2001-10-17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
PAUL HAYES
NORMAN HIMES
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-Before I call the first application, there’s a couple of Board pieces of business that I
must do. One, I want to ask the Board, when we go through our final statement, whether we
approve or how we feel about it, I would like you to specifically say that you approve the application,
that you want to deny the application, or that you have questions. We can still do that, but so often
we may, on the basis of what I hear, I may say, give me a motion to approve, and then we’ll come
out three, three or something like that. I would much rather, if it appears that we’re going to deny it,
I would much rather we make a denial motion rather than have to make a second motion to deny.
The other thing that I need to do, in November, as you will find out very quickly, we will have an
item on the agenda in which the Vice Chairman will recuse himself and I will be out of town. So I
need a nomination for someone to serve as Chairman for that particular application, whenever it
comes up in November, either the first or the second meeting.
MOTION TO NOMINATE ROBERT MC NALLY AS TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN FOR
THE PERIOD OF TIME IN THE NOVEMBER MEETING WHEN AN ITEM COMES
UP AND THE CHAIRMAN WILL NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE AND THE VICE
CHAIRMAN WILL HAVE TO RECUSE HIMSELF, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES AND HAYES – ASHTON
CEMENT PROPERTY AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY
OWNER: WEST MOUNTAIN LAND TRUST ARCHIE MESSENGER, TRUSTEE
ZONE: SR-1A AND RR-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD (WEST SIDE)
AND SOUTH OF POTTER ROAD ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL SHALL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RETABLE THE APPLICATION SO THAT THE
APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT NEW INFORMATION FOR A NOVEMBER MEETING.
CROSS REF. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST
21, 2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 87-1-21
NEW TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-19
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper is approaching the podium, and he is going to ask that we table this
application without further ado, until another time, either November or December. We will table it
for 62 days. Do you wish to say anything about it?
MR. LAPPER-It sounds like you’ve said my speech for me.
MR. STONE-Okay.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2001 HAYES & HAYES – ASHTON
CEMENT PROPERTY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles Abbate:
West Mountain Road, south of Potter Road. We will re-table it for an additional 62 days, which will
allow this application to remain open and offer the applicant the ability to revise the same. It will be
re-advertised and re-notified.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-And given the public input on this one, we may just want to make everybody, if
anybody’s here tonight, we’re going to re-notify everybody of the new date.
MR. STONE-Okay. As Staff says, everybody who has an interest, it will be re-advertised and re-
notified. Letters will go out to all those within 500 feet of the property, whatever it is.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-All right.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2001 TYPE II FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND
MIKE GARGIULO AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER:
FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: LOT 12 GUNN
LANE HOUSE NO. 24 GUNN LANE CLEVERDALE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR
NOT THE NEW APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
2001 IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO WARRANT A REHEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING CAMP
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-22 NEW TAX
MAP NO. 227.17-1-20 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
JON LAPPER & MIKE GARGIULO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-And at the September meeting this application was denied. Therefore resulting in the
need of the applicant to convince all seven members of the Board that there is a significant
difference between the original application and the one that is currently sought to be offered.
MR. BROWN-Just for record keeping, this will get a new number. 69-2001 is the old number, but if
you guys decide to hear it again, it will be a new number, just for record keeping.
MR. STONE-Good.
MR. LAPPER-Could Mr. McNulty read my cover letter that went with the application into the
record, please.
MR. STONE-Sure. That’s this one.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. A letter addressed to Mr. Stone, Chairman of the ZBA, from Jonathan C.
Lapper, “On behalf of Five Oaks Development, LLC, I am hereby submitting a new application for
an area variance for side setback relief with regard to the above-captioned property along with a
check in the amount of $50 for the application fee. This application requests sideline relief of three
feet and four feet, respectively, from the 20’ sideline requirements. This represents a decrease in the
request by one foot on each side of the building. The total request is now for seven feet of relief
from the total 40’ requirement which represents a decrease in the request in the amount of 22.2%
from the nine foot of relief which was requested but denied by the Board at the September 26
th
meeting. As justification for the variance the home has been sited an addition 10’ from the lake for a
total of 60’ lake setback. The testimony of the adjacent property owners to the south, Mr. and Mrs.
Faulkner, indicated that they felt that this additional setback would have an extremely positive impact
on their adjacent residences. They were fully supportive of the 9’ request for relief and this
application only requests 7’. The house plans have been redrawn to show the narrower proposed
house. I trust that the members of the ZBA will view this as a good faith effort by the applicant to
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
modify his proposal to suit the members of the ZBA. Please place this matter on the agenda for one
of your October meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Five Oaks Development, LLC, Meeting Date: October 17, 2001 “Project
Location: 24 Gunn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests the Zoning Board
of Appeals to make a determination whether or not the new application submitted for the month of
October 2001 is a significant change to warrant a rehearing for the proposed project. Applicant
proposes removal of existing camp and construction of a new single family home. Relief requested
from the setback requirement is one foot less on both sides than the previous request. The current
proposal is a 3104 sf home, identical to the previous request.”
MR. STONE-Before you start, Mr. Lapper, Mr. Gargiulo, did you tell me yesterday when I was
visiting the property that it wasn’t Faulkner?
MR. GARGIULO-We were talking about Lawrences. The old house is Lawrences.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. To begin with, as my cover letter indicated, this is an attempt to request a new
variance, which is different from the last one, which hopefully would be acceptable by the Board.
Tonight’s not the night to make that request or debate that variance request. Craig has us on the
agenda for a determination by this Board whether this will be heard at the next meeting. In the Staff
notes, it says that the house is the same square foot, and it is the same square foot, but it is narrower
and longer to increase the side setback. I just want to make that clear. In terms of the procedure,
this is something that we discussed the last time I came back with a new application. I asked that the
cover letter be read in because I believe that this is a new application, rather than a request for a new
hearing. Quoting from Section 267A of the Town Law, Paragraph 12, the law about re-hearing this,
as follows, “A motion for the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a re-hearing to review any order,
decision or determination of the Board, not previously reheard, may be made by any member of the
Board. A unanimous vote of all members of the Board then present is required for such rehearing to
occur.” I believe that what this means is that a rehearing is hearing on the exact same application. A
rehearing, for you to reconsider what it says, to review any order, decision or determination of the
Board not previously reheard, and I’m not asking for a rehearing. I believe that this is a new
application, requesting relief. So that’s one thing, in terms of the procedure.
MR. STONE-Are you appealing the second decision by the Zoning Administrator?
MR. LAPPER-No. I’m raising that as a procedural question for your consideration. I’m trying to
come up with, Mike Gargiulo already purchased this property. He wants to build a house on it, and
we’re trying to come up with minimum variance, which is what the Board, under an Area Variance, is
required to address. We understand that the Board, last month, felt that the variance requested was
too great. So we have reduced it. While on its face one foot on each side for a two foot total doesn’t
sound like a big difference in the house going from 44 feet wide to 42 feet wide, because we’ve got
40 feet total side setback, 20 on each side, we requested a total of nine foot last time and it’s seven
feet this time, percentage wise, it’s rather significant, 22% less of a request, and it’s on that basis that
if you’re going to view it the way the Zoning Administrator has asked you to review it, whether or
not it’s significant, I’m making the argument that it’s significant, because, while two feet may not
sound like a lot, in terms of two feet of space, in terms of, on a forty foot setback, compared to the
nine foot, I think it is significant. We’ve decreased the request by almost a quarter.
MR. STONE-You are aware, I know you are aware, that even if we unanimously agree to rehear it,
we still have the right to turn it down, when we hear the application.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. There is no question about that. We would have to have a rehearing and
whether or not you’d grant the relief is something that is discretionary.
MR. STONE-I’m just stating fact.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I didn’t view this as a night to make the case in terms of whether or not this new
application is appropriate under the Area Variance standard, but obviously we’re trying to come up
with a request that the Board would be satisfied with.
MR. STONE-I will ask my fellow Board members to specifically comment on this, because I was not
here at this first one. So I did not hear the first application. I would encourage you all to speak and
ask any questions you want.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BRYANT-Just a question. On the original application, the setback from the shoreline, you had
proposed what?
MR. LAPPER-The same as it is now. My letter is a little confusing. It’s a 50 foot required, and it’s
the same, in order to justify the variance last time, which was unsuccessful, we’ve moved the house
back 10 feet to make up for the fact that we were asking for nine feet of relief on the side.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because as you read your letter, it makes it appear that you’ve changed that.
MR. LAPPER-And it’s only, it’s additional from the Code, not additional from the original. It’s a
little confusing. I think the application for this was the next day after we were denied, or something
like that. I apologize.
MR. BRYANT-You end up with the same square footage as that because you added to the length?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and because that did not require a Floor Area Ratio variance because the house
was not too big for the lot under the Town requirements, but, yes, we pushed it back toward the road
a little bit, not anywhere near the setback.
MR. STONE-What is the depth of the lot? I mean, it’s here, I know, but.
MR. LAPPER-185 feet, and 70 feet wide, 75 feet.
MR. STONE-One of those wonderful big lots on Lake George.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. STONE-All right, gentlemen, any other comments? Well, let’s hear what you have to say. Let
me start with Bob at the end down here.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know whether it’s a rehearing or a new application under 267 Town Law,
but irrespective of that, I have no objection to rehearing the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-I agree with Bob. I have no objections to rehearing it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I, too, will agree with my two other Board members. I don’t have any problem
rehearing this application.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that it’s a significant change, okay, but I have no problem hearing it, but
when the percentage, I understand your concept of percentage, but in reality, it really hasn’t changed
anything.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you would be willing to hear it?
MR. BRYANT-I would be willing to hear it.
MR. STONE-All right. Jamie?
MR. HAYES-I feel similarly. I’m willing to rehear it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I, too, struggle with whether or not it’s really a significant change, but I won’t
stand in the way of rehearing it. It’s borderline for me, but I’d go along with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m certainly not going to stand in the way of rehearing it. I will share, Mr.
Bryant kind of suggested, the comment that I made, I wrote down here, the proposal is kind of out
of line with statistics, 22% is still two feet on nine. Yes, it’s 22%, but it isn’t very much, but I said
that, we’ll argue that next month.
MR. LAPPER-Fair.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-So you are granted the right to resubmit the application as you’re talking about for next
month, with no. What?
MR. BROWN-You probably should make a motion to.
MR. STONE-We will. I just want him to understand. Okay. I need a motion.
MR. HAYES-Are you going to give it a new number for the motion or?
MR. BROWN-We’ll put a new number on it when it comes in.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie, you want to do something?
MOTION THAT THE BOARD HAS AGREED TO RE-HEAR AREA VARIANCE NO.
69-2001 BASED ON A CHANGE IN THAT APPLICATION THAT DEEMS IT
ENOUGH OF A CHANGE TO RE-HEAR IT., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2001 WILLIAM AND LINDA NIZOLEK AGENT:
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM AND LINDA
NIZOLEK LOCATION: COTTAGE #25 ONEIDA DRIVE APPLICANT SEEKS TO
APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S ADDRESSING FLOOR AREA RATIO
AND THE CALCULATION THEREOF. OLD TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.27 NEW TAX MAP
NO. 239.08-1-31
MR. STONE-Okay. Now you wish to speak?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Before I give up the table, the last item on the agenda, I’d like to request that
that be tabled as well, the appeal by Bill and Linda Nizolek.
MR. STONE-It’s the next to last item on the agenda.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is. It would be unfair of me to ask to table the last item. We have a variance
that is still pending. The Board asked that a master plan be prepared for the Takundewide project,
and that that be submitted to the Planning Board. We’re in the process of readying that for
submission. So we’d like to go to the Planning Board first and then come back to this Board
afterwards, and perhaps the variance would be granted, which would moot the necessity of this
appeal, but in any case, I’d like them to be on the same night. So I’m asking that it be tabled for
judicial economy, if you will.
MR. STONE-Since the applicant is requesting that we table the Notice of Appeal No. 3-2001, until
such time as it can be heard in connection with the application with which the appeal deals, I move
that we table.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2001 WILLIAM & LINDA
NIZOLEK, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
For 62 days, so that the applicant can talk about this appeal and the Area Variance application for
which it’s connected, and provide us, at that time, with a master plan that has been requested by both
the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Now I know if I want to get yes’s, I just have to ask for tabling motions.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-We’ll guarantee that usually. Not always.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2001 TYPE II JOHN HECKMAN AGENT: N/A
PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN HECKMAN ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 68
ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 330 SQ. FT.
DECK AND A 366 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 43-2001; BP
2001-656 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/10/01
OLD TAX MAP NO. 15-1-42 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-48 LOT SIZE: 0.07 ACRES
SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79
JOHN HECKMAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2001, John Heckman, Meeting Date: October 17, 2001
“Project Location: 68 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 330 sf deck and a 366 sf sundeck and seeks relief from the setback requirements.
Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, §
179-16 as follows: 7 feet and 4 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback and 48 feet of
relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the
requirements the Shoreline and Wetland regulations as follows: 14.12 feet of relief and 10.86 feet of
relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements as well as simultaneous relief of 48 feet
from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement. 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 deck and reconfigure the dock/boathouse in the
preferred manner. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a landscaping terrace
area, which would not require any setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief from the requirements may be interpreted as
moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on
the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-656 resurface of existing dock/reconstruct boathouse not issued.
Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While this parcel is
existing and limited in size, further encroachments into the shoreline setback requirements/CEA area
may present adverse impacts. The options available to the applicant appear to be limited. An
October 12, 2001 site inspection revealed what appears to be a newly constructed dock. This
reconstruction has historically required an area variance. Additional review may be necessary.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 10,
2001 Project Name: Heckman, John Owner: John Heckman ID Number: QBY-AV-77-2001
County Project#: Oct01-21 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes the re-construction of a 330 sq. ft. ground level deck adjacent to
the shoreline and a 396 sq. ft. sundeck over an existing covered boat slip. The applicant seeks relief
from the setback requirements. Site Location: 68 Rockhurst Road. Tax Map Number(s): 15-1-42
Staff Notes: The planning staff reviewed the application request, particularly the physical linkage
between the ground level deck and the proposed deck on the covered boat slip, and recommends
discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny due to the fact that the ground level
deck is too close to the lake shore.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board
10/12/01.
MR. STONE-All right. For the purposes of information, you know that since the County denied it,
in order to gain approval, you have to get five votes, a minimum of five votes.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. I didn’t know that.
MR. STONE-A super majority, it’s called. You have to get five votes.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. What did they deny? They did not deny the whole application, I don’t
believe. They denied the land deck. Is that what that just said?
MR. STONE-They denied it, and that’s the reason they gave, due to the fact that the ground level
deck is too close to the lake shore, but they denied the whole application. So, that’s the reason that
they apparently gave for their denial, but they denied everything. They don’t segment it. So they
denied. We cannot read their mind.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. Well, when I was there, I thought they had passed it with the exception.
MR. STONE-Would you identify yourself first, sir.
MR. HECKMAN-I’m John Heckman. I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HECKMAN-And I’ve never done this before. So you’ll have to bear with me a little.
MR. STONE-That’s okay, neither have we. This is the first time we’ve done it, too.
MR. HECKMAN-But I thought they had passed it with the exception of what they call the land
bridge, the stairs, and then I left after that. Evidently not.
