ago, as was my facility, which was the summer
guest house, the place where they put guests of children, back in the 20’s and 30’s, when it was built.
So the big deal here was the most unobtrusive, the most insignificant, non-impact that you could
possibly do to gain a little more space on the property, and give myself the accommodation of the
two car garage would be to just expand what’s there by a minimal amount, and I don’t think the
average person would even know that it’s changed because it’s so screened now you’d have to be on
the property to see it, or the neighbor’s property to the south.
MR. LAPPER-I think Norm’s question also asked why we’re not talking about renovating that, the
existing carriage house, and I’d like Jim to just address that.
MR. MILLER-Originally, the plan was to look at renovating the existing carriage house, but, you
know, as you’ve said already, there’s been a few additions on it. There is a second floor there, but
it’s, you know, fairly small and used mostly for storage. It also, the floor in the carriage house is a
wooden floor. So it’s not structurally sound to really function, and looking at renovating it, it was
easier to replace it and really make a garage out of it, but the design, you know, the intent of the
design was such to try to maintain the character of what’s there by bringing that roofline down and
creating the living space on the second level, using dormers rather than extending the siding higher
and I think the design really does that fairly well. One of the other things about, as part of the space
of the garage being larger, exceeding 900 square feet, a large portion of that exception is the
circulation of stairway and entry way to get to that unit upstairs. So that’s actually been included in
the garage, in that floor level.
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to address a different issue. Your informational package is quite interesting.
We have an obligation to take seriously testimonial evidence, as well as documentary evidence that
comes to us, but we also have to be careful to ensure that the information we receive is accurate.
Now, I have a letter here, we all have a letter here, from the Lake George Association.
MR. STONE-We’ll read it in.
MR. ABBATE-You read it in?
MR. STONE-No, we haven’t. We will.
MR. ABBATE-Shall I address this?
MR. STONE-Why don’t you wait until after we read it in at the public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have no problems with that.
MR. LAPPER-We didn’t get a copy of that from the Town. So we’re not aware of that letter.
MR. STONE-It just came tonight, too.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STONE-We’d be glad to give you a copy, but I would prefer to read that in during the public
hearing.
MR. ABBATE-But I would like to address this issue.
MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. Any other questions at this point in time?
MR. HAYES-I have a question on the existing carriage house. Is that used as living space now? I
mean, do people stay there?
MR KING-No, sir. There’s no accommodations at all.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Because, Craig, in your notes, you depict it as demolishing the 781 square foot
garage and it sounds like it says replacing existing carriage house.
MR. KING-We’ve always referred to it as the carriage house.
MR. HAYES-That’s a more accurate depiction of what it is now.
47
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. KING-It looks like a carriage house, but there really isn’t any room.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. KING-For vehicles or carriages, whatever. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t a
seasonal difference in what the uses were.
MR. STONE-What’s the purpose of keeping the, as the guy who was doing the leaves today said,
keeping the ice house?
MR. LAPPER-The thing about the ice house is that, I mean, we, if there’s anything we have to throw
on the table, we could that on, but Don just put a new foundation on it. It’s a nice structure.
MR. KING-It was original. It’s aesthetic. It’s an ice house. There aren’t too many ice houses left.
MR. LAPPER-The bunk house that we’re proposing to take down is a mess. I mean, so taking that
down is only going to help, but it would be nice to keep the ice house. If the Board felt it was
important to take the ice house down, to justify the relief, we can talk about it.
MR. STONE-I just was asking the question. No judgement there yet.
MR. KING-We’d like to retain as much of the original character of the property as possible.
MR. STONE-Does anybody else have a question? Why don’t I open the public hearing so we can
get that letter read into it. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. A letter addressed to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from
the Lake George Association, it’s signed Heather K. Shoudy Brechko, Land Use Management
Coordinator, I addresses AV 90-2001, Donald and Lynn King, it says, “Dear Board Members: The
Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) has had the opportunity to review the application materials for
the above-mentioned project. This letter will outline LGA’s concerns about the project. Please
consider these items when making your decision on this application: 1. The lot where the project is
proposed is substandard under the Town of Queensbury’s current zoning. This lot is in the WR-3A
zone and that zone requires a lot area of 3 acres. This lot is 0.37 acres. 2. The applicant has not
shown that they have met the criteria for granting an area variance. 3. Allowing two principal
structures on a lakeside lot would set a dangerous precedence. 4. This activity, if approved, will fall
under a minor stormwater project under the local stormwater regulations and will require stormwater
management controls. Thank you for consideration of our comments in the interest of the
protection of the water quality of Lake George. Sincerely, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use
Management Coordinator”
MR. STONE-Any other correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No, sir.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-You may wish to respond, or Mr. Abbate asked a question.
MR. ABBATE-May I ask my questions first?
MR. LAPPER-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. There is a presumption that information submitted to us is accurate.
There’s no reason to have any other presumption. I’m assuming the information you submitted to
us is accurate, and I’m assuming that the information submitted to Lake George Association is
accurate, but I see a conflict.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And I’m hoping you can clear this up. This is really what’s bothering me. You
indicated that you had, well, they indicate that your lot is 0.37. You made a statement that your lot is
three quarters.
48
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. LAPPER-We’re looking at both parcels when we say three quarters. We’re looking at, when
you look at the lot, you don’t see the imaginary line between the Towns. You just see a parcel of
property. So we’re talking about the whole parcel. She is talking about the Queensbury side, but
what’s interesting is that, on number one she says the lot is .37 acres, and number three she said
allowing two principal structures on a lakeside lot would set a dangerous precedence. So in three
she’s looking at both parcels, the three quarters, and in one she’s looking at the .37.
MR. ABBATE-So your total site is really 33,540, am I correct in that assumption?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The rest of it is opinions, and I’m not going to get into that right now. I just
wanted to clear up some of these statistics and make sure.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. The point about the current zoning, which I think is worth mentioning,
is that this would be what would be considered, if you look at just the lot in the Town of
Queensbury, it’s a tax map parcel that they pay taxes on in the Town of Queensbury. It would be
considered a pre-existing, undersized lot in Queensbury, which could, under the Zoning Ordinance,
pre-existing, undersized lots are allowed to have a residence built in it, and if we were going to do
that, the only, the requirement would be the setback, which sometimes you get setback relief if you
need it, but here we wouldn’t for pre-existing, nonconforming, and the other issue would be the
floor area ratio, that usually we’re all here talking about. In this case Jim, on the site plan, calculated
the floor area ratio, and we could have another 1,000 square feet added to this building, and we
would still be complying with the floor area ratio, so she’s wrong in terms of the substandard that it’s
bad to allow a house. If somebody wanted to do it, it wouldn’t require a variance. You could just
build a 3,000 square foot house on this parcel, because this is a parcel in the Town of Queensbury,
and that’s certainly not what the applicant’s asking for. This is just a carriage house, ancillary to the
residence that’s in the Town of Lake George.
MR. ABBATE-Well, if that’s your position, would Staff agree to that, his statement?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s pre-existing, and that’s true.
MR. STONE-It’s pre-existing.
MR. BROWN-The property is pre-existing. There’s no question about that. I think the one thing
that we’re going to get back to before you get to a decision, is something that Mr. Lapper asked you
to cut to the chase right in the beginning of his presentation. Is this a second principal building on
one lot, or is this just one lot on a smaller portion in the Town of Queensbury? With all due respect
to the presentation Mr. Lapper made, that decision’s been made. That’s not a decision that you guys
have to make. I made the decision that this is a second principal building on the lot, and that leaves
us with two choices. You agree with that and acknowledge that and say that this is going to be a
second principal building, and go forward with approving that variance, or go down the road of
denying that, at which point I’m sure Mr. Lapper would ask you to table it and then he’d appeal that
determination, but what you don’t have before you tonight is the appeal.
MR. STONE-We don’t have that.
MR. BROWN-He’s here with an application that acknowledges that determination. So you don’t
have to make that determination tonight, is it a second principal. That’s already been done. If
there’s no concurrence on the applicant’s part, then they should appeal that determination. I think
that’s what we’re looking at.
MR. STONE-Yes, let’s go back over that again, Craig. You said that it’s a second principal
residence, but we could grant a variance for a second principal residence.
MR. BROWN-Sure you could.
MR. STONE-That’s in our purview.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So we could make.
MR. BROWN-That’s the application before you tonight.
MR. STONE-That’s the application. Okay.
49
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. BRYANT-Is that what precedence has already set? When you get a lot that’s divided between
two towns, in the consideration of all these calculations, has precedent already been set that you have
to consider this as one lot in both towns, where you consider the structures and the floor area ratio
and permeability and all that other stuff?
MR. BROWN-Well, I think it’s such a unique circumstance that there isn’t really a history to set a
precedent. There may be three lots in the entire Town that have this problem, or half a dozen, and
five of the six are on this road, and two of the six have been before this Board.
MR. ABBATE-So we would agree that this is really a unique set of circumstances?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Which would require, perhaps, unique considerations.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. That’s fine.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the decision before us are two, two pieces of relief. One the fact that this is
a second residence, because this will be a full apartment up there with bathroom and kitchen
facilities, and obviously septic, and the fact that it’s an oversized garage to begin with. So there are
two things. Mr. Lapper, you’re studying. Do you agree?
MR. LAPPER-I guess, what I would say is that I did not ask the Zoning Administrator to make a
formal determination, and I don’t think, he didn’t issue a written determination. So I’m not sure that
I agree with him that I’m appealing that determination.
MR. STONE-He didn’t say you’re appealing that.
MR. LAPPER-No, no, that I need to. I’m sorry. I think that, I am, like usual, I am comfortable
getting the relief requested, in any way that the Board feels comfortable giving it.