MR. STONE-A land bridge is something they talk about quite often. It is not in our Code to have a
land bridge, but that’s not what the piece of paper says. So that’s all we can go on.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay, but what bearing does that have on this committee?
MR. STONE-It says that you have to get five positive votes, whereas normally you only need four.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. STONE-You need a majority of the existing Board. This is something just for everybody in the
room. If we only had four of us here, you’d have to get all four votes, and we happened to have a
full Board tonight, but you still have to get four votes normally, but with a denial you have to get
five.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. I’ve got that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go. Anything you want to tell us.
MR. HECKMAN-Now, I’m not sure where to start. What I’m basically doing, I mean, all this
talking and reading of all these numbers and stuff might be hard to understand. Basically I have an
existing boathouse that I’ve had since, for 28 years, and first of all I want to repair that, replace it, do
the same thing, not make it any bigger or any smaller, the same size that it is, as it is presently.
MR. STONE-I might add, sir, you had an existing boathouse.
MR. HECKMAN-Right. We’ll, we’ve repaired it.
MR. STONE-You do not, I believe, looking at the thing, you went down far enough in the water
that you do not have an existing dock. I’m being very technical when I say that.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay, but that’s the same size as I had before.
MR. STONE-All right. We’ll argue that it’s the same size as it was, but it isn’t.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I hate to be harsh, but that’s the determination by Staff, that the dock was taken down
further, far enough that it becomes non-existing. Now, if you want to talk to that, go ahead.
JOHN CREED
MR. CREED-My name is John Creed. I’m the builder. What is your definition of removing the
dock? I mean, to my knowledge you do not require a variance if we’re resurfacing the existing dock.
MR. STONE-Not if you’re resurfacing.
MR. CREED-Okay. Well, we resurfaced the existing dock, but the boathouse was just too fragile to
keep up while we were doing this.
MR. STONE-How far down in the water did you go?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. CREED-Well, at the time, the water level was about six inches higher. So the water level has
dropped significantly because of lack of rain. I mean, even though we’ve had some rain, we have
not.
MR. STONE-Did you disturb the crib?
MR. CREED-We repaired the crib. The footprint being the crib, is still existing on the bottom of
the lake.
MR. STONE-How far down did you go to the bottom?
MR. CREED-We did not go to the bottom. We went about six inches underneath the water, at that
present time, which was back in the end of August.
MR. STONE-So the bulk of the crib is still there?
MR. CREED-Yes. The actual foundation, the crib, which is a stone-filled box, is still there.
MR. STONE-Does that change Staff’s determination?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that that’s the issue, though.
MR. STONE-Yes, it is.
MR. BRYANT-No, I think the issue really relates to the boathouse. We have a permit to resurface
the deck or whatever, but we didn’t do anything with the boathouse. Now that boathouse is gone,
and what the gentleman is saying he’s going to rebuild this boathouse.
MR. STONE-Well, there’s two factors here. One, a building permit is required to do anything.
Okay, even just to put in, to recover the whole deck, the whole dock, you need a building permit. A
building permit was never issued, and obviously we all saw work was done, correct?
MR. BROWN-Well, not to resurface the dock there’s not a building permit. If you go below the
water level, that’s when a building permit’s required.
MR. STONE-Just below the water line.
MR. BROWN-If you go below the water level, and I think that’s what happened here.
MR. STONE-All right. We still need a building permit. Now, do we need the variance for side
setback? The grandfathered rights, have they gone or not?
MR. BROWN-Well, based on the testimony we heard tonight, the dock hasn’t been replaced entirely.
It was just replaced a little below the water line. That’s the question I wanted to raise in the notes is
when I made my field inspection, it looked like the entire crib was a new crib, and if that’s the case,
it’s just like when the boathouse is gone, you start again. If you take the crib all the way down to the
bottom and rebuild the crib, it’s a new dock. It needs setback relief, if it doesn’t meet the
requirements. So if the testimony is that they didn’t do that, they just repaired a couple of feet or a
foot below the water line, that’s reconstruction of an existing dock.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-What about the boathouse, though, I mean, as far as the grandfathered rights?
MR. BROWN-That’s definitely still on the table. That’s gone. Once it goes down, you start again.
MR. STONE-So the top is on the table.
MR. BROWN-So to speak. In this case, it’s changed from a pitched roof, or not a pitched roof, a
flat roof, shed roof boathouse to a sundeck. So it’s a different type of construction.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So it’s a new structure. That’s no question.
MR. STONE-All right. So most of the stuff on the table is still out, I mean, the stuff is still what
we’re talking about, except we will agree that the dock could be resurfaced with only a building
permit, without a variance.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HAYES-Well, you wouldn’t even need a building permit for that.
MR. BROWN-To resurface, to put new deck boards, no building permit.
MR. STONE-You say he went below the water line, you went down below the water line?
MR. CREED-Well, at the time, yes, but the water level has dropped significantly now, which means,
how do you define the water level? I mean, the water level fluctuates, you know, very much, as much
as 18 inches between spring, fall and winter. Okay. I’m not going to deny that we didn’t do some
crib repair, but we still built off the existing crib structure, okay.
MR. STONE-The idea of the building permit is only something that might get into our minds. I
mean, that’s an enforcement situation, but we need to know that, and we were so informed by Staff,
and however we, individually, choose to use that information, we will use that information, but,
suffice to say that the dock, the resurfacing of the dock, is not in question, because of the fact that
you’re merely resurfacing, even though it is a nonconforming structure, as far as side setbacks are
concerned. So we’ll take that point off, but you still do not have a top on the dock anymore.
MR. CREED-No. As I said before, that it was just too fragile to try to keep it up. I mean, it was just
too dangerous to try to resurface an existing dock underneath, you just have to take my word for it.
So that’s why we removed it, and I mean, what we’re asking, pretty much with this whole project, is
just a relief from setbacks. Okay. We’d like to get permission to rebuild an existing flat roof
boathouse, so Mr. Heckman can store his boat, which he has for 28 years, and then we propose to
build a sundeck on top of that existing rebuilt flat roof boathouse, and then a 15 by 22 foot land deck
behind the dock on the shoreline.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, if I understand you to say that the resurfacing is off the table, but
how do you know what the deck was like beforehand? Has there ever been any expansion? I don’t
see any existing survey.
MR. CREED-Well, we have a survey.
MR. MC NALLY-Of the proposed construction. Is there a survey of the old construction?
MR. HECKMAN-Yes, there’s pictures of the before.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see any dimensions on there and I don’t see the entire surface of the deck
demonstrated.
MR. HECKMAN-Of the boathouse that was there?
MR. MC NALLY-Of the deck.
MR. STONE-What Mr. McNally is saying is that you’re asking us to take your word that the size of
the dock.
MR. MC NALLY-Which was built without a permit and without a variance.
MR. STONE-The square footage is what it was before.
MR. MC NALLY-Is the same as it was beforehand.
MR. STONE-But on the other hand, if they’re asking for setback relief, we can do it for the whole
construction, as long as the survey is correct now.
MR. CREED-If I might add that since we resurfaced the dock, underneath the boathouse, the
boathouse should be the same dimension, which it is, okay.
MR. MC NALLY-You would think so.
MR. HECKMAN-It does show it on the drawings here from the surveyor. He does plot the
existing.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that on the left side of your survey right here? That’s the only plot I saw. It
doesn’t say it’s an existing one. I don’t see that it’s a survey.
MR. HECKMAN-It’s on the right hand side of the survey, where it says map.
MR. MC NALLY-This is your proposed construction, right here.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HECKMAN-Where it says existing dock with covered slip.
MR. STONE-That’s up on the top, the big picture.
MR. MC NALLY-When did he do this, August 27?
th
MR. ABBATE-That’s when it’s dated, August 27, Year 2001.
th
MR. MC NALLY-Well, you’re telling us, sir, this is the identical size as the one you had before you
took it down?
MR. HECKMAN-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-All right.
MR. STONE-Well, let me just ask Craig. I mean, the relief is for the dock as built anyway, right? I
mean, even if it’s not quite the same size, the Area Variance says what relief they’re seeking.
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
MR. STONE-So, I mean, even if it is a little bigger, let’s say. I’m not saying it is, these are the
numbers that relate to the current dock.
MR. MC NALLY-That was not the point. I was just curious, in considering whether to grant the
variance, whether or not the existing dock was replaced with one the same size would weigh in my
consideration (lost word).
MR. STONE-Okay. Can you assure us that the dimensions of the dock, the deck of the dock, I hate
the two words when we start talking about decks and docks, but the surface of this is exactly in the
same position relative to the property line on the both north and south sides?
MR. CREED-As close as I have illustrated in my drawings. I mean, we’re replacing a 22 foot by 18
foot wide deck, flat roof boathouse.
MR. STONE-Craig, have you got something?
MR. BROWN-You may want to ask if they have a copy of their Lake George Park Commission
permit. Because each dock or wharf is required to get a permit, and I know they usually have a
comprehensive drawing of whatever dock they issue a permit for.
MR. STONE-Do you?
MR. CREED-Yes, we do, but we have not applied for the top deck yet, just what was existing. They
don’t require.
MR. BROWN-That’s what you’re looking for, the existing size of the dock.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’re looking for, I mean, what the dimensions of that dock were and
what the distance from the outside of the dock to the property line are, because that’s the relief that
you’re seeking.
MR. CREED-Okay. I’m confused in what you want.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally asked where was the old dock in relationship to the property lines. That’s
really what we’re talking about.
MR. BROWN-That may not show up the Lake George Park Commission permit. The size should
be on there.
MR. CREED-Is this what you’re looking at, the setbacks?
MR. MC NALLY-I want to see the setbacks on the existing dock (lost words) was taken down.
MR. HIMES-Could I ask Craig a question?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. HIMES-The building, the building permit referred to in Staff Notes, Craig, that was not issued.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. HIMES-What was the date of that, and does that have any?
MR. BROWN-It was received August 29.
th
MR. HIMES-And was there any reason for it not being issued?
MR. BROWN-The proposed sundeck didn’t meet the setbacks, and it requires a variance. We don’t
issue them until they get their variance.
MR. HIMES-All right. So we all knew there was a problem back then.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. HIMES-Before they did it.
MR. BRYANT-But by August 29, had they already demolished the sundeck?
th
MR. BROWN-If you look at the survey, it’s dated August 27, and it says existing dock with covered
th
slip, so if they took it down between the 27 and the 29 when they applied, I don’t know.
thth
MR. HIMES-Is a demolition permit required?
MR. BROWN-A demolition permit? No.
MR. STONE-We have an existing, you have a drawing of any existing flat roof boathouse which is
within the outer limits of the dock, but they’re still too close to the line. Is that correct, Craig?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-As you’ve measured it. Out of curiosity, Mr. Creed, on these drawings that you say
you made, you have X’s on the crib timbers. What does that mean?
MR. CREED-That’s just the cross cut of the beam, in other words, the but end of the beam.
MR. STONE-Okay. It’s not replace it.
MR. CREED-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob, have you still got a question?
MR. MC NALLY-This is that permit that they were referring to, and then they’ve got some kind of
drawing from August 28 that they’ve made. It says, I’m not sure what it says. Can I show them?
th
MR. HECKMAN-Please.
MR. MC NALLY-This is the Lake George Park Commission correspondence, and the only drawing
they have that’s different from what we have in our application is this one. I’m not sure what it says
really. I think that says that’s the existing dock, August 28, apparently. That’s not part of my
th
application. Is that what that says?
MR. ABBATE-Dock to be resurfaced, boathouse rebuilt. I have a question. Mr. Heckman, I have a
question, sir, please. This drawing of August 28, 2001, it indicates up here, it says, existing dock and
open-sided boathouse. Dock to be resurfaced, boathouse rebuilt. Is that correct, the boathouse was
rebuilt?
MR. HECKMAN-No, the boathouse we took down, I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-But it says boathouse rebuilt.
MR. CREED-It’s proposed to be rebuilt.
MR. ABBATE-So do you want me to put the word “proposed” in there for you? Okay.
MR. CREED-I’m sorry for the confusion.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-I think what maybe you could do, and I don’t know if I can solve it for you here, but
on the survey, the August 27 survey map, if you look at where the dock is, it says existing dock with
th
covered slip. So on August 27, there was a dock and a slip there. It was located by the surveyor.
th
What’s confusing is, apparently what the applicant wants to do is put the same thing right back in the
same location. So there’s not going to be different dimensions. You’re not going to see any different
numbers on there, because of August 27, that’s what was located, and as of today, that’s what they
th
want to put back.
MR. HAYES-So it’s a pure replacement, from that perspective.
MR. BROWN-Size wise.
MR. HAYES-Size wise.
MR. STONE-As far as the covered portion.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-But the other question that I don’t know is the regular part of the deck, of the dock, is
that any closer to the property line than it was?
MR. BROWN-And I think we’ve heard testimony tonight that that didn’t change.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the question we’ve got to.
MR. HAYES-Particularly to the north.
MR. STONE-Yes, to the north, right. Is this land bridge that you showed here, that was just an idea?
MR. HECKMAN-Well, first of all, I didn’t know what a land bridge was. I thought a bridge was
something without stairs. We proposed the stairs coming down from the top of the sundeck, if we
get approval to put a sundeck up there, to the shoreline.
MR. STONE-But that’s a land bridge. Would you agree, Staff?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-And they are not allowed.
MR. BROWN-Well, they’re not prohibited. The County Planning Board has an aversion to
approving land bridges. So there’s no provision in our Ordinance that says you can’t have them.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HECKMAN-And I was wondering why that was. I never did ask them why, what the stairs. I
did bring pictures of stuff, of all the other neighbors that had them.
MR. STONE-Well, I can tell you, certainly I know the Park Commission is concerned with sight, I
mean, with visual impact.
MR. HECKMAN-Right.
MR. STONE-And I know they’re very particular on how high the railing is, and how close the slats
are on the railing and all that sort of stuff, but that’s not on the table, as far as we’re concerned, right
now.
MR. ABBATE-Please, gentlemen, help me out here, because sometimes it takes me a long time to
figure things out. I think your contractor indicated, I think he said earlier that all we’re asking for is,
what did you say, setback relief?
MR. CREED-Relief from the setback.
MR. ABBATE-Relief from the setback, but you’re asking for more than that.
MR. CREED-No, we’re not.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy of the Staff notes?
MR. STONE-Well, for the dock they’re not.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. ABBATE-For the dock they’re not. We haven’t gotten to the second portion of it yet, okay.
Don’t want to confuse it. We’ll stay with the first portion. Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Just a question for Staff, the second page of the Staff notes when you refer to further
encroachments on the shoreline setback requirements, are you specifically talking about the little
deck? You’re not talking about the sundeck? You’re talking about the ground deck, right?
MR. STONE-The ground deck.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Which is on the table if you want to talk about it, but we were talking about the dock
and the covering over the water for the moment. That’s where we seem to have been, and that you
are asking to, when you put that in, you are asking for, assuming that the surface is nonconforming,
and the top is going to be nonconforming to the degree of seven feet and four feet. Is that what
we’re saying here with the notes? So that, actually, the dock itself, the part closest to the surface of t
the water, is even closer to the property line than that.
MR. BROWN-The dock.
MR. STONE-Yes, the dock, considerably closer.