MR. ABBATE-And as usual, Counselor, remember the burden of responsibility falls on your
shoulders, not the Board’s.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Did you hear what he said, Craig?
MR. BROWN-I did not.
MR. STONE-He said you did not issue a written determination of your position. Therefore, he’s not
sure what the status of that is.
MR. BROWN-I’m not completely convinced that all determinations have to be formal, written
determinations that are appealable. If information’s conveyed and an application is presented along
those lines, you acknowledge the information that you’ve gotten.
MR. LAPPER-And I’m not sure we need to go there anyway.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But I do think that the Board treated the application two lots down differently, in
terms of whether you look at the entire lot or just the Queensbury lot, and in that lot, you were
looking at the Queensbury lot, and I don’t know if we have to go there either. I’m just pointing that
out.
MR. STONE-Let’s try not to go there.
MR. ABBATE-If we don’t want to go there, let’s not raise the issue then.
MR. MILLER-Because of the uniqueness of the lot, you’ll see in our application we did the
calculations both ways, one for the total site, and one just for the Queensbury side.
MR. STONE-Yes, I saw that.
50
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. MILLER-So also if you look, the permeability and the percent of floor area ratio and everything
works both ways.
MR. STONE-Just as an aside, Mr. Miller, what the straight line on the left side of the drawing that is
tangential to the property line, at least on my drawing. It doesn’t appear to be over there.
MR. MILLER-This line right here?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MILLER-There was a boundary line adjustment that was.
MR. LAPPER-I did that. That was over, we did that in the spring, I think, for Dave Montana, who
was the adjacent neighbor, wanted to expand his house, which is the one that has the Town line
going through it, and so we did a boundary adjustment.
MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t remember that.
MR. LAPPER-But because, it just took off those little triangles which was, you know, a few square
feet. It doesn’t really affect this application.
MR. STONE-I was just curious what it was.
MR. LAPPER-That was for the benefit of Don helping out his adjacent neighbor.
MR. STONE-Okay. That was probably in February when I wasn’t here.
MR. KING-May I speak to that for a second, from a layman’s standpoint, a non-legal standpoint. I
looked hard at this, real hard at this, and I liked this property very much, and you gentlemen
obviously have had an opportunity to walk on this property and see the size of the trees and the
terrain and the way the gentle slope is down to the lake. This property is pretty much, as far as I can
tell, with the addition of blacktop that was done before me. I took out a lot of the drainage stuff. It
actually had drainage ditches that you can actually see and partially on this drawing, and it was
directing water down to the lake, and I took those out and put more vegetation on the yard, in terms
of grass and shrubs and plantings, so that any runoff would be caught before it goes to the lake. I’ve
been very conscious about that. The ability to legal, to legitimately place a new garage on this
property can be done without coming before this Board, it’s my understanding right now, but that
would involve taking down some of those really tall pine trees. It would involve getting closer to the
lake. This seemed like a really sound, commonsense and environmentally the sensitive decision to
give myself a two car garage, or a three car, a one boat and two car garage, if you will. The apartment
thing was then the logical step that I didn’t really even think of myself, to provide extra
accommodation without modifying the existing character of the cottage part of the house.
MR. STONE-One of the concerns that I have, that we’ve had from time to time, is the oversized
garage. We have been pretty tough on garages over 900 square feet. I mean, it’s a fact. I can think
of one over in, the one with the RV, the guy wanted to build one over in Hudson Pointe, and we
were very tough on that. We haven’t given too much away in terms of garage size. So that’s one of
the obstacles that you’re talking about.
MR. LAPPER-And our argument is that we feel that we could put a 3,000 square foot building on
that lot. I want to just direct the Board’s attention to Section 179-76, General Exception to
Minimum Lot Requirements. “This Zoning Chapter, as it was revised on October 1, 1998, set forth
many new requirements concerning lot area, size, dimensions and setbacks. This section exempts
certain lots from the requirements of this chapter as it currently exists and as it existed since October
1, 1998, as follows: A. Any lot of record lawfully existing and complying with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance on the day prior to the adoption of the October 1, 1998, amendment
to the Town Zoning Ordinance that does not conform to this chapter as it existed on and after
October 1, 1998 (“nonconforming lot of record”), will be deemed as conforming to required area
and/or minimum lot width requirements of this chapter.” That’s why I’m considering this a
separate, buildable lot in the Town of Queensbury, and if you look at it that way.
MR. STONE-Staff, do you agree with his reading?
MR. BROWN-I agree that he read it correctly. His interpretation of it, that section has historically
been, and I think it’s in there to say, hey, if you’ve got a lot that’s a half an acre in a one acre zone, it’s
a lot, it exists. You don’t have to come for a variance to build on it because it’s a half an acre.
MR. LAPPER-I think that does apply here, though.
51
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. BROWN-I think it applies, that’s part of an argument. I don’t think that could be an entire
argument. I would agree that there is some property in the Town of Queensbury that looks like this,
and I’ve made the step that you use the whole parcel, everything that’s in one deed. It’s got one
street address. You’ve got one driveway into it. You look at the entire parcel. That’s my rationale,
but that’s an appeal argument.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s one lot.
MR. BROWN-It’s one lot.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s not a separate.
MR. LAPPER-I think that it is. Because I think that Queensbury doesn’t look at what’s in Lake
George.
MR. MC NALLY-When we did the Wall property, we did it both ways, just to see where it would fit.
We compared the floor area ratios on the entire lot, the Queensbury lot, but our decision, I think,
was independent of where the property was located, per se. It’s simply whether or not it complied
with the Town Zoning Ordinance.
MR. LAPPER-I tried to argue, in that case, that we didn’t have a floor area issue, if you looked at the
whole lot. It’s just that the Queensbury piece was small, and the Board wanted us to, and decided it
based upon looking at the Queensbury piece, and that’s why we needed the relief. So I’m just
pointing out that that’s not consistent, but again, I think that, we believe that this is a good project
because we think we could do it a lot bigger or we could do the house bigger, and this is a minimum
request, and the fact that it’s three bays of the garage, it’s in the same location of where it was and
not much bigger than it was, and we’re taking down a building.
MR. STONE-On what basis could it be bigger? Tell me again.
MR. HAYES-It’s the separate lot scenario.
MR. STONE-Separate lot scenario, okay.
MR. MC NALLY-He’s saying that that portion in Queensbury, and correct me if I’m wrong, is a
separate lot, and because it’s a separate lot, it’s entitled to one principal residence, therefore you he
can build a house on it.
MR. STONE-But he’s also creating an inaccessible lot.
MR. HAYES-He’s saying the Town line is a defacto subdivision, essentially.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I would have a terrible difficulty, given the fact that there are sheds
coming down, and that there are portions of the garage that certainly would fit a couple of cars or
three cars, but a second residence is something more troubling to me. That is something that, on a
small lot like this, we’ve never really approved. Have we ever approved a second residence?
MR. STONE-Not that I know of.
MR. BROWN-There was one on Glen Lake where two lots in a critical environmental, you have to
consider them as one. It was the Hughes/Hensler. They wanted a second house where they already
had an existing house.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-But it’s a different scenario. The lot wasn’t nearly this size.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, what was the Section you referred to earlier?
MR. LAPPER-179-76.
MR. STONE-It’s a catch-all. It’s a general exception.
MR. LAPPER-I guess one thing, to respond to Bob’s comment, one thing that’s worth discussing is,
when you say second residence, I mean, this is really a small apartment above a carriage house. So
it’s not like we’re building a second house, and that’s just different than the way it sounds.
52
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. MC NALLY-But what we’ve done, in a lot of places on the lake, is say you’ve got a garage,
we’ve had one, give me an artist studio above, bathroom, big light, windows, things like this. It could
be used as a residence, essentially. We’ve had people say give me an office above my garage, a
bathroom, big rooms and things like this, and almost uniformly we’ve denied those applications
because of the rule requiring only one principal residence. In law apartments have been asked for
from time to time.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’ve done it on 9L a couple of times.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the difference here though is that we have the ability to substantially increase
the main house, and that’s really what we’re saying here, that we can mess with the main house. It’s
next to the lake. We can make it substantially bigger, and that would be more of an impact, and I
think that’s what distinguishes this case. We’ve got an 1800 square foot house, and the ability, there’s
no floor area ratio requirement in the Town of Lake George. You’d just be talking about height and
lot coverage and green space. So that could be substantially larger, and if you are looking at the
whole lot, and I think from planning that certainly makes sense, rather than do that which would be
more of an impact, this is a modest compromise, and I think this justifies it because it’s really unique
from the normal person that would come in and want to build a monster house.
MR. MC NALLY-Don’t get me wrong. That can be a facetious argument because your client may
very well intend today never to improve his house on the portion that’s in Lake George, never to
expand it, never to put a second floor on it, this, that and the other thing, but as a practical matter,
there’s no way that this Board, or the Town can prevent your client, or Mr. King, from doing what
he wants. I take him at his word.
MR. LAPPER-I know that that’s right, but I still think that this is, of all of the alternatives for
creating more living space, this is the most sensitive alternative, and they’re not here because they
want to ask for a variance. This just seemed like the best plan, and it required a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, let me ask you a real fast question. On that Section you referred to, any
lot of record lawfully existing and complying with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
What is the size of this lot of record in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. LAPPER-.37.
MR. ABBATE-.37, and what is the size of this lot in the Town of Lake George?
MR. STONE-.38.
MR. MILLER-.4, because it’s .77 acres.
MR. STONE-It’s got to be three quarters. You said it was 33,000 on 44. That’s three quarters
almost exactly.
MR. LAPPER-.4.
MR. ABBATE-So any consideration of building that would be based on .37?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. ABBATE-No more, you agree?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HAYES-You don’t agree with that.