MR. BROWN-Yes, but what’s on the table tonight is the sundeck.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. HIMES-I’ve got another question, Lew.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. HIMES-Looking at the drawing here, September 21, that you have, talking about the height,
st
my understanding is that covered docks, boathouses and covered docks are limited to 18 feet for a
peaked roof and 14 feet for a flat roof, which I assume would include a deck. Is that right? And in
the drawing here, it looks like it shows some water here, and then you’re 12 feet, what looks like the
top of the railing, to what I guess is the surface of the dock probably, running back to the shoreline.
Wouldn’t we be going, Craig, that the measurements should be from the water level?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you look in the Staff notes, there’s some additional information
submitted with regard to the height of the proposed. I think it comes out to be 12’ 6” total to the
water, to the rail.
MR. HIMES-Is that in Staff notes?
MR. BROWN-Yes. There should be another page in there. I think it’s about 9 feet to the, and then
the rail and then the water.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, Mr. Heckman and his assistant, let me ask you a question. Obviously,
there’s a lot of questions tonight, but what strikes me here is that Staff notes has a recommendation,
a very simple recommendation which requires, would not require any setback relief. Feasible
alternatives may include a landscaped terrace area which would not require any setback relief. What’s
the problem with that?
MR. CREED-Well, sir, can we first figure out what we’re going to do with the dock and the
proposed sundeck and then can we come to that question?
MR. STONE-We’ve got to vote on the whole thing.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, right now, I think we have agreed that the sundeck is going to be, as designed,
requiring seven feet and four feet of relief, as you propose to build it, from the property line. That’s
straight forward.
MR. BROWN-The numbers are different from what you just said.
MR. STONE-I’m only reading yours, aren’t I?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-The seven and four feet are for the deck. The 14 and the 10 number are for the
sundeck.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. It’s 14 and 10. Excuse me.
MR. BROWN-Right, side setback relief.
MR. STONE-So the side setbacks are 14.12 and 10.86, and you are stating, Mr. Creed, that to the
best of your ability to resurface the dock, it’s where it was before.
MR. CREED-Right.
MR. STONE-And therefore these numbers for the top, the sunroof as you propose to construct it,
this is the kind of relief that you seek, 14.12 and the 10.86.
MR. CREED-Correct.
MR. STONE-All right. Any questions about that before we talk about the deck?
MR. HIMES-I guess just one general question for the folks, as to, I guess it’s a little bigger than the
dock underneath it? Is there any reason why it couldn’t be say the same?
MR. STONE-No, it’s smaller than that.
MR. HECKMAN-It’s smaller than the boathouse.
MR. STONE-It’s inside, yes. If you look at the drawing you have, look at the dotted line.
MR. HIMES-I thought the dotted line was the dock, you know, and that this was the part that you
could see, and this is what would be beneath the cover.
MR. STONE-Here’s the picture. This one here. This shows you the inside. It’s in that second part
of the application. Do you see it? It’s inside the outside of the dock itself, which says, even though
it’s not on the table, because Mr. Creed has stated that the decking, on the surface, is exactly where it
was before. He just put new boards in, and did work below the water line, but not enough to trigger
the variance for that. That’s what is stated. That’s what the record will show, but the top is still
nonconforming, and that’s the relief that they need.
MR. HECKMAN-Mr. Himes was asking, I believe, if the boathouse was going to overextend the
dock. It’s in from the dock, as you can see on this drawing here, I mean, the dock is probably six
feet wide, and the boathouse roof comes over two feet, or two and a half feet, something like that.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. HECKMAN-I’m a little bit confused. I have so many drawings and blueprints and stuff, but
did that answer your question?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you.
MR. HAYES-Theoretically, based on the fact that he took the boathouse down, he needs relief for a
roof, even if he goes back to a shed roof, at this point, he needs relief for that. Right? Because it’s
down.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-So anything to cover the dock requires relief.
MR. HAYES-Dimensional relief.
MR. BROWN-Because it doesn’t meet the setbacks.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to talk about the deck, on the ground?
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I’d like to know how you can justify it so close to the shore of your
neighbors side lines?
MR. HECKMAN-I’m sorry?
MR. MC NALLY-How can you justify it so close to the shore, sir?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HECKMAN-Well, it won’t obstruct anybody’s view, and there are other decks similar to this, as
I noted in my package, you probably saw those already. My next door neighbor has one, and it’s, the
ground is pretty un-level there. So, a lot of times, we have people that are in wheelchairs and stuff,
it’s hard to get them close to the thing, so we usually sit back by the house and look at our neighbors.
My wife said, wouldn’t this be a good idea if we could put this out here, have a smooth surface.
MR. MC NALLY-Your neighbor didn’t get a permit for his deck? It’s a pre-existing?
MR. HECKMAN-It’s been there for quite some time.
MR. MC NALLY-It pre-existed the zoning code?
MR. HECKMAN-Yes, probably. She’s been there a long time.
MR. STONE-Well, it may or may not.
MR. MC NALLY-Or it’s built illegally. One or the other.
MR. HECKMAN-And I did enclose a picture of that, in the package we brought you.
MR. STONE-You should be aware, Mr. Heckman, that we are particularly concerned with things
being built too close to the lake. We have a history of one, just to put you on notice, six, eight
months ago, where we actually asked an applicant to reduce the size of his deck, and it wasn’t even
that close to being that close to the lake.
MR. HECKMAN-Right.
MR. STONE-And he had to bring it back. I do have one quick question, so I don’t forget it.
Coming out of the house, there seems to be a pipe with a plastic hose. What is that?
MR. HECKMAN-A sump pump, for the surface water that comes in the basement.
MR. STONE-Is that legal to have a sump pump on the ground?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure. Okay. I noticed it. Any other comments?
MR. HECKMAN-I do have, I don’t know, not having done one of these things before. I do have a
bunch of neighbors that signed off.
MR. STONE-We’ll get to that when we go to public hearing.
MR. HECKMAN-That’s not part of it? Okay. I didn’t know.
MR. STONE-Any other questions before I do open a public hearing, gentlemen? Anything you
want to say?
MR. BRYANT-We haven’t talked, really, about the deck?
MR. STONE-Go ahead. I’m inviting that.
MR. BRYANT-I just have a question. Why bring these two things together? I mean, it’s one thing
to replace an existing sundeck, as you’ve got photographs of the old one and that sort of thing.
MR. HECKMAN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So it’s one thing to do that, and then to build another deck is another issue. Why
didn’t we address this at two different times? Because, frankly, the deck portion of it, on the ground
deck, is very unattractive to me.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-So I don’t understand why it’s together.
MR. STONE-Well, he can separate them. I mean, if it appears that, he can say, he can take that out
of the application. Is that right, Craig?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s something he can do, if he listens to us and hears where we’re going. He
can separate, say, okay, I don’t want that variance. I only want it for the sunroof.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Anything else before I open the public hearing? Let’s see if anybody has anything to
say. All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Are you
gentlemen done?
MR. HECKMAN-I think so, unless you need more information.
MR. STONE-No, we’ll ask it if we do. All right. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application, in favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-I have a couple of letters here.
MR. STONE-And if you want, when we get done, if you want to bring those up, he can read those
in, if you want to submit them.
MR. HECKMAN-You just need one copy? I have six of them?
MR. STONE-One is fine.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The first one is from Henry and Emily, and I’m not sure what the last name is.
Anyway, it says “Dear Sir: We’ve lived at 75 Rockhurst Road since June 1960. We do not object to
Mr. Heckman constructing the 330 square foot deck and the 366 square foot sundeck. These
additions to his property will enhance the value of the properties on Rockhurst Road.” And the
other one is from Thomas E. and Susan D. Sergeant, 59 Rockhurst Road, “The purpose of this letter
is to express our support for the above variance request which is the subject of a public hearing on
Wednesday, October 17. We live across the street and a couple of houses south of Mr. Heckman’s
th
property. We recommend approval for the requested relief from the setback requirements for
construction of the proposed 330 square foot deck and 366 square foot sundeck. We believe that
approval of this project would be consistent with what has been allowed for projects on neighboring
properties.”
MR. STONE-Do you have something else there?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Nagamatsu, and that was the first letter.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-And then we have a note signed by a number of people that reads, “Being a
neighbor of the Heckmans, I have no objections to the proposed reconstruction of their dock and
boathouse. I have no objection to the addition of a sundeck on top of the boathouse, and the bridge
stairs going from a new land patio at the shoreline.” And it’s signed by Margaret.
MR. STONE-Why don’t you just count them up.
MR. BROWN-Just read the addresses.
MR. STONE-Read the addresses.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. 49 Rockhurst Road, Kerr, Susan somebody at 56 Rockhurst, and another
person at 56 Rockhurst, one at 60 Rockhurst, one at 55, one at 73, one at 75, one at 67, one at 66,
one at 70, and two people at 74 Rockhurst Road.
MR. STONE-Okay. Is that it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the Board before we talk about it? Okay. Let’s talk, if there
are no questions. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I feel the dock and boathouse part of the application are okay by the
way I look at it. We take the testimony and all as being in good faith and as far as dimensions and
measurements and so forth, the provided us with so much detail it’s kind of hard for me to pick out
one part from another. On the other hand, the land deck, which I’m calling it, I don’t feel very good
about at all. I don’t think that I’d approve that part of the application.
MR. STONE-You’re recommending that they take the deck out, for you to vote yes on the variance?
MR. HIMES-That’s right.
MR. STONE-As it might be modified. Okay. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Heckman, let me preface my remarks by saying that I’m convinced
that this application was submitted in good faith. Okay. Having said that, I’m troubled by it.
Decisions are based upon what’s called on balance. On balance doesn’t necessarily mean between
the applicant and this Board. On balance means basically means on balance with what’s in the best
interests of the Town of Queensbury, what are the rules and regulations such as shoreline and
wetland regulations, etc., etc. So on balance takes a lot of items into consideration. The fact that
your neighbors are supporting you, I think, is wonderful. It means you have a good relationship with
them, but unfortunately, it’s a family community. I have a problem with both the deck and the
boathouse, and when it comes to the land deck, I’m going to quote my colleague’s name here, under
no circumstances would I approve such an application. In my opinion, it would be not in the best
interests of the Town of Queensbury and the people of Queensbury to approve this shoreline
wetlands regulation setback, which we refer now as land deck. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Where do you stand on the dock?
MR. ABBATE-No.
MR. STONE-No to both. Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I somewhat agree with Mr. Abbate. The boathouse scenario, there are a number of
boathouses close to that house, similar to that, and you do have photographs of an existing
boathouse. We’re assuming that what you’re saying is correct, that the new boathouse is going to be
identical in size, or not larger than what was existing. So, on that basis, I would not oppose the
boathouse, as long as the land bridge were removed, okay. As far as the deck is concerned, that was
the primary reason that the County rejected the application, and that was the land deck. So I believe
that it’s way too close to the shoreline, and I would not approve that under any circumstances. So I
would go with the dock.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’d like it modified the land bridge, though.
MR. BRYANT-Dock and deck. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-First of all, I also believe that, based on the testimony of the contractor, that the
decking was probably replaced, just as they said it was. I think that’s most likely the scenario, in this
particular circumstance, and I think we don’t have any reason not to believe them, but I think I agree
with Chuck, in the overall sense. I think there’s too much relief that’s being requested in this
application, when considered entirely. I think it’s a dangerous precedent to grant that kind of relief,
particularly in Rockhurst, which, in my mind, has, for a long time, bordered on being an
overdeveloped peninsula, and I think there’s other people that feel that way. So, adding to that could
be a mistake. Even the replacement of the existing boathouse, as he had it, with the shed roof,
would require a significant amount of relief. We’re basically a couple of feet away from the property
line, and it needs a lot of relief, and I think it should be granted, to replace the boathouse. I don’t
think anybody should be penalized for not knowing the difference between repairing a boathouse
and demolishing one. We’ve had those before, but I think that’s egregious to not grant the relief in
this circumstance, to put him where he was, for sure. The boathouse itself is very close to the line,
and I think that when a boathouse like he had was very close to the line, adding to the intensity of
use, by putting a sundeck on, we have to look at that very closely, because we have very minimum
setback as it is, and then adding to the intensity, with a land bridge, and with a deck, and railing and
activity on top, I don’t think we necessarily have to grant that, and I think it’s, in this particular case, I
think it’s too much, particularly, again, in Rockhurst. I think if people made similar requests in
Rockhurst, I think the overall effect on the neighborhood or community would be negative. As far
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
as the land deck, as deemed by one of our colleagues, I think that it’s already been pointed out that
that’s far too much relief in a Critical Environmental Area, and that we haven’t granted those type of
things before. I think the proper thing in this circumstance is to allow Mr. Heckman to rebuild the
boathouse, with the shed roof, even though he’s lost that right, as a matter of right, but we can give it
back to him, and I think we should, but to increase the intensity, with those type of setbacks, I think
is a mistake. So I would be against both the deck on top of the boathouse and the Himes’ land deck.
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with Jaime. I think we certainly should allow Mr. Heckman to
replace the roof on his boathouse. Something that was there, replacing it there doesn’t change the
situation. I recognize that there’s a lot of neighbors that do have sundecks on their boathouses. I
recognize that there’s some neighbors that have decks on the ground, close to the lake, but that
doesn’t mean anybody has the right to continue to make that kind of mistake, nor that we should
necessarily approve that kind of continuing mistake. So I would be inclined to approve replacement
of the boathouse roof. I would be inclined to vote against the sundeck on the boathouse, and I
definitely would be against the land deck.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m largely in agreement with my fellow Board members. If you look at the five
factors that we’re required to look at, the benefit to the applicant is the only one that I think weighs
in Mr. Heckman’s favor. Certainly, it would be to his interest to expand the use to the shoreline, so
that he has entertainment areas, picnic areas, areas to put the furniture and what not, immediately
along the entire frontage on a built up deck and over the water on a boathouse, where it had been
never previously used in that fashion, but the other alternatives, I think, weigh against the applicant.
There are feasible alternatives, and that is as Jaime suggested, to rebuild the boathouse as it existed
prior to it being taken down. There is also the alternative of not having any deck area on the
shoreline, continuing to use it as a grassy area. I noticed when I was there earlier this morning, that
there is a patio deck 50 feet from the shoreline, adjacent to the house, that’s within the 50 foot
setback, and that may not be as close to the lake, perhaps, as some people would like it, but it
certainly is close enough that there is an acceptable use for this home. I do think that the relief is
substantial relative to the Ordinance. Jaime suggested that it’s not just building up the deck. You’re
changing the intensity of the property, and Rockhurst is known to be very small lots, very narrow
lake frontages, very intensive use, and by adding to a deck on top of the boathouse and a deck along
the front of the shoreline, I don’t think that we’re doing the Town Zoning Ordinance any service
because it’s just contributing to that intensity of use which should never have been there to begin
with, and for that reason I think the effects on the neighborhood or community weighs against them.
It may be identical in size, but it’s certainly not identical in use. Basically, the entire frontage of the
property is being covered up, and the use is now extending into the lake, and that’s not appropriate,
and with all due respect, this is an application where a builder came in and asked us to approve
construction plans after the old one had been taken down, where no building permit or variance had
been sought beforehand. So there’s no question that the fifth factor, which is whether the difficulty
is self created, weighs against the applicant. I can’t be in favor of anything other than rebuilding the
boathouse has it previously existed.