MR. LAPPER-Craig doesn’t agree.
MR. STONE-Craig doesn’t agree with that.
MR. HIMES-I’d like to make a comment, Lew, if I can, Mr. Chairman. Whether the other people
noticed this, and it may be considered by some to be a negative and others a positive. When we did
the Wall thing, I noticed the property between you, and you have a cottage on the lake, and the one
between this applicant’s and the Walls, there’s a place on the lake, and then right behind it, whether
it’s a separate lot, I don’t know what the history of it is, but there are two, an old full blown house
down on the lake, and then about 50 feet or so behind it there’s a modest, fairly good sized cape, new
cape, new, it looks like 10, 15 years old, much closer to the road, one right behind the other, and if
you look at that, the house on the lake is analogous to the house we face here, and the carriage barn
is almost in a straight line to where the cape cod is, right on the next lot over. Now, might we be
53
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
adding to the density or use by saying, hey, we’ll put some more people in this carriage barn, or are
we saying, well, look, here’s something over here that appears to be quite okay, and it’s just about the
same thing happening right here, on possibly a lot that’s as big or bigger than the other two.
MR. KING-I believe my lot is almost double the size of the neighbor’s lot.
MR. HIMES-Well, are there two lots there or one?
MR. KING-One.
MR. HIMES-But they’re two residences, though?
MR. KING-Yes.
MR. HIMES-You mean they’re both on one lot?
MR. KING-Yes. It’s one lot.
MR. LAPPER-One in the Town of Queensbury and one in Lake George.
MR. HIMES-Now, where’s the Queensbury/Lake George line go?
MR. KING-Right through his house. You can see that on the drawing. That’s his house.
MR. STONE-That’s the house, the little one, or the one by the lake?
MR. KING-No, not the garage. That’s the one by the lake, which is his principal residence. The one
up by the garage is, or the one up by the road is his garage. It’s a three car garage.
MR. STONE-And that’s not shown on this.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HIMES-I don’t think that that’s, are you sure, I’m talking about the one out towards 9L, in that
direction.
MR. KING-Immediately adjacent to my property.
MR. HIMES-I think it’s immediately.
MR. KING-Yes. It was built in 1991, ’92, or something like that. It is a three car garage that has two
cars, two garage coming in from the outside, and a garage going underneath where you drive around
the side and in, and it’s much higher, and the elevation of that is significantly higher than, my garage
floor is probably six feet or seven feet lower than his garage floor.
MR. HIMES-This sure looked like a residence to me.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s the Montana.
MR. KING-It isn’t. It’s a garage.
MR. BROWN-That’s the Montana property.
MR. KING-That’s the Montana property.
MR. BROWN-I believe that there was a variance granted for living space above the garage. There’s
an apartment above that garage.
MR. HIMES-Well, maybe that’s why I’m thinking it’s a house.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. HIMES-It sure looks like one from where I was standing.
MR. KING-There’s two overhead doors in the front, and one small entrance door.
MR. HIMES-Well, anyway, the point being, what I’m just trying to say for the sake of my fellow
Board members is that we have this condition, right next to you.
54
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-Is that a plus or a minus?
MR. HIMES-Well, it depends on how you look at it. I mean, you know.
MR. ABBATE-It depends on how you look at it. Okay. Counselor, are you maintaining that your
position is that if this were to be approved, there would not be two principal residences on one lot?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t believe that there would be.
MR. ABBATE-That’s your position.
MR. LAPPER-But the other alternative, if you want to look at it the other way.
MR. ABBATE-If this were to be approved, what you’re saying, if I’m interpreting it correctly, is that
there would not be two principal residences on one lot?
MR. LAPPER-Because I’m looking at the Queensbury lot.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I understand.
MR. LAPPER-That’s part of my argument.
MR. HIMES-What is the requirement for a, 800 square feet?
MR. BROWN-Eight hundred square feet.
MR. HIMES-And this doesn’t meet the 800 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but this is a unique set of circumstances. Correct?
MR. BROWN-Minimum square footage for a single family residence, new, is 800 square feet.
MR. ABBATE-But this is grandfathered in, the size of these, in other words, you indicated earlier
that this is a rather unique set of circumstances.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the dwelling would be conforming, it would be 945. 945, according to Staff
notes.
MR. BROWN-781 is to be removed.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m not sure where we’re getting, gentlemen, I really am not.
MR. LAPPER-At least it’s intellectually challenging.
MR. STONE-It is intellectually challenging. There’s no question about it. I mean, it says to me that,
all right, let me see if I can review because maybe it’ll help my own thinking. First of all, the Zoning
Administrator has made a decision, not in writing, but as far as in his mind, he’s made a decision that
this would be a second principal building on a lot, on one lot. All right. Therefore, you can test that,
but let’s forget that for a moment. Nevertheless, you’re asking for a variance for us to grant that
second principal building on the lot.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-You’re also asking for relief from the setback from the road for this new building, and
you’re asking for a larger garage than we would normally permit, than we’d permit.