MR. STONE-Well, I think Mr. McNally has summed it up extremely well for the Board, and
certainly what he heard and what I’m about to say, because I certainly agree. I get quite concerned,
as many of my fellow Board members do, when someone comes to us without clean hands. Now, I
don’t mean this was a deliberate act to confound, confuse the issue by taking down what was there,
but nevertheless, we’re not given the privilege of seeing what was there. We have pictures. Fine,
that’s all well and good, but work was done before we had a chance to look at the property in its pre-
existing condition, and I do resent that. I think if you’re going to seek a variance, we ought to be
able to really see what we’re granting, and that’s what was there before. It’s obvious to me, and it
should be obvious to you, that the deck has to go, if you even have a chance of having anybody vote
in favor of an application to approve, and based on what I heard, I would call for a motion to deny.
You do have a couple of options, however. You can say, okay, we won’t consider the deck. That’s
one thing that can go. Two, you can say, I’ll go along with just replacing the roof the way it was, or
you can say, I would like to just have the Board look at the application for the dock and sunroof that
you propose, taking out the other thing, but since we have one vote on this application, we can’t
separate it on a voting standpoint. We can either say yes or no, and what I hear, it would be no, the
way the application is currently constructed. Now, you have another thing. You can table the
application and come back with something that you might find more acceptable than just replacing
the roof, or any of those things, but, certainly, this Board is not going to vote for any application that
includes the land deck. I mean, that’s very clear.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. We’ll take that out, right off the bat.
MR. STONE-Okay.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HECKMAN-Could I speak now?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. We’ll knock that out. I feel like I’m a guy on a hot tin roof here, and we all
agree that I can put back what I had. I’m talking about what everybody said.
MR. STONE-Until we vote on it, that appears to be consensus.
MR. HECKMAN-Consensus. Okay, and the sundeck on the boathouse, that’s iffy, at the best.
MR. STONE-That’s, as I look at it, there was so much.
MR. HAYES-You still need five votes, and you’ve got to consider that in what.
MR. STONE-Right. You’ve got to get five votes even to do that. For the sundeck, I don’t think you
have five.
MR. HECKMAN-No. Okay.
MR. STONE-You probably have five, well, have seven for replacing, at least five for replacing what
you had.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. Now, that’s great. I think that’s wonderful. If, say next year, or some
other time, I wanted to re-apply for this sundeck, I mean, we’re already going to have the boathouse
there, and reapply for the site, that’s possible, right?
MR. STONE-Yes, it is.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, you can always reapply. I’m saying that. He could reapply, if he replaces the
roof, with the shed top, come in next year and say, well, I’d like to try again to put a sunroof on?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I just wanted to be sure that didn’t come under this dispute you and Mr. Lapper were
having.
MR. BROWN-Which one?
MR. MC NALLY-The segmentation, though, the idea that someone will incrementally ask for what
we would never approve.
MR. STONE-It’s on the record. We’ll note that. I would make no guarantee, Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-Of course. You understand?
MR. STONE-We have long memories.
MR. MC NALLY-I just didn’t want you to go away thinking that just because you apply next year,
that the facts of this application would not be considered.
MR. HECKMAN-That wasn’t my point, really. My point was, you know, I’m going back to
replacing what I had. I just had to think if there was some other option that I might want to try
again some time.
MR. STONE-So you would like us to?
MR. HECKMAN-Withdraw everything except replacement of the dock.
MR. STONE-Okay, and that would be the same relief that we’re talking about?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-It would be the same relief, and I guess, just for clarity, do you want to see another
drawing or do you want to imagine what it’s going to look like without the rail and the steps? If
you’re comfortable doing that, that’s fine, but.
MR. HAYES-I am.
MR. STONE-I am. I mean, it’s going to be a roof like this.
MR. HECKMAN-It’s actually going to be flat.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be flat?
MR. HECKMAN-Right, or a slight pitch, but not.
MR. STONE-But strong enough to keep snow, so it doesn’t collapse. You can still store your boat
under?
MR. HECKMAN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it will be strong enough for that.
MR. BROWN-I think just for record keeping purposes, since there’s been such a significant change
from the original application, I’d like it, if you would, request for another drawing to be submitted
for the file, to show the revisions that are approved.
MR. STONE-But not delay any approval.
MR. BROWN-No, not delay an approval. If you’re comfortable with what we have in front of you,
absolutely. Go ahead with it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-But just for the file, what’s to be approved and what sounds like to be approved is
significantly different. We just need to keep.
MR. STONE-Okay. Before we take a vote, since we have a new application before us, let me just go
down the line and tell me how you feel, in terms of? Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem approving something for which we do not have a plan and
have no dimensions on, provided I understand, tonight, what the height’s going to be, what the
dimension’s going to be. I mean, what are we going to get? Are we going to get, I just want to make
sure I understand what I’m approving, that’s all. They’ve changed their plan. Now they’re going to
have a shed roof of some kind. How tall is the shed roof going to be? How wide is it going to be?
MR. HECKMAN-It’s the same as we’ve submitted here.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m just asking for numbers.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay. It’s the same thing, Bob, except it wouldn’t, I’m sorry, nine feet from the
dock, from the floor of the dock to the top of the roof.
MR. MC NALLY-So it would be how many feet?
MR. HECKMAN-From the top of the dock to the.
MR. STONE-To the peak of the roof, to the highest point?
MR. HECKMAN-Yes. See, here it is here, here’s the dock, and here’s the, the thing before we put
the railing up, before the proposed sundeck. So that’s what we would have.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. HAYES-There is a restriction there that he couldn’t exceed even.
MR. BROWN-Right, but I think if you’re going to give him side setback relief, you’re going to want
to know how big it is.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-But you’re willing to stipulate that the roof you’re going to replace is this underneath
roof on this drawing of September 21, where you say existing flat roof boathouse, which shows a
slight peak, and that peak is nine feet above the surface of the?
MR. HECKMAN-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So in other words, it’s no more than nine feet above the existing surface of the
deck?
MR. HECKMAN-Correct, the dock.
MR. MC NALLY-And the side setback relief is what? What are the actual dimensions?
MR. STONE-Well, the actual dimensions, they’re the same. They’re what’s in the application.
MR. MC NALLY-Then I’m happy.
MR. STONE-It’s 14.12 feet and 10.86.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine.
MR. STONE-From the 20 foot minimum side setback.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine. Just as long as I know what I’m approving.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, I’m okay on it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Not really. Verbal assurances are fine under certain circumstances. Quite frankly, I’d
prefer to see it in writing, from the applicant.
MR. STONE-Okay. We can stipulate a survey be submitted, as part of our approval, in this
particular case. Can we not?
MR. BROWN-Sure, as well as updated drawings before we issue a building permit.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Well, if we have all those stipulations, which is, in effect, providing
documentation, then I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with evaluating that new application.
MR. HAYES-That means no.
MR. STONE-Okay. No at the moment.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-You know how lawyers and judges are. They never say yes or no.
MR. STONE-Bob did.
MR. BRYANT-That’s true. I would be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I’m fine.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’m fine.
MR. STONE-All right. So am I. Okay. I need a motion that calls for the rebuilding of a flat roof,
no higher than nine feet, per one of the drawings in the application, and we can specify that, subject
to getting a new one, with the reliefs that are requested, and with all the stipulations that we talked
about. Who wants to try it?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MOTION TO APPROVE , AS MODIFIED BY THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING,
AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2001 JOHN HECKMAN, Introduced by Robert McNally who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
68 Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes the reconstruction of an existing dock and boathouse,
and seeks relief from the setback requirements as that boathouse was removed prior to the issuance
of any variance or building permit. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the requirements
of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations as follows: He asks for 14.12 feet of relief from the north
property line and 10.86 feet of relief from the south property line from the side setback
requirements, which in an WR-1A zone is now 20 feet. The benefit to the applicant is that he would
be permitted to replace an existing dock and boathouse with one that is more structurally sound.
The feasible alternatives are none. The relief is not substantial to the Ordinance, given the fact that
this is a pre-existing structure. It simply is to be replaced with one in better condition. The effect on
the neighborhood or community is minimal, given the fact that this is a pre-existing structure; he’s
simply replacing with one essentially identical, and, lastly, is this self-created? I don’t believe it is. It’s
a replacement of something that’s already there. It’s simply a matter of ordinary maintenance, and
therefore the factors weigh in favor of Mr. Heckman. Now this is contingent, of course, upon the
boathouse being constructed to meet the noted side setback as he’s requested, and he’s also indicated
that the height of this boathouse would be no more than nine feet above the existing dock, as it
currently exists, and that the roof is to be a flat roof, or very slightly sloped roof, no higher than that
nine feet. It would also be contingent on that there be no land bridge or structure allowing access to
the roof either by stairs or ladders or decks, except for ordinary maintenance, that kind of thing. I do
think that you’ll have to submit new building plans to show the new structure, in accordance with the
Town building requirements, and that the existing survey be updated after construction to show what
is on your shoreline, and where it is, so we, in the future, know where it will be.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry, did you ask for an as built survey?
MR. MC NALLY-I did not. That’s a good point.
MR. STONE-And also a drawing for the application, a revised drawing for the application file.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. Craig, there’ll be a building permit issued, I presume?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that building permit will require a plan showing what the construction detail
is going to be?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So certainly they’re going to have a drawing of the construction. You’d like a
survey of the existing dock once it’s in place and everything?
MR. STONE-Finished.
MR. BROWN-That’s up to.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand, but did you mention you wanted something like that earlier?
MR. BROWN-Just a revised drawing of what’s proposed to be built. We could probably take it from
the building permit file, but we just need to keep the variance file current with what gets approved.
The drawings we have now aren’t what you’re approving.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. Okay. I do think that you’ll have to submit new building plans to show the
new structure, in accordance with the Town building requirements, and I think Mr. Stone’s request
for a survey is probably a good idea. So there’s something in the Town’s file which will document
exactly where this thing is built, and how far the dimensions are of the roof overhangs and what not
from the side property lines.
MR. STONE-Do you understand all that, Mr. Heckman?
MR. HECKMAN-I’m a little confused on the survey part. The drawings, I’m fine with that. I have
no problem. Are you talking about this big thing that I had to pay this guy to do?
MR. MC NALLY-Right.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-We want dimensions on that survey, since we’ve granted relief for something which is,
I’m not sure what it, the way he draws, I’m not sure what he shows here on the survey, quite frankly,
in relationship to the roof. I mean, I see 5.88, and that points to a line, and I don’t know what that
line goes to.
MR. BROWN-That’s the corner of the sundeck, the corner of the boathouse.
MR. STONE-It does?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, what is the second line there?
MR. BROWN-The dotted line is the inside of the boat slip.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. Mr. Heckman, I’m not asking for a great deal. You already have an existing
survey, and your surveyor can update it to show, after it’s built, if there’s any modification or change.
To the extent there is not, this is the existing structure, at least it says that. So, afterwards, when it’s
all built and put back together again, just ask him to update this and submit it to the Town, so we
know exactly what’s going to get changed, and if it’s the same, it’s the same. If it’s not, we want to
know it.
MR. HECKMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-I’d like to know, the survey to tell me, where the finished roof is in relationship to the
property lines. I don’t think this survey really tells where they’ve proposed it to be. I don’t have little
arrows. I like little arrows. I mean, I grew up in the age when you had little arrows on dimension
lines.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I throw this out, please, may I throw my thought out, please? It
seems to me that it would be in your best interest, Mr. Heckman, to withdraw this application and
resubmit another one, with all the data that’s been requested this evening. Because as far as I’m
concerned, there are too many abstracts involved, but that’s up to you.
MR. HECKMAN-I don’t understand. All we’re asking for now is to build what we have there, and
put the existing boathouse back up, so I can put the boat.
MR. STONE-You’re building it where you said you’re going to build it.
MR. HECKMAN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-That’s all we want to know.
MR. HAYES-And we’re granting specific relief. If he violates that, he’ll have to come back.
MR. STONE-Right, and we can make him tear it down, if it’s not those, I mean, these are two
decimal points, courtesy of the surveyor. That’s pretty exact.
MR. BROWN-And I’m comfortable where those dimensions are proposed to be to the upper, the
boathouse.
MR. STONE-That’s fine, but I want to know, we want to see it after it’s built. That’s all. We want
the surveyor to confirm that when you put the roof in, that the numbers that he has on here are, in
fact, those numbers, because these are the numbers that we use to grant relief.
MR. HAYES-And they match up to the relief that’s been granted.
MR. STONE-So we want Mr. Dickinson to say, that’s where it is. Okay?
MR. HECKMAN-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. HECKMAN-Thank you very much.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-You’ve got a couple of things to do, but Mr. Creed can keep working.
MR. CREED-Thank you.
USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENS FALLS CONGREGATION
OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES AGENT: ANDREW CRONQUIST PROPERTY
OWNER: G.F. CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: 3 OGDEN ROAD CORNER OF CORINTH AND OGDEN ROADS
APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA AND SEEKS
RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. CROSS REF. SPR
44-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 147-1-8 NEW
TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-55 LOT SIZE: 1.27 ACRES SECTION 179-26
GREG GARAFALO & ANDREW CRONQUIST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 79-2001, Glens Falls Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses,
Meeting Date: October 17, 2001 “Project Location: 3 Ogden Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant has an established non-conforming use on the property and seeks relief to
expand the parking area associated with the same. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from
the allowable uses of the Light Industrial, LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Criteria for considering a Use
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable
return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial
evidence? The applicant has not provided any financial evidence to support their position on this
matter. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this
hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The neighborhood is
comprised of both allowable uses and pre-existing, non-conforming uses. 3. Will the requested
Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-
created: The alleged hardship could be attributed to the changes in zoning which were beyond the
control of the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign permit 96-
2093 issued 9/17/96 32 sf freestanding sign AV 19-91 res. 3/27/91 expansion of facility, hall and
offices UV 20-91 res. 3/27/91 expansion of facility, hall and offices Staff comments: The
previous use variance was granted for the conduct of a non-conforming use. The expansion of such
a non-conforming use requires a use variance. It is not necessary for the applicant to prove a
financial hardship for those lands encompassed by the previous variance. Rather, it is necessary for
the applicant to provide information as to the financial gain/loss status of those lands proposed to be
occupied per the variance request. The previous plans appear to depict parking in the areas
proposed, however, the current proposal is for the expansion of these areas. SEQR Status: Type:
Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 10,
2001 Project Name: G.F. Cong. Of Jehovah’s Witnesses Owner: Glens Falls Congregation of
Jehovah’s ID Number: QBY-UV-2001 County Project#: Oct01-20 Current Zoning: 147-1-8
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion of the parking area
on the street and seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming use. Site Location: Corner of
Corinth and Ogden Roads. Tax Map Number(s): 147-1-8 Staff Notes: Staff has reviewed the use
variance application to extend the parking lot and finds no impact on County resources or facilities.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley,
Warren County Planning Board 10/12/01.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen, identify yourself.
MR. GARAFALO-My name is Greg Garafalo. I’m on the applicant’s agent’s signature and Andrew
is here with me, who was the applicant, and I’m in charge of the Building Committee of the Glens
Falls Congregation on this particular project and came to represent them. The only thing that I
would say, as part of the notes on the yellow paper here, is that it mentioned the applicant proposes
expansion of the parking area and seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming use. We are in
the Light Industrial Area. So we know that the Zoning has changed, but as far as the expansion, we
really don’t see it as an expansion, because we’re parking all throughout that area for the past 20, 22
years. So I don’t, you know, we didn’t put in for an expansion, just that we wanted to pave where
we’ve been parking.
MR. STONE-We understand. This is a complicated issue, and we’re not going to help you much, in
terms of explaining. No, we are. We’re going to try to explain, and Staff is going to help me.
Because it’s their determination. All we are is acting here on the basis of your request for, I guess, a
building permit to pave the property. Their interpretation, and it may be ours, but their
interpretation that since it’s a non-conforming use, and you were granted a Use Variance, nine, ten
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
years ago for building a church building there in this Light Industrial, which is now a Light Industrial
zone, that any expansion of that non-conforming use requires a further Use Variance. That is the
intent. Am I right, Craig, in what I’m saying?
MR. BROWN-Keep going.
MR. STONE-Their interpretation is that you need a Use Variance to do what you want to do. Now,
I have a question. I want to know exactly what you want to do, because I have to, I’m confused,
looking at your property and looking at what you submitted, but the point is, a Use Variance is a very
difficult thing, if we follow the letter of the law, and I can only tell you that since 1991, this Board
and, as it’s been constituted over the past five or six years, views Use Variances very differently than
the Board who gave the Use Variance then did. We are inclined to follow the law as we are directed,
which means that, Number One, Can the applicant realize a reasonable return…is tantamount, is the
prime factor in any Use Variance. In addition, every other one of the conditions, the other three,
must be met. It’s not a balancing test. You may have heard earlier, I think Mr. McNally said it very
clearly, or someone, that this is a balancing test for an Area Variance, benefit to the applicant,
detriment to the community, and this gives us a lot of leeway. This Board has interpreted the Use
Variance application as being very rigid. This doesn’t say we won’t grant it, but we look at them very
long and hard, per the law as we understand it. So, having said that, I don’t want to prejudice you
one way or the other. Can you tell me exactly what it is that you’re trying to do? Because I can tell
you, I saw a parking lot and one of your drawings shows an “L” Shaped parking lot, and then I’ve
got another drawing which seems to ignore that area. So can you just help me, and maybe the rest of
the Board, but, since I’m the Chairman, I get the right to ask first.
MR. GARAFALO-No, it’s very easy, actually. The building itself was built in 1975, okay, and
basically all they put down at that time was gravel, you know, blue stone or whatever, down through
that area, and we always parked in the “L” on times when there was big attendance. So that always
gets used for parking.
MR. STONE-So you parked behind the Anderson property?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, we always have, but that’s, you know, like certain times when we just have
more in attendance than others. So it’s always been used strictly as parking. The building, about five
or six years ago, we renovated the existing structure. We didn’t change anything, and we didn’t
upgrade the parking lot. We left it as it is. By this time, after all those years went by, there’s very
faint signs of any blue stone. There’s pots and, you know, you get the mud puddles and everything
else. So back behind the building, as you see in the older drawing, that’s what I think I personally
drew this. I submitted back for when we were anticipating putting the little addition on the back of
the hall that never got built, okay. It just happened to be in our files. So we used it. So from where
this shows parking down through, and then additional parking on the “L”, that’s how we presently
use it, and that’s how we’ve been using it for the past 22 years. I’ve been there since ’78. So
basically, I can pretty much confirm that that’s how we parked. The reason why it wasn’t on the
other plan, or on this plan here for the “L” is because we don’t want to pave the “L”. We just can’t
afford it. We will still continue to use it as parking when we have more in attendance. We have a
capacity, I think, of 200 and something, where we have an attendance that’s usually around 130
something, but on special occasions, we get up near the 200 range, and there’s obviously a lot more
cars. So it always changes. So we always use that, but it’s used as needed.
MR. STONE-So you’re not proposing to pave it at this time? So, in a sense, it’s not in the
application?
MR. GARAFALO-Right.
MR. STONE-Correct? I mean, we’re talking just the area they want to pave. Okay. Anything else?
MR. GARAFALO-Not that I know of, unless you have more questions.
MR. STONE-Well, no, you’ve helped me at least know what it is I looked at the other day, because I
did look, and I saw this area. Now you are talking about a formal egress, formal out, if you will, exit
at the southern end of the parking area?
MR. GARAFALO-Right. Correct, the one that was there, in between the trees.
MR. STONE-And they would be clearly marked at that entrance and exit?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes. In this case they would, because presently, because everybody kind of parks
whichever way they want now, and then, see, with this particular proposal, we’re going to have a
green area where, typically, you should have off from the road, but right now we have people parking
there because there’s nothing designated. It’s gravel. They park in between the pine trees.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-They come right out to the roadway, in other words?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, and then if friends come in from the south entrance, they might use that
sometimes as coming in, sometimes they’ll use it as an exit, but the way we have it laid out, once we
stripe it, it would be dangerous to have traffic going from that other, that would have to be an exit.
So, yes, we would clearly block that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, anything? Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-When you pave this lot eventually, how many trees are you actually going to take out?
MR. GARAFALO-Presently we don’t think any. We took trees out prior to this.
MR. BRYANT-Because your green area is wider, I think, than what you show here. You’ve got
some trees, and I was a little concerned, actually, by looking at the second drawing. You say you’re
going to park around the Anderson property, because there really are a lot of trees there. There are
more trees there than some place else.
MR. GARAFALO-No trees in that field, because we mow that field behind the Anderson.
MR. BRYANT-You mean right next to the Anderson property?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes. In other words, like, this map shows trees along his fence, and then there’s
trees along that other fence, and then there’s trees along the back residence, but all in between those
trees is like, you know, probably from here, even further than that, like 50 feet wide. What is it, 100
feet wide? So it’s probably more like even 70 feet wide without any trees. That’s the only area we
ever use to park in.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to take any more trees out?
MR. GARAFALO-No trees out back there, none at all.
MR. BRYANT-What about in the front where your green area is?
MR. GARAFALO-You’ve seen it recently?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. GARAFALO-No other trees. Now there was O’Connor came in, and this was just yesterday.
So I hadn’t had a chance to met him, and Andy Cronquist here, Andy met him, met with O’Connor,
the paver, and he suggested that, where there was some trees, just at this out exit, that those trees,
there’s a few trees just down by that south exit. I don’t know if you saw them.
MR. STONE-Yes, I did.
MR. GARAFALO-He says they’re in the way of the exit. So if anything was in question, it would be
those trees right there. He said that the way it lays out, those trees would be where the exit is.
MR. STONE-As I look at this drawing, the paved area is going to extend south of the Anderson
property slightly.
MR. GARAFALO-Right. That’s correct.
MR. STONE-And then there’s going to be one aisle there for the overflow parking, if someone
doesn’t park in it?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes. In other words, we’re in that corner back there where the seepage pit would
be, or the drain runoff, they have some parking spaces shown there, but they’re not going to be in
use. They’re not going to be striped or anything. I don’t actually know how that got on there, but, in
other words, that would be the path through.
MR. STONE-So that whole corner would be open?
MR. GARAFALO-Right, basically.
MR. STONE-Where it says 56 would not be?
MR. GARAFALO-Right, correct.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m still trying to figure out why, really, this is an expansion. If this is a parking
area that they’ve used as parking, and all they’re asking to do is to lay blacktop on it, how does it get
to be an expansion?
MR. BROWN-That’s a good question. Just a little bit of the chronology of the application, and if
I’m wrong in any of this, just jump in. My understanding is that the Church was built, mid to late
70’s, when land use, the zoning allowed that type of use. It was a conforming use. Some time in the
90’s, early 90’s, they applied for, were required to apply for both a Use Variance and an Area
Variance to expand it because the zoning had changed from a residential zoning, which allowed the
use, to a Light Industrial use which didn’t. So the expansion of the building required a Use Variance,
which was granted, and it was specific for the expansion of a building, which brings us to today,
when the information that was submitted, in all the conversations that I’ve had with the applicant
and both Staff., Laura Moore of our Staff indicated that a portion of the property was to be cleared
and graded and expanded and a driveway added that was above and beyond the plans that were
reviewed and approved at the time the expansion was proposed. So we get back to that, the increase
in physical area where you apply this use to the property. If that’s proposed to be increased, then
that’s an expansion of the use. If now the case is that we’re not going to take down any trees, we’re
not going to add the driveway, we’re not going to make the parking area in this one particular section
any bigger, then I agree it’s probably not an expansion, but the decision was based that land was
going to be cleared, a driveway was going to be added that wasn’t there before, on the previously
approved plans, and those additions constitute the expansion of the use. If that answered your
question.
MR. STONE-The driveway’s still going to be added.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, there’s the south egress that’s there now.
MR. BROWN-Right, but what we do when we get the application in is we take a look at this plan
that was submitted for the ’90 variance it doesn’t show a driveway on there. Now what’s proposed is
to have a driveway or formalize a driveway on there.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-Those additions, and the clearing of land to pave, that’s what we based our decision
as an expansion on. So, there’s certainly the discretion, if you don’t think that there’s, you know,
enough of a change to warrant an expansion, you can certainly not act on the application and say we
don’t think it’s an expansion, and let it go at that. While this isn’t an appeal, I think you could
certainly make that finding.
MR. STONE-All right. So you’re saying an option that we have is not to consider the Use Variance,
just say that we don’t think this is an expansion, that requires a Use Variance.
MR. BROWN-I think you could if you wanted to go that direction. If you compare things, but,
again, this isn’t an appeal.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. BROWN-They haven’t appealed that position. They’re here requesting the Use Variance.
MR. STONE-I mean, you go back to the original Use Variance, and this is why I say things are
different. They ended up by saying that, due to the applicant’s property right, the proof of
reasonable financial return is not necessary. I don’t believe we concur in that kind of decision
normally, we have not done that, but that’s not the situation that’s facing us. All right. So we have
two options you’re telling us, Craig, and that’s fine. One, we can deliberate on the Use Variance,
however we choose to do it, subject to challenge by anybody who says we’re not doing it right,
correct?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-We always have that problem, and somebody could. We haven’t heard the public yet.
Or, two, we could listen and we could say, well, in a sense, we disagree with the determination of the
Community Development Department, and I’m not putting, since it was a joint effort you’re saying,
you both talked about it.
MR. BROWN-Well, I’m responsible for it. So you can throw me in.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Well, I’m trying to be nice.
MR. MC NULTY-We can also say that the information has been clarified, or whatever, because as
Craig says, if they’re going to cut a lot of trees down, and they’re really going to move the southern
exit, then it probably is an expansion.
MR. BROWN-You could do that, but just, not to influence you one way or the other, but what the
facts are, they didn’t appeal that decision that said they needed a Use Variance.
MR. STONE-That’s correct.
MR. BROWN-And the plans are different from the plan that was approved, or at least submitted in a
previous application, as opposed to the one you have tonight.
MR. MC NALLY-So we’ve had non-conforming uses before.
MR. BROWN-But this one is tough, because it started as a conforming use, and the zoning change,
and then it’s non-conforming and they got the variance to expand.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, whenever we’ve had expansions, any changes of uses, like if you had Warner
Bay, if they wanted to replace a dirt path with deck path, we’ve been very strict in interpretations in
saying that is an expansion, and I think that’s a good idea that we’re strict, but in this case, the only
factor that would be difficult is the financial one. The problem is, what the heck are you going to use
this lot for, for financial gain, except as a church parking lot. It may not be that there are hard
figures here, but I don’t think that there’s any real doubt that there’s no possibility of any reasonable
financial return, short of continuing its use as a parking lot.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, we can make that determination.
MR. MC NALLY-But I still think we should still consider it an expansion of a non-conforming use,
because it is different, however minimal and however it may be picayune, but I think that’s the way
we should look at it.
MR. STONE-Well, if we have anymore questions, go ahead, but I want to, I’ll open the public
hearing. Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-All right. Any further questions? I think I, personally, like what you just said, Bob. So
I’m going to start with you.
MR. MC NALLY-In my opinion, we should continue a strict interpretation, so that this is an
expansion of a non-conforming use that requires a variance. I just like that idea, because in the
future we may have a situation where that’s a rule we want to have had in effect. We’ve done it
before, so I think we should continue it, but in this case, when you look at the four factors, I think
the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique. Given the history of this property,
there’s no question that it was approved, initially. It was an appropriate use. It’s going to continue
an appropriate use. It’s just that, historically, the Town has changed the zoning since it was originally
approved. The use has never changed, and it’s unique, since this is a residential area or light
industrial area, this is the only church or religious type property there. So it’s unique, and it’s not
likely to affect other properties, and will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential
character of the neighborhood? No way. This has been a longstanding establishment right at this
corner. There’s nothing else that they can use there. It’s not going to change the neighborhood at
all. The alleged hardship is not self-created. I think it’s created by the Town. So these three factors
clearly weigh in favor of the applicant. The fourth one is can the applicant realize a reasonable
return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence.
We have been strict in requiring financial reports, but that’s usually in the context of a case where
you have a separate lot that’s being sold, or could be sold for an allowable use. What we’re
effectively asking this applicant is to take your parking lot and try to get a financial return out of it.
We can’t do that. It’s integral to this lot. It’s not a separate parcel. So I think that, even though they
may not have financial figures or a Treasurer’s report, where you open up your ledgers and show
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
your books, I don’t think there’s any question that there is no reasonable return. Who’s going to buy
a parking lot for a church? What kind of financial return are you going to get? And the last thing I
note is if you look at the new zoning code, this is Suburban Residential One, and a religious
organization is allowable in this zone, subject to site plan review. Now it’s not approved yet, but it’s
an indication that the Town Board has looked at this area and has seen that the existing light
industrial usage classification is not appropriate. So I would suggest that they meet the criteria. This
may not be a big Use Variance, but I think it’s one we should grant.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with what Bob has said. I might add only in connection with
the financial part of it, without it paved, without our granting the Use Variance to do so, it could be
imagined that the future of the church, its growth, could be impacted by the condition of the parking
lot, especially in the winter. I think a hard surface improves the safety factors and all, but it does
come down to attendance and things like that, perhaps. There must be some reason you’re doing it.
So, I’m not asking you a question. So, I’m in favor of it. I support the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I’m one of the Board members who believes in strict
interpretation of Use Variances. However, let me say that, in this instance, I believe that there are
unique circumstances, and in the interest of time, Bob said it correctly. Norm said it correctly. I
think because of the unique circumstances involved and the fact that, I don’t want to get into a long
dissertation of putting a price, in terms of reasonable return, on your parking lot, I think in this case
would be rather absurd. So, based upon my opinion, and what I’ve heard this evening, I have no
problems with supporting it.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I think everybody has already said it. I would vote in favor of the variance.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with everybody else. I think Bob correctly pointed out that really the
only aspect of the test that’s in question, again, is the competent financial evidence, and I think this is
a unique circumstance. It’s a church. Normally we’re dealing with a business that has income and
expenses and that type of thing, and the church is not in the profit business. They’re in the worship
business, and I think that’s a difficult thing to quantify, and I think that under examination, we would
be given a wide berth in interpreting that because of the nature of business that’s being, or the return
that’s being put in question, and also I think cumulatively, you know, I’m not sure about the legality,
you know, on a constitutional basis, of making a religious use a non-conforming use. I mean, it’s a
question that could be answered, and I’d rather not even, I think we can get around it. I think the
test is passed, in my mind, enough to put our stamp of approval on this. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think Bob’s original comments pretty well define the way I feel about
it. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Well, I think we’ve said it pretty well. I think Bob, and you’re going to make the
motion, Bob, so remember what you said, because you did it extremely well. The only thing that I
would ask, because we have to do a Short Environmental impact form, and you did talk about tree
removal, and I must know, and I’d like to make it part of the motion, what it is you propose to do, to
the best knowledge you have right now, with the trees on the property, because that is an
environmental impact, and you also, you said you had blue stone down on the?