MR. LAPPER-If it’s a second principal residence, I’m just not sure that you need the garage, because
the garage is when it’s an accessory structure, and I’m not clear on that.
MR. STONE-Do you have a judgement on that? If we said he could have the second principal
residence, does the garage go along with that?
MR. BROWN-The relief for a garage over 900 square feet is still required.
55
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. STONE-It would still be required for the 900, over 900. Right.
MR. LAPPER-Is that the case if the garage is attached to a residence?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely, 900 is the limit.
MR. STONE-So there’s three variances that you’re currently seeking under the interpretation with
which we must work at the moment.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-We can say he’s wrong, but that would require a variance.
MR. MC NALLY-We’re not deciding whether he’s right or wrong. All we’re doing is deciding
whether the applicant is entitled to the variance.
MR. STONE-No. All we are saying is that he has made this determination. Under that
interpretation we can grant a variance.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that’s necessary, though. I don’t think that to decide whether it’s a
principal residence or not is necessary. Do you follow what I’m saying?
MR. STONE-Why? He said it is.
MR. BRYANT-I understand what he says, but I don’t think it’s necessary for us to make that
determination. I mean, there are other aspects to the application that are questionable. So as far as
I’m concerned, I understand what he’s saying about a principal residence and having a second and so
forth and so on, but I think more importantly this whole application begins to change the character
of that area of the lake.
MR. STONE-That’s fine, Al, but the particular application that Mr. Lapper paid $50 to ask for, he
makes it very clear in this letter, of course, right now, requires us to grant three variances, a second
principal residence, over 900, and the setback. If this is what he wants, this piece of paper.
MR. HAYES-You don’t have to put that in your rationale, if you don’t want to.
MR. STONE-You don’t have to, but that’s what he’s asking for. We can separate those in any way
we want. We can say, for example, he can build a 900 square foot garage, 14 feet from the road, and
that’s all you can build. We can say he can have a second residence, but that the garage has to be 900
feet, no more than 900 feet, and that it can’t be 14 feet. All of these are open to us. They may not
agree, but all of these things are something that we can consider.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just like to make my best argument one more time, that the house,
that Norm said that the house is not a large house, and we have the ability, without asking for a
variance, to substantially increase the house, and that gets the extra living space. It doesn’t get the,
the garage could then by 900 square feet, what have you, and I just don’t think that that is a good
result, because it’s more visible to the lake. It’s more of an impact, and the house has character, and
so we’re trying to be sensitive to that and do an alternative that even though, yes, it requires three
variances, which is nothing I ever like to apply for, that it’s really more minimal than an alternative
which is permitted, and that’s why we’re here.
MR. STONE-How far, just for the record, how far is, how close is the house to the lake? I know it’s
not our zoning now.
MR. KING-It’s about 35 feet from the edge of the porch to the shoreline.
MR. STONE-The closest distance is 35, okay. Where, if that were all in Queensbury, it would have
to be 75, if you were building.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want that, I wanted to know that.
MR. MC NALLY-Lake George is 50 there, right, 50 feet setback?
MR. STONE-I’m not sure what Lake George. Is it 50?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
56
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. LAPPER-So we could respect that 50 foot line and build it 50 feet, and expand the house.
MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t we take Mr. Lapper’s application, just for the purpose of discussion,
and go down the list, and we’ll start with Roy. Let’s take all three as a package. That’s what you’d
like us to do. Let’s try where that comes out.
MR. URRICO-Okay. From a practical standpoint, I have a hard time looking at a second principal
residence on anything but one lot. I try not to get to the nitpicking as much. I’m trying to withdraw
a little bit and look at from an overall standpoint. To me, it still seems like one lot, and that if we
allow a second principal residence here, it’s going to change the character of that area, and not in a
good way. As far as the, so I would treat it as one lot, and I would consider that a second principal
residence, and I would not be in favor of that section of it. As far as the 14.75 relief from the 30 foot
front setback, I’m not as bothered by that. It’s sort of in character with the rest of the neighborhood
there. I’m sort of malleable on that one, but I’m also concerned about the size of the garage as well,
and so out of the three, I would be on the negative side of two of those.
MR. STONE-I like the way you phrased it. I really don’t like what you said, but I like the way, at
least you put it. Bob, let’s go to you. Same analysis, if you would.
MR. MC NALLY-The factors?
MR. STONE-Well, where you stand on the three things that are in the variance application.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’m opposed to the second principal residence. I think that this constitutes a
second residence, and I do think that the entire parcel, as a commonsense, practical matter, is a single
lot, and to have a second residence on .37 acres, or on .75 acres in a three acre residential zone is
certainly something that would not do service to the zoning code. I think that there are feasible
alternatives. This is simply a case of replacing the old garage with a new one of 900 square feet, or
even perhaps a little bit larger, I would not be opposed to that, but I wouldn’t be approving this
without some plans in front of me, and I also think that if we’re going from a 781 square foot garage
to a 2,220 foot principal residence, combining both garage and living space, the existing garage is 15
feet from the road almost. So we’re asking for 50% of relief for a building three times the size of the
current one. That substantially changes my opinion as to what they could do. It’s extraordinary.