MR. GARAFALO-That was so long ago.
MR. STONE-But you’re not changing the permeable character? That’s what I just want you to say.
MR. GARAFALO-No, right.
MR. STONE-I mean, it was impermeable before, and it’s still going to be impermeable, because we
have to, I will make a motion very shortly, on the Short Environmental form, but tell me about the
trees, just so that, when I make this form, we know what we’re talking about, make this motion.
MR. GARAFALO-Okay. Right now, toward that south exit that you notice, just before it, there’s a
few small, I think oak trees, I believe, maybe three or four of them, okay, and based on O’Connor’s
coming, the other day, and giving us, you know, starting the part of the proposal for his expenses and
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
what it’s going to cost us and everything, he said that they would be in the way of the traffic flow, as
you’re coming down this path, all right, because we used to have one path, but we parked, actually,
this double parking happened closer to the road than it is now, and we’ve actually moved our parking
away from the road, because we had that island, and people just used to pull in, everybody would pull
in this way, facing out to the road, and then anybody who came later would pull from the road just
into the property because it was flat, and they’d face the cars the other way. So we’ve essentially
taken what everybody’s been kind of doing all along and just moved it a little further into our
property. By doing that, this lane of traffic right here is going to, based on the setback that you want
from the road, you know, he was there last night, or yesterday, and he said that, you know, you need
30 feet in your green area, and so your driveway is going to hit some of those trees, just before you
make that turn out. So those few trees right there are the ones in question.
MR. STONE-One question, Craig. Is there a buffer zone on the east side? I see they’ve got parking
right up to the fence. I’m thinking of something that’s coming up later tonight. I don’t know what
that zone is.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t know the answer to that, and I’m not sure that the work they’re
proposing here goes all the way to the end of the property.
MR. STONE-They show the property line there.
MR. BROWN-Along the road.
MR. STONE-No, on the other side, the Anderson side.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. GARAFALO-It’s six feet from the fence to the pavement.
MR. BROWN-No, I would bet that the zoning district line is at the back, we’ll say, the south of the
church property.
MR. STONE-To the south.
MR. BROWN-If you look at the older drawing, I would say the zone line is right here, without
having it in front of me. It’s not going to go through a property. It’s going to go to the back of this
property.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the Anderson property is light industrial?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s my only concern that I had. Okay. Before we get a motion, I have to
move.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, Bob, would you make a motion to approve the way you did?
MR. MC NALLY-I’d be happy to.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2001 GLENS FALLS
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
3 Ogden Road. The applicant has established a nonconforming use on the property and seeks relief
to expand the parking area associated with the current use. Specifically, the applicant requests relief
from the allowable uses of the Light Industrial, LI-1A zone, that is Section 179-26 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. I move approval of this application for the following four reasons.
First, is the alleged hardship self-created? No. The hardship can be attributed, instead, to changes in
zoning which were beyond the control of the applicant. Two, will the requested Use Variance, if
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Not at all. I don’t believe any impacts
can be anticipated as a result of this action. The area which they seek to pave is an existing parking
area, in large part, accommodating the churchgoers already. So the change in the neighborhood is
going to be non-existent. We have a use that’s going to be continued, but just that they’ll have a
paved area in which to park. Three, is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question
unique? Well, this neighborhood is in large part residential, even though it’s zoned Light Industrial.
I think that the hardship in this case applies to a substantial portion of the district, but in this
instance, this factor does not weigh against the applicant. The only factor, which is questionable, is
whether the applicant can realize a reasonable return as demonstrated by competent financial
evidence, and as I noted earlier, in this instance, we have an existing parking lot. The applicant
simply seeks to have it paved. That portion of the single lot, which they occupy as parking space,
you’re not going to receive any reasonable return, and you don’t need financial evidence in order to
demonstrate that fact. It’s a church parking lot. It’ll continue as a church parking lot. No one’s
going to build an industrial facility there. It’s not even a realistic possibility. So whereas we might
normally require hard financial numbers, in this case, I think we can do away with that, since, as a
common sense practical application, it simply is never going to give them any financial return,
reasonable or otherwise, except as a continued parking lot. For all these reasons, I move the
approval of this Use Variance, subject to Mr. Stone’s comment that the removal of trees are to be
limited, as you have indicated, on the southerly portion of the exit. As Mr. O’Connor has pointed
out, a few need to be removed, but otherwise, the construction as to be built as the drawings show.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Go and pave, gentlemen.
MR. MC NALLY-Congratulations. See you guys later.
MR. GARAFALO-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2001 TYPE II RONALD BENJAMIN AGENT: PARADOX
DESIGN ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: RONALD BENJAMIN ZONE: WR-
1A, CEA LOCATION: 246 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, FLOOR AREA
RATIO REQUIREMENTS, AND RELIEF TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
10/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-95 LOT SIZE: 0.21
ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79
CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2001, Ronald Benjamin, Meeting Date: October 17, 2001
“Project Location: 246 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of additions to an existing home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 39
feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 13 feet and 2 feet of relief
from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-79. Additionally,
the applicant seeks to establish a total Floor Area Ratio of 39% where 22% is allowable. Further, the
applicant seeks simultaneous shoreline setback relief from the requirements of the Shoreline and
Wetlands Regulations § 179-60. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure per 179-79. Finally, the applicant proposes to create site improvements that
will develop a 39% non permeable condition on the site, where 35% is the maximum allowable.
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 additions in the preferred
configurations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be
interpreted as very substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to
substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 63-95 res. 11/21/95 AV 78-95 res. 10/25/95 SP
85-90 res. 11/27/90 SP 47-89 res. 9/18/89 AV 82-89 res. 7/26/89 AV 42-89 res. 5/17/89 Staff
comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
property currently is in violation of the Floor Area Ratio requirements with a 29% total. The number
of variances and the amounts of the requests make this a significant request for relief. With an
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
existing home and garage on the property, it does not appear that the applicant would be deprived of
a reasonable use of the property without the granting of this variance. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 10,
2001 Project Name: Benjamin, Ronald Owner: Ronald Benjamin ID Number: QBY-AV-82-2001
County Project#: Oct01-16 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of additions to an existing single family dwelling and
seeks relief from the setback requirements, floor area requirements and relief to expand a non-
conforming structure. Site Location: 1261 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): Staff Notes:
The applicant proposes to remove an existing free standing garage and add to the existing house an
attached garage that will be 440 sq. ft. and an addition to the house of 204 sq. ft. Both the garage
and house addition are attached to each other at the rear of the existing house. The staff
recommends approval. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E.
Haley, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/01.
MR. STONE-Sir?
MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson. I’m an architect with Paradox
Design Architects. Considering Staff notes, they’ve indicated some concerns which I’m sure the
Board’s going to reflect the same. What I’d like to kind of propose tonight is a quick review what we
were trying to do, why we’re doing what we’re doing, maybe open it to the Board for some
discussion and some hopeful guidance. So if that’s appropriate for you guys tonight, that’s what I’d
kind of like to do, and maybe turn this from an approval to sort of a workshop to see where you
might see this application going. Because it’s obvious from comments from Staff, and I’m sure
they’re going to be reflective of your concerns as well, it doesn’t stand much chance of approval this
evening, the way it sits. Would that be acceptable?
MR. STONE-It’s your $50.
MR. ABBATE-We’re not advocates. This Board does not function as an advocate of an applicant.
MR. JOHNSON-I’m not asking for that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-No. He’s asking what we don’t like about the application. I mean, that’s what we
normally do, or what we like about it. If we like about it, that’s fine.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think you may just want to go start the process, and through the course of
your normal discussion, you’re going to come up with.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-If I could, just first of all, I’d like to apologize for the Staff notes. With the Parcel
History, usually I give you a list of what the approvals were for. I just ran out of time this month,
and if you want to know, I have the descriptions for each one of those applications that deal with the
property, but they’re not in there, in this application.
MR. STONE-It would be helpful. I didn’t really notice that they weren’t.
MR. JOHNSON-I did the ones in ’95. I think the ones previous were for another.
MR. STONE-’95 we have the notes. Don’t we?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we do.
MR. STONE-We have the motion from ’95. What were they, Craig, just quickly?
MR. BROWN-I’ll read them right down from the top. The first one was the site plan associated with
the 580 square foot second floor addition. If you look at the house from the lake, it was the second
floor to the right, to the north. The next one, the variance was for that same construction. The site
plan in ’90 was for a walkway, to maintain a walkway to the dock. Site plan in ’89 was for a
boathouse and sundeck. The variance, the first variance, or the second variance in ’89 was a fence
variance to allow some fence construction along the shore, and Area Variance No. 42 was to remove
a porch and some decks along the shore and create some new decks, and that’s the only one out of
the ones I’ve seen that was denied.
MR. STONE-That was denied, for a deck?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-Remove some porches and decks along the shore, but that was ’89. Probably the ’95
construction, all that was taken care of.
MR. STONE-All right. Why don’t you, Mr. Johnson, tell us what you’d like us to hear, and we’ll do
what we normally do.
MR. JOHNSON-Right. Mr. Benjamin bought the house as a bachelor in ’95. He proceeded to make
a bedroom expansion and bath on the second floor. He’s since gotten married, has a family, and
would like to expand the house by an additional bedroom. In the process, we thought we would take
the garage, which is freestanding, attach it to the house, and try and improve the drive that’s currently
on that sharp corner. We’ve taken the drive and moved it to the end of this property, hopefully
improving site lines for ingress and egress of the drive. So that was one of the benefits of relocating
the garage. Relocating the garage, we’ve also sort of combined the different structures into a single
structure, again, hopefully minimizing some visual impact. Rather than spreading it out, we’ve
condensed it a bit. Most of our variances are for pre-existing, nonconforming structures. It’s a lot
that’s too small, the house is placed too close, both side and lake front. We’re trying to expand to the
rear, keeping it as unnoticeable from the lake as possible. I think one of my comments was it would
appear invisible from the lake, and that’s incorrect. There is some additions that you would see as we
expand the existing part of the house from the lake. So we’re trying to be as sensitive as possible
with this addition, using the relocation of the garage as a way to try and camouflage some of this
expansion of the house, of this additional bedroom. Part of the additional bedroom, we’re also going
to be expanding the first floor living by taking one of the bedrooms in the downstairs, increasing a
kitchen area, and moving it upstairs. So that’s basically the extent of our design. We’ve tried our
best to harmonize it with the existing character that’s there, with the ’95 addition. We feel that it’s
fairly in keeping with some of the other houses around on this neighborhood, in terms of scale and
size, character. While the floor area ratio is quite excessive, from 22 to 39, I think the intent of that
floor area ratio guideline or restriction is to keep big houses from being placed shoulder to shoulder
along the shoreline. What’s unique about this property is there is one house adjacent to it, and then
it’s empty shoreline because of the road next to it. So the size may not have the same sort of impact.
Those are my comments.
MR. STONE-Since I go by that house fairly frequently, since I live across the Point, I’ll let my fellow
Board members talk first. Go ahead, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Maybe you mentioned it, I didn’t hear, in connection with the work to be done, is there
going to be an additional porch or deck, or is there an addition to the, you’ve got the bedroom, and
the garage movement, and then there’s the deck.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. There’s a small, we’re also, and I should have mentioned that because it is
significant in the front, we are looking to expand some deck area in the front of the house.
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m sorry, what was your name again?
MR. JOHNSON-Charlie, Charlie Johnson.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Johnson, okay. Mr. Johnson, in the relief required, there are 10 typewritten lines,
and within the 10 typewritten lines are requests for eight variances. You’re going to have to help me
out here, because it boggles my mind. Two, am I correct in assuming that the existing area square
feet is a minus 720 and you wish to go to minus 1,772 feet?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct. That’s the floor area ratio.
MR. ABBATE-All right, and, let me see now. I understand that you have not submitted a septic
design.
MR. JOHNSON-We did do that. That was previous, I think last month we tried to get on the
Board, Craig kicked it back because we did not have that. As part of our submission, we’ve since
done that, and that’s why we’re here this month.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and one final question. Based upon the 10 lines that I’ve just
referred to, an expansion from seven to one thousand seven, would you agree that this is a very
substantial request for relief?
MR. JOHNSON-Looking at the numbers, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. JOHNSON-The numbers are quite substantial.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anymore comments, gentlemen?
MR. MC NALLY-I just want to make sure I understand what your application is. The existing
garage will be removed.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And essentially you’re going to put it on the back of the house, along the property
line, the north property line.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And that is going to be, as I looked at your plans, about 50/50, two story/one
story.
MR. JOHNSON-The garage will remain one story.
MR. MC NALLY-But then there’s a section adjacent to the house, about the same square footage
footprint, going up two stories.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’ll match the existing roofline of the house?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Not changing the existing height at all or anything?
MR. JOHNSON-I think it sticks up roughly a couple of feet above the existing ridge, but the same
height.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and I didn’t even catch the point about the new decking. I’m not sure
where that is. If I look on this drawing, I see a little hatched area in the front. That’s additional
decking that you need?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Is that similar to the decking that was denied in ’89?
MR. JOHNSON-I don’t know anything about the ’89.
MR. BROWN-If you give me a minute, I’ll check.
MR. STONE-Well, since you’re the, I mean, I didn’t know before until you mentioned that. It looks
like, 12 years later, maybe they want to put that thing back.
MR. JOHNSON-I think that back then the previous owner, because we ended up, he just built a
deck from the house right out to the water’s edge, which was, he had to then take off, there was
some left over back in ’95 that we continued to take off. That may be some of the deck. I’m not
sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-But just approximately what’s the square footage of the new proposed decking?
MR. JOHNSON-Ninety-six square feet. I’m sorry, that’s from the house.
MR. MC NALLY-It looks like there was an existing deck area that was built over, and that was the
96 square feet. Is that what this says?
MR. JOHNSON-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-So then the new addition to it is about the same square footage?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. JOHNSON-Give or take 100 square feet, more or less. It’s about eight feet wide and it looks
like it’s about twelve feet long.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and that’s the only new decking adjacent to the shoreline or anywhere else
on the property that you’re proposing?
MR. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, Norm has granted me 15 seconds of his time. I have a minor
question. I’m remiss in this. Of course you realize that you are currently in violation with the floor
area ratio requirements.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. That was it. Thank you, sir.
MR. HIMES-You’re very welcome.
MR. MC NULTY-When did the floor area ratio come into effect, after ’95?
MR. BROWN-1996.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. STONE-’96, yes. You’re taking your time now?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, let me ask one question.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, sure.
MR. BRYANT-You say that the movement of the garage attached to the house will hopefully make
the line of sight better going in and out of the driveway. I mean, it will actually? Because I went into
the existing driveway, and it was difficult to get out, but I’m trying to envision where the other
driveway is.