Particularly with the fact that this is the road where the motel is at the end. It’s right at the bend of
the road, and it’s a relatively congested area as it is. Lew, what was the last one you were asking
about?
MR. STONE-Well, the setback, and the garage.
MR. MC NALLY-The setback. That’s what I was referring to.
MR. STONE-Yes. I thought you were. The way I came on, you said no, yes, and no. Is that?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not going to approve that 900 square feet without a plan in front of me.
MR. STONE-Even the 900?
MR. MC NALLY-I would like to see, I think, again, if you folks have an alternative plan or
suggestions, I would like to see that before I would ever approve that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Let me just comment on a couple of things. When I was there, I noticed that
there was a grade change. What I see that the grade change is not eight feet from the 30 foot setback
line to where you could otherwise build this or modify it slightly. The grade of eight feet has got to
be from the thirty foot setback line to the lake, in my explanation.
MR. LAPPER-Because you’d be building from that setback line towards the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-Correct. So actually any slight modification of the building is not going to involve
eight feet, but something less than that, and I’d just like to repeat, there’s no way we can prevent the
main house from being expanded if we approve this. Your intention may be good and well, but I
don’t see how we can stop it. So to say that we’re going to preserve the house on the lake, it’s not
going to happen perhaps at this time, but the next owner, they’re going to build. That’s where I
stand.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
57
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I hear very well what the others have said, and I worry about the
precedent factor of, we do this, even though it appears to exist right next door, then what happens?
How do we deal with others that are going to come along, and I know we have had a few, or very
few, of these things in my time on the Board, and I don’t think we’ve approved them, but they
weren’t the same as this. This one, you know, the great, big structure, that carriage house, I’m trying
to match the figures up between what’s there and what’s proposed, and I have a little trouble doing it
when something’s being taken away, and I think the carriage barn’s coming down and a big garage,
1200 square feet or something, is going up with a living space above it, and the combination of
things I’m a little sympathetic with. Given how small the residence is, and the way that it’s built, I
don’t have a problem with the relief from the front setback. So I’m still going to wait and hear what
a couple of the others have to say. I feel sympathetic with it, but I recognize that I wish there was
some way that we could kind of look at this maybe a little differently to see if there might be a little
something done on your side of the equation and so forth to maybe help us recognize the unique
elements of this little situation, when you compare it to the next door and just the layout as it is
without considering anyone else. I would hope that maybe some of us would be a little more
sympathetic, if something could be done, as we’ve done in the past. So I’m going to hold off for a
moment. I’m really on the fence. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talk about being fluid, every time I hear my
Board members say something, I start changing positions again, but this is nagging at my. I’d like to
start, first, with what constitutes residences and lots. This is not a legal definition, but it’s my
interpretation. It seems to me that boundaries are legally delineated to separate jurisdictions. Okay.
Jurisdictions, perhaps, of government. In this case there are two jurisdictions. One is Lake George
and one is the Town of Queensbury. So if I look at it purely that way, it would seem to me, now that
I’ve changed my position, that because of these boundaries, and legally delineated separation of
jurisdictions government, perhaps Counsel may have a point. Maybe they aren’t legally two separate
lots. Okay. That’s a question in my mine. Now, 1,256 square feet for a carriage house or two car
garage and a boat. That’s a pretty good size. That 1,256 square feet, and in some instances in the
Town of Queensbury, represents a residence, one residence. We have houses that size. I believe that
I could go along with perhaps something like maybe 900 square feet, but I’d have a difficult time
with 1,256. Setback. Folks are asking for 15.25 feet of setback. I’m not so sure that this is really a
sticking point for me. I could go either way on this. My major consideration is whether or not
Counsel is right and whether, based on jurisdiction, these legally delineated separation of jurisdiction,
two different governments, constitute two separate lots. Because if they do, then it can, in effect,
have two residences. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BRYANT-I want to address each issue separately. Okay. The garage, first off. As far as the
setbacks are concerned, they’re basically close to the existing setbacks. There’s very little change.
There’s really, with the size of the lot and the apportionate of the property and the landscaping, I
would even go with a 1200 square foot garage, if that were all that were on the table, and I know the
Chairman wants us to talk about the second principal residence and all that, but I want to address it
from a different standpoint, and that’s Item Number Four, the effects on the neighborhood and the
community. I understand the example that you gave, that you can expand the house, a lot more than
you’re going to do with the apartment, and that’s fine, but the application is different than what
you’ve got, okay. If you expand this carriage house to have an apartment, okay, I know Mr. King is
an honest man, and his family is going to stay in the apartment, and that’s basically what it’s going to
be used for, but some day Mr. and Mrs. King are going to retire to Aruba and sell that property to
the next guy, who’s going to rent it out, and you’re going to have 20 other cottages on the lake in that
area that have the same situation, and that’s how the complexion of a community changes. Okay,
and I think, as one of the other Board members said, that we don’t really want, even though the next
door neighbor has already got that situation, we don’t want to continue to carry this precedent
forward, and I think that’s what we need to look at, and I think that’s the flaw in the application.
You want a 1200 square foot garage for your two cars and your boat. I, for one, would be in favor of
that. You want an apartment that, somewhere down the road it’s going to turn into a rental property
or a flophouse or whatever, I’m not in favor of that at all. So, those are my distinctions.
MR. HAYES-Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree. I don’t think that it is for here and the Board this time to
providing, at least under our current definitions as a second principal residence. The King property,
as I walked it, is very attractive. I really can understand why Mr. King does not want to necessarily
change the architectural lines of his existing home because it really is quite nice, aesthetically, but in
this particular case, I can’t help but feel that would be essentially establishing a precedent that, you
know, or breaching something that the other Board members have pointed out, that we haven’t
breached before, and that’s permitting what could be rentable spaces on a single parcel. That’s
always a danger. No matter what the intentions of the original applicant are, we have to deal with
what the ramifications are from that point forward. I also agree that the setback, the front setback,
58
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
as far as placing the garage where they intend to place it, I have no problem with that whatsoever.
They’re talking about moving, this garage is well away from the lake, and it’s a good spot for a garage.
I don’t have any problem with that. It’s not impacting anything that I can see in that way
whatsoever. I also agree with Mr. King’s decision with why it’s a good reason to place the garage
where it is based on the trees and the topography of the land. It’s very sensible to me. I agree with
Allan that in this particular case, being that there are some hairs being split here, to whatever extent
we could argue that, but that I would be amenable to additional relief, as far as the garage size, based
on the good explanation, and the fact here that there are some other issues that are on the table. I
would not have any problem going above the 900 square foot maximum requirement for garages, as
far as that type of relief. So I guess in Lew’s poll that’s a no, yes, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I think I agree with the majority of the Board. I think the overriding
thing here is the second principal residence. I we would be remiss if we granted it. We currently
have before us a tabled application that includes that one of the things that we found out as we were
contemplating this thing is that part of the property this guy wanted to expand was already rented.
Never mentioned before, on a full year basis, and it’s due to come before us again.
MR. HAYES-They had the apartment in the back where they wanted to expand it. They said family
members. It had a big “H” on it.
MR. STONE-Harris. Gard Harris, and that was a stumbling block for us, if you remember, and it’s
still tabled, as far as I know. He’s coming back next month. Anyway, that is a second principal
residence, as far as we’re concerned, and we didn’t like the fact that he didn’t tell us until we asked a
few questions that it was rented. So I have a problem with the second principal residence. The
setback obviously doesn’t bother me like it doesn’t bother anybody else. Certainly it’s there. It’s
really a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. The oversized garage, I’m on the fence. I really don’t like
granting a variance for a larger garage because we have had people who have come in here and asked
for large garages and basically, in almost every case, we have stuck to our guns in saying 900 feet is a
pretty large garage. It’s three cars. You can get three cars in there without a question, and so I guess
I’m no on that thing, which says to me if we were to vote on the application as you presented it, the
way I appraised it, it would be denied.
MR. LAPPER-I would, at this point, ask the Board to consider tabling it. What I hear is that we
should go back to the drawing board and do some re-design. As I mentioned when we started, if we
didn’t try to have this shingled roof to make it look like a one story, we really don’t need the 30 foot
width in the garage, although it’s nice to have, so that we could make the garage smaller, although it
may still come back larger than 900 for your consideration, and we will think about what we could do
with the residence, because we would rather not add on to the house, but perhaps that can be smaller
and that might be more palatable. There may be some other things that we can offer. So we hadn’t
thought it through at this point, but we hear what you’re saying, and we would ask you to allow us to
come back with some modifications.
MR. STONE-Okay. You want the full 62 days?
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001 DONALD AND LYNN KING,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
23 Antigua Road. For up to 62 days, to allow the applicant to return with a modified application that
reflects the concerns of the Board, as expressed informally in a, not wanting to consider or grant a
variance for a second principal residence, and the possibility of being a large, oversized garage.
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-We’ve got two sets of minutes. I thank you, gentlemen, for your hard work on this.
It’s not easy. We’ve got two sets of minutes, gentlemen.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 24, 2001: NONE
59
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 11/15/01)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 24, 2001 ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
October 17, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 17, 2001
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST MEETING, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
September 26, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-I want to publicly thank Mr. McNally for his willingness to act as the Chairman this
month, but we didn’t need him because our co-Board member decided to wait until next month, and
I’m here.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
60