MR. JOHNSON-I think there’s a garage up at the perimeter. The neighbor’s property has a garage
roughly on the boundary of this one, and the new driveway will be fairly close, if not adjacent to that
garage.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, well your garage is going to be demolished.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-And then you would have to go out the back and then toward the neighbor’s
property, right on the edge of the neighbor’s property?
MR. JOHNSON-We’re going to, the old garage is here, and it accesses this way. What we’re going
to propose to do is take the driveway from this turn, move it all the way down here, and come in this
way.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, to the end of the property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do me a favor while you’re there. You say east elevation for that middle
drawing.
MR. JOHNSON-This railing, this north arrow is wrong. The railing is more that way.
MR. STONE-Thank you. In other words, that middle one is what I see as I come north on
Assembly Point Road?
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Thank you. So, instead of seeing a crowded lot with a break for the driveway, I’m
going to see a more crowded lot and not see the driveway until I make the turn and start west, by far.
MR. JOHNSON-You won’t see the driveway on.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-It’ll be a solid wall as I come north on Assembly Point Road, essentially? Forgetting all
the architectural nuances.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes, yes. The building will be more solid as you look at it from that direction.
MR. STONE-Yes. Right, big, there.
MR. JOHNSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, and across the street we’re going to have a water treatment plant.
MR. JOHNSON-Right. I think that’s under construction right now.
MR. STONE-Yes, it is. Any other things before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ENOCH ZYLOWSKI
MR. ZYLOWSKI-I’m not opposed yet. I’m Enoch Zylowski, and I’m going to use the mic. A lot of
people here don’t seem to use mic’s, and it’s hard to hear.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. ZYLOWSKI-But I live next door, and I know that right now his house is six foot five inches
from my lot line. We have a look now, through the driveway, and can see the road, there’s some
shrubs in there, but from what they propose here, it looks like they’re going to put a solid wall up
there, and change everything, and I’d just like to see drawings and find out just what the proposal is.
This is the first time I’ve seen it.
MR. STONE-Okay. He hasn’t given you one from your property?
MR. ZYLOWSKI-No.
MR. STONE-We have the other three sides, but not from your property. We’ll ask him what he
thinks you’re going to see when we get done.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like a copy of the plans?
MR. ZYLOWSKI-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-Here.
MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition? Anybody else wishing to
speak on this application? Anything in the files?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing in the files.
MR. STONE-Okay. So I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Would you address Mr. Zylowski’s concern? Is there one?
MR. JOHNSON-I think he was looking to see what the building might look like from his vantage
point. It’s going to be fairly two story high. There’ll be some windows from two bedrooms that are
up there, a bath. Downstairs will also be a couple of more windows. So it’ll be fairly populated with
windows. It won’t be a solid wall there. It’ll be fairly substantial in height, being two stories.
MR. STONE-So his view of traffic coming north on Assembly Point Road will be non-existent
anymore.
MR. JOHNSON-It will be diminished or non-existent.
MR. STONE-Okay.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. JOHNSON-I guess what I’m looking for tonight, I mean, I can continue to come back with
different versions of this. I could table tonight and come back with something different, table and
come back with something different, and we may discover, through several months of this that, geez,
there’s nothing we can do, or there’s something that we can do in your viewpoint, and I guess I’m
looking for a little bit of guidance, if I should come back or not.
MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you hear us out.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. STONE-Hear what we have to say, just like we would normally do, and you can be the best
judge, you can stop us at any time.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, but we’re going to go through the process, and we’re going to start with Chuck
Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, if you’re looking for guidance from this Board, I’d
be more than happy to provide some input, but based solely upon my impressions, and my initial
impressions are that this is beyond belief. As I indicated earlier, in 10 lines of typing, you are
requesting eight, I was in error, I said seven, eight reliefs. In addition to that, supplement the fact
that your current existing area is minus 720 square foot, you are proposing to increase to minus 1,752
feet. My guidance to you, sir, would be to completely withdraw this application and come up with a
new one. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what some of what Chuck has to say. Albeit some of the areas of relief
that you’re requesting, okay. My recommendation is to not increase the floor area ratio or the
permeability, and come back with that type of application. Because you already have conditions that
already are beyond excess, and now we have new conditions to deal with. You already exceed the
floor area ratio. So don’t go above where you are now, and as far as the permeability, keep it down
to the 35%, rather than the 39%, and that’s an application that I would review.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you would deny the current application?
MR. BRYANT-I would deny the current application.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. My first look at this application left me with the impression that Perry Mason
couldn’t get this one through. I mean, the amount of cumulative relief is substantial.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. HAYES-And has already been pointed out by my colleagues, this particular parcel has already
had a number of Area Variances. There’s already been relief granted, relief, quite frankly, that I
would, relief to expanding that structure to the extent that I would have never approved in the first
place, myself, going closer to the lake and such. So I certainly would not be a part of making that
worse or approving more Area Variances and more relief. So, based on the cumulative relief, I
would say that I would definitely be opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I certainly would be opposed the way it is now. I think this is an example of some
of the lots on the lake that just plain are small lots and you can’t put a big house on them, is what it
comes down to. I’d have no problem with moving the garage over and attaching it to the house, if
that provided some benefit, but the problem is increasing floor area ratio and that kind of thing, and
I don’t know what kind of guidance to give you, because I suspect the driving force is gaining some
space, not just moving the garage.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-But I think the bottom line is, it’s a small lot, and you’ve got a big house on it
now, comparatively speaking, and I don’t think I could go for much more than just moving the
garage.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. MC NALLY-I would agree with my other Board members. I mean, I always try to look, in
some sense, whether the purpose of the Ordinance is being achieved by our granting the variance,
and it would be difficult to see that on such a small lot. The other thing, frankly, I looked at is, I
know that they’d like to build an addition, and a garage adjacent to the house, but the existing garage
is nicely centered on the lot, away from all the property lines, and you get into a problem with your
neighbors, building an addition so close to that line. There’s a big white house in the area called
north.
MR. JOHNSON-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s close to the line, too. So there’s going to be some congestion there,
and I was impressed. I actually clamored across the front of this property, thinking that I could do
that easily in the rain this morning. It’s pretty close to the lake. So it’s difficult to understand what
kind of additional expansions could be justified on such a small lot. As it exists now, it would be a
tough one.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I also agree with what has all been said, too, with the aspect of the
garage, just the garage, being attached to the house, I’d be interested to see what your neighbor might
have to say, in terms of losing that look out going across the road, and I don’t know whether, in that
connection, I’d like to see a case made for not changing the driveway, maybe some of the
impermeability increase comes from the length in driveway, and have the access to the garage straight
from the road, where the driveway is essentially now, and just extended it a few feet to the new
attached garage, and then the impermeability removed from where the garage is now, the
entranceway to the garage, but overall, as submitted, I would not approve this application.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m certainly not going to change the consensus of the Board. I did have the
privilege, the other day, and what looks like it’s going to be our last ride on the lake, to go by this
property at a very slow speed, actually even before I realized it was on the agenda, and I can only
quote what my wife said, and we’ve seen it before, but we were just going very slowly and looking,
and she said, wow, does that fill the lot now, is that an awful lot of house, and then I said to her,
when I got home and looked at the application, well, guess what they want to do. They want to
make it even bigger. This Board, you asked when the new Waterfront zoning went in. Since that
time, and a lot of us have been on the Board almost from that time, we have honored that to a large
extent. Yes, we’ve granted some relief, but certainly we’ve never granted 39% floor area ratio. We’ve
certainly never granted 11 feet from the lake. The permeability we probably have exceeded a little
bit, but I think Staff was being kind, or was trying to be as objective as possible when he said very
substantial.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-If I had been writing this, in my thing, I would have said, it’s impossible, something
along that line, but he can’t do that. That’s our judgement to say that, but I can. In terms of
guidance, what to tell you to do, as someone who goes up that road every day, I mean, I don’t go that
way all the time. One of the reasons I don’t, because of that corner, with that big property on the
corner, and I don’t think this is going to help that corner, because instead of being able to have a
little depth perception from where the driveway is, there’s going to be nothing but a solid wall.
You’re going to drive up there, make that left turn, and some of the guys who are working on the
Point, not the people who live there, of course, go a little faster than 25.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-And I’ve had a lot of traffic at that Point, at that road, and I just think it’s going to be
even more dangerous than it is now. We’ve been very lucky that we haven’t had two cars come
together, and I think you’re going to take away almost any depth perception that a northbound car
has now. So, tell you what to do, I would prefer it goes away. I mean, I’ll be very candid.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-What can you do? You’ve heard us. If you’re willing, if you want us to table it, we’re
certainly willing to do that. I think we’d be interested to see what a competent architect can come up
with to make it more palatable to us, but failing that, I would call a motion to deny, obviously. So
the ball is now, Mr. Johnson, in your court.
MR. JOHNSON-Okay. Well, I would like to formally table the application for this evening.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. For what reason?
MR. JOHNSON-To take into consideration the comments of the Board and Staff and try and revise
and come back with something that might be more agreeable to everyone concerned. What I’m
thinking I may propose to the owner, Mr. Benjamin, is if we do proceed with this, and I’m not sure
that we will, that we would take the garage and maybe take it from its fairly shallow pitched roof that
exists now, steepen it to a more 12/12 pitch, to more in character with the ’95 addition, attach it to
the house, and create some livable, attic type space above that kitchen for maybe one more bedroom,
and that would be what I would maybe come back with this Board to sort of present, if he is even
interested in gaining a second bedroom, and that may or may not even, at that point, be palatable to
you all on the Board.
MR. STONE-All right. So you want us to table it for up to 62 days.
MR. JOHNSON-Right.
MR. STONE-I shall do so.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2001 RONALD BENJAMIN, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
246 Assembly Point Road. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant and/or his agent can present a
revised plan based upon comments received from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2001 TYPE II DECKER & COMPANY, INC. AGENT: N/A
PROPERTY OWNER: GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: ROUTE 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
GASOLINE ISLAND CANOPY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 23-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 NEW TAX
MAP NO. 266.03-1-78 LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 179-23
RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-2001, Decker & Company, Inc., Meeting Date: October 17,
2001 “Project Location: Route 149 and 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a gasoline island canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16.75 feet
of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-
28. 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 canopy in the
preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a
compliant location, as approved in Site Plan 23-2001. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 16.75 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood
may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may
be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 23-
01 res. 8/21/01 Convenience store and gas station Staff comments: Minimal to moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Site plan 23-2001 was developed with the
knowledge of the proposed widening of Route 149 and has apparently made the appropriate
provisions for such. Location of the canopy, closer than required should not have an adverse impact
on future roadwork. Although, appearance is predominantly a site plan issue, dealt with by the
Planning Board, consideration may be given to the visual impact presented by this sign, in light of the
proposed zoning ordinance and the design guidelines for this corridor. See attached proposed
ordinance. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 10,
2001 Project Name: Decker & Company, Inc. Owner: Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. ID
Number: QBY-AV-81-2001 County Project#: Oct01-17 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community:
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a gasoline island canopy and
seeks relief from the setback requirements. Site Location: Route 149 and 9L Tax Map Number(s):
27-3-7.22 Staff Notes: The applicant (Getty Petroleum Marketing) proposes the installation of a
new canopy over the gasoline pump islands. The new canopy is proposed to be 2400 sq. ft. and is
proposed to be set back 58 ft. 3 in., rather than the previous approval at 75 ft. This will be
completed in conjunction with the construction of a new building, pump islands, diesel dispensing
area and paving. The staff recommends approval. County Planning Board Recommendation:
Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/01.
MR. STONE-Before I get to you, I want to ask Staff to explain the paragraph. I’ve got a couple of
questions under Staff comments. You say developed with the knowledge of the proposed widening,
and the site plan has apparently made the appropriate provisions for such, but we’re now changing
the site plan, aren’t we, now?
MR. BROWN-There’s a proposal before the Planning Board to modify the site plan approval.
MR. STONE-That’s the new site plan.
MR. BROWN-No, this is the old one that was done a couple of months ago
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BROWN-And there’s another one on next week’s agenda, I believe, to modify that site plan.
MR. STONE-I understand, but you’re saying that one was developed with the knowledge, and
apparently, so the old one made provisions for the widening.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-This one does not.
MR. BROWN-No. They both do. The site plan modification that’s proposed is to enlarge the
building slightly, a couple hundred square feet, maybe four, five hundred square feet, and to reorient
the canopy as shown in this variance request.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And the other thing, it says, consideration maybe given to the visual impact presented
by this sign, and it should say canopy.
MR. STONE-That’s what I was going to ask you, but there are signs on the canopy.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think there are.
MR. STONE-No “Getty” up there?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so.
MR. FORTUNE-No. We could not get the “Getty” on the canopy.
MR. BROWN-There were some Sign Variance issues before, and I think they’re going to go with
building signs.
MR. STONE-All right.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Staff, too. Please, Craig, refresh my memory. If
I’m not mistaken, wasn’t there an infringement on the 50 foot buffer zone?
MR. BROWN-Originally, in one of the previous applications, there was. That was remedied in a site
plan that was compliant with all the Zoning Ordinance requirements, was approved by the Planning
Board. It met all the setbacks and buffers and landscaping.
MR. ABBATE-So we don’t have a problem now.
MR. BROWN-We don’t have a problem now, other than this canopy.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. HIMES-Craig, while you’re all warmed up, on the drawing here, the first big page, it shows the
75 feet, and it’s referring to the canopy, and then it looks like a little closer to the road there’s some
curbing and what looks like maybe depicted for parking, there’s a word there, nine cars, and then it’s
got, you know, slots in there for it looks like parallel parking or something. Well, that wouldn’t be
subject to the 75 foot requirement?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. HIMES-It’s just the canopy.
MR. BROWN-Historically, structures are what we deal with. It wouldn’t be subject to it. I’m not
going to get into anything else.
MR. STONE-But you’re saying paved area is not subject.
MR. BROWN-Well, that’s something we’ve gone around with, paved area, are the go kart tracks, is it
the use of the property, but the parking areas, no.
MR. STONE-We allow those in the TCO.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, sir, we’ll let you introduce yourself.
MR. FORTUNE-For the record, my name is Ron Fortune of Decker and Company, and I’m an
authorized agent for Getty Petroleum, and I have been here before on this project. For some
history, and to keep this short, we had received an approval for both the sign and a variance on a
canopy different than the one before you tonight, in, on or around 699, in a different configuration,
also showing a double exit on 9, on the Ridge Road, the side which is represented by the plan in the
lower corner right there. The plan before you tonight is the one up on the easel, and then I have the
plans that basically was approved by Planning. The difference between the approved planning
application and what’s currently here is that we wish to rotate, 90 degrees, the three islands that were
proposed early on. We sought a variance. We withdrew the application because we could not get the
proposal of the lower one, and so we continued with the client’s request to keep going in a manner,
showing tandem islands, three tandem islands, and that’s represented here in this plan, as it was
approved, and that’s this right here.
MR. STONE-All right. Okay. That was the site plan that was approved.
MR. FORTUNE-Right, by planning.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FORTUNE-The desire of the Company, back in ’99, was this one right here. Essentially we
would have two curb cuts, and then these islands like this. This canopy variance got approved out
here. We had distinct entrances for our customer based cars, and for the trucks to exit this way. I
know there was some concern as to a different plan that was presented the last time, and that’s why I
brought this one along. This was the original desire. What has happened to Getty Petroleum is that
they were, all through our process of dealing with an upgrade of about 30 locations in the upper New
York region, north of Albany, we’ve been asked, we were seeking permits and approvals to upgrade
older facilities. Through the time at some point, they were seeking a major oil supply, and
approximately a year ago, they finalized that deal. We have been requested by that parent company
to try and reorient all islands with these current projects, such that the attendant can see down the
line of the dispenser, rather than, as the approval here, one would have to look over the top of the
island and over possible car or van that’s in between. So what we’ve done is presented a package that
basically gives us the least amount of intrusion into a setback of the 75 feet, down to 58, I believe it
is, per this application. So it reorients the islands 90 degrees, and allows for our attendant to safely
see each fueling position, and that’s the basic nature of the proposal before you. In doing so, we
have to have certain distances from the building, and the, again, aisles on each side of the islands, to
give us safe travel path. That, in a nutshell, and then as far as signage goes, we thought that we were
in compliance with the signs, all signs on the site. We have, visuals of the building has proved, and
again, we’ve talked with the Fire Marshal, and the fire suppression system will be in compliance with
the most stringent part of the regulation, which is a UL 1254 Regulation, and again, part of this is, it
is a self-serve facility, and it’s designed to be safe, and one of the things is to be able to, again, the
attendant to control and see what’s going on.
MR. STONE-These will be pay at the pump
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. I have a question, Craig. Mr. Fortune referred to a previous variance in ’99.
You have no record of that on Staff notes.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Was there one?
MR. BROWN-Yes, there was. What I did in these notes is just to reflect the current approval. That
plan was abandoned in favor of this new one.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it did introduce a canopy into the TCO.
MR. BROWN-Right, but it was a different site configuration.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And just to talk about the pump, just for a second, it’s definitely something that’s
going to go before the Planning Board for a site plan review, and they’re going to examine the
circulation on the site and is this 90 degree reorientation going to work. So that’s, I don’t know if
anybody is concerned about that, but it’s definitely back before the Board.
MR. FORTUNE-Again, this is a substantial cost to Getty to come back here with the engineering
reviews. It’s something that they’re desiring for safety. It’s not something that they’re just doing at
this application. This is something I’ve been required to do on other applications, and just recently,
within the last two months. So it was prior to our other problem, but this is a desired of the parent
company to be doing this, so that they can better control and visually see this, this pumping action
that’s going on. It’s for safety and then also the attendants that we’re getting, just to make sure that
they have every possible advantage to be viewing this operation. They’re responsible for making sure
that fuel is being put into appropriate containers, that they’re not using pagers to hold open the
controls on the nozzles. We have that kind of action, and cell phones being used, that sort of thing.
It’s just a safety, it’s a safety issue. I know we have fire suppression there, but we don’t want to use
it. That’s the last resort. We feel that there’s certain management controls that we can put on these
places, and have a, basically a safer environment there. We believe that, with the reviews, which
we’ve heard no comments back from, that the turning radius, and we believe that this turning radius,
these turning radiuses work for this facility, as it’s laid out. The canopy that’s proposed is no closer
than the activity that’s currently there now. I’d like to mention that. We do have a facility there. It’s
closer to the road, and you can see that per your plan, and I can show it to you. This right here is the
outline of the existing kiosk, island, and here’s the fueling area (lost words) pretty much even with
the (lost word) edge of the current building, and again, this canopy, there’s consideration for this,
that at no point will there be a building, other than the structure of it, an opened canopy, it’s, again,
for the protection of our equipment. It also serves as a place to be putting our fire suppression,
which is a requirement, for their nozzle arrangement, and then also it’s a, again, providing from
inclement weather, both our equipment and also the fueling operation.
MR. STONE-I’m fascinated. You’re saying people put pagers to hold the thing open?
MR. HAYES-They put their gas caps in there.
MR. STONE-Well, the gas caps, I know.
MR. FORTUNE-We know of that problem. That’s been a longstanding problem. It’s just that
we’ve had the pagers in holding, actually holding the nozzle control, and people don’t realize what
they’re doing.
MR. STONE-Well, in many States, you still can, they haven’t taken them off, in many States.
MR. FORTUNE-The nozzle control? Yes. Right.
MR. STONE-In New York I know we can’t do that.
MR. FORTUNE-But, I mean, that’s a big problem. I mean, they’re warning of the cell phone, to be
answering the cell phone while you’re dispensing gas, and out here we’re seeing a pager being placed
in this nozzle control, and it’s bad. So, I mean, I’m hoping, for safety reasons and merit, that this will
fly. It gives us a chance to make this facility work. We kept going with the project because, again, it’s
deadlines to upgrade this thing and try to get it in before winter. It’s not going to make it. It’s going
to be more of a spring upgrade. So we’ve gotten three of them under construction, and this, again, is
not making it for this year.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Fortune?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Fortune, how does this drawing differ from the original proposal that you had?
What changes have you made here?
MR. FORTUNE-The original approval, or back in ’99 when I came back before this Board?
MR. BRYANT-Weren’t you just here about a year ago?
MR. FORTUNE-A year ago?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, there was all this discussion about the canopy.
MR. FORTUNE-Right. Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I’m trying to remember myself.
MR. FORTUNE-The difference was that we could not get the two curb cuts on 9L, and what Getty
had decided was, to get this project moving, just forget the idea of having the two curb cuts. Do not
challenge that, just present the layout of this entrance like this, the two, just go with the one that was
desired, but have this canopy arrangement, and we tried to come back with the one curb cut here,
with this island arrangement, and that was what was withdrawn.
MR. BRYANT-It was the setback.
MR. STONE-Well, the buffer up on top was a concern.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes, this one here. We were encroaching by, I think a couple of feet also with a
septic system back in here.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. FORTUNE-We were removing a foundation, but we were also putting, in that stead, a septic
system and some drainage as well.
MR. STONE-That was the thing that basically held this Board up.
MR. ABBATE-Right, the intrusion into the 50 foot buffer zone.
MR. HAYES-The disturbance
MR. STONE-The disturbance into the buffer zone.
MR. FORTUNE-I was not here.
MR. STONE-No, it was a white haired gentleman.
MR. ABBATE-Right. He didn’t dare to come back.
MR. BRYANT-When you have these applications that come back that are old, we ought to probably
get the minutes for that meeting, so that we can refresh our memory.
MR. STONE-Well, keep in mind that the site plan that was approved by our Planning Board
required no variances at all. They were totally in conformity.
MR. FORTUNE-Right, and that’s what’s being presented here. This is the approval of tandem
islands, and what it does, what this design does, it allows me to upgrade my facility without any
variances, but I have this other issue, and that’s why I’m back before you.
MR. BRYANT-This is not this. You have been before this Board.
MR. FORTUNE-I’m sorry, that’s right.
MR. BRYANT-You’ve been before this Board not too long ago.
MR. HAYES-Yes, Getty. It wasn’t him, but it was Getty.
MR. STONE-It was a different gentleman.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Getty, it doesn’t matter, it’s all the same. I just want to refresh my memory besides, I
remember the buffer zone issue, and I also remember the canopy setback, but I would like to refresh
my memory. I’m getting old.
MR. FORTUNE-I believe on that application we were maintaining the 50 foot setback, but the
additional 25 foot corridor setback, we were using the entire amount of it, or requesting relief from
it.
MR. STONE-All right.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, on your notes, you say that the Planning Board approved it, taking into
account the planned 149 widening. Are there plans at this intersection already?
MR. BROWN-My recollection is, and I think it’s a discussion that you may have had with an
applicant at this Board, when one of the applications dealt with separation of access aisles, or access
aisle widths for turning radiuses, I think a discussion included, what about the widening of 149, and
my recollection is the applicant said we considered that. We’ve shown the setbacks in relation to the
extra turning lane I think is what’s proposed at this intersection. I think they’ve accommodated for
all those. That’s my recollection.
MR. FORTUNE-It was a taking on the corner, and then our plan does show what’s going to be, but,
again, the edge is shown, on the plan, of the taking, of actually the widening of the right of way.
MR. MC NALLY-For a turning lane onto 9L going north?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Just a question, Mr. Fortune. As Staff tells us, appearance is predominantly a site plan
issue, and they have provided you with the proposed new Zoning Ordinance of Queensbury, which
is nearing the, well, getting much closer to approval. Is your client aware of those, in terms of
architecture and style?
MR. FORTUNE-Well, we believe in our approval that we had changed from our standard building
all the way through to a peaked roof, to brick, and that, in trying to compete with.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t come into our purview, but I mean, you are aware, and hopefully the
Planning Board will like what you have to show.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes, we’re hoping that.
MR. MC NULTY-Is this going to be, now, a convenience store or just a petroleum?
MR. FORTUNE-No, it’ll be a store, yes. It’ll be a store.
MR. MC NULTY-A convenience store.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Out of curiosity, with what kinds of food? Hot food?
MR. FORTUNE-It’ll be a typical, there’ll be some, an area, a sit down. We have designed a septic
system for sit down. I think there’s nine or twelve locations for sit down inside. There’ll be a typical
walk-in cooler, probably a deli type of sandwich offered, that kind of thing, but nothing, you know.
MR. STONE-Like the place across the street, called Stewarts.
MR. FORTUNE-No, I guess I haven’t been in there. I know what they sell, or close to it, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? I think it’s ready for public hearing. I think
that’s where we are. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor of? Anybody wishing, who is opposed to this application? Any
correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have one piece of correspondence, from Ben and Sharon Aronson at
1516 Ridge Road, and they say, “As a residential property owner very close to proposed
improvements to Getty Station, I hope the Town will recognize that this is the entrance to the most
beautiful area of Queensbury. This corner has long been neglected and has had a cluttered look for
quite some time. Any improvement will certainly be welcomed. I suggest that the property have
some sort of Adirondack architecture. I would like to see a landscaped buffer on the north property
line to separate the commercial and shield the residential areas. I would object to a 24 hour
operation (the original variance did limit this) I would hope that some kind of device be installed to
stop the gas fumes that permeate the area when offloading fuel from tankers. I hope that the lighting
will not be garish and is focused downward in an esthetic manner. I insist that all present rules
regarding signs, size of building pursuant to lot size, green areas that are stipulated in the present
Town Ordinances be strictly adhered to. If this lot is too small for these rules to be followed
adjustments must be made to comply. I am looking forward to an improved corner that blends with
the beauty of the Harrisena Area. Ben & Sharon Aronson 1516 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY
12804”
MR. STONE-I didn’t hear a thing about canopies in there.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. STONE-That’s for the Planning Board, that particular letter.
MR. BRYANT-That was an old letter. I remember that letter. I remember that.
MR. STONE-Is there a date on it?
MR. MC NULTY-October 17, 2001, at 2:20.
MR. STONE-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Gentlemen, any other questions of Mr. Fortune? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start
with Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think in this particular case, the applicant who was here before, as my colleague
correctly pointed out, took into account some of our concerns, and changes were made in the plans,
and I think that, you know, as far as the Board, that’s always a good way to start. I did have some
concerns about the prior plan, and you’ve, to some extent, changed them. I think in Mr. Aronson’s
letter, he pointed out something that I felt fairly strongly about. This existing facility needs
upgrading very badly. I mean, it’s one of the first things you see when you come into Queensbury,
and it’s old, and it lacks some investment I guess you would say. As far as changing the canopy and
moving to the canopy, because that’s really what we should be considering and not the site plan
issues, which the Chairman pointed out, I think that, you know, I think the applicant has given us
valid business reasons for changing the angle of that canopy. Some of those things did not occur to
me, but I’m not in the gasoline business, but it is flammable and explosive, and if there’s a valid
safety issue there, I think it does have to be considered in this business. The canopy itself does not,
in my mind, particularly considering it’s a canopy, compromise any future needed expansion of this
road. I mean, that’s the question whether they’re going to do it at all, but even if they do, I think the
canopy’s going to be placed in a way that they could expand this road adequately through some of
the green area or some of the other areas that are depicted here. The canopy itself is not going to
compromise the rationale behind the Travel Corridor Overlay, and that’s to preserve the area and do
that exact thing. So I don’t think that’s a problem either, and I guess, speaking specifically to the
relief, 17 feet of relief on a 75 foot TCO in my mind is fairly minimal. I don’t, you’re not asking to
go way into the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. It’s 17 feet on 75. So, on balance, I think the
proposed project will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and this relief is minor enough where
it really doesn’t concern me. I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can understand the arguments for safety and all of this. However, as a practical
thing, I can almost guarantee the attendants aren’t going to be watching that closely, if it’s a
convenience store as well, and if they’re pay at the pump, that lessens the problem of drive offs,
which is another good reason for turning the pumps the way that they’re proposed now, because
with pumps the way that they were the previous proposal, you can’t see license plates. On the other
hand, I really don’t like cutting into the Travel Corridor Overlay. As Mr. Hayes pointed out,
probably we’re more than safe as far as actual road construction, but also, as Mr. Aronson has
pointed out, this is one of the more beautiful entrances to the Town of Queensbury, and I hate to
see you start creeping canopies and signs and everything else out into that Travel Corridor Overlay,
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
simply because we don’t think the road’s going to be widened anymore. I think I’m going to come
down opposed, as it’s proposed now. I think there is as compromise that could be made. The
pumps could be put at an angle, and still give attendants a chance to see what’s going on, and
possibly move the canopy back some, and as I say, I know as a practical thing, they’re not going to be
watching the pumps. They’re going to be busy servicing customers in the store. So I guess that’s
where I’m at. I’d be opposed the way it is now. I’d go with a compromise.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-As it was originally proposed, it had some really significant problems, but I think
that they’ve made a great effort to comply with our requests. The only one left is this canopy over
there, gas pumps. The proposal to go into the Travel Corridor Overlay zone is modest, only 16 feet
on a 75 foot setback, and there’s actually some space between the property line and the paved
surface. So, overall, I don’t see any real significant effect, and I know that gas stations are not
necessarily something that there’s one sprouting up everywhere, but it is their property, and it’s been
a gas station for forever, and it certainly is going to be improved by these proposals. So I think that
this will be something I could support.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I also agree with what has been said by Bob and Jaime, and I think the
proximity of the pumps and so forth that Stewarts has to the road is similar to this. So I would
support this application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Fortune, on a positive note, it’s my opinion that this was a well
thought out and presented quite well. As a matter of fact, I really couldn’t find any niche in your
argument to which I could object, and, based upon what my other colleagues have said, I believe this
is an honest effort to comply and to present an argument which all of us could support. So, based
upon what I’ve heard this evening and your presentation, I would be willing to support your request.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I, too, agree that you have made a significant change. I do disagree. I think the 16
feet on the 75 feet is a little bit more than moderate. It’s better than 20%, if my math is correct, but
you did point out something tonight that your predecessors didn’t point out, and that’s relating to the
canopy and the safety feature, and the fact that the canopy is there not only to protect your machines
from the rain and your people and customers, but it also dispenses the fire protection thing, and that
was never discussed at all in the last meeting. With all that in mind, I think I would reluctantly be on
the approval side.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly come down with the majority of the Board. Yes, the Travel Corridor
Overlay is something that we’ve given a great deal of thought to in the Town of Queensbury. We
have them in a number of places. They impact other than gas stations, surprisingly, but I think it is
modest. I’m not going to go with moderate. It’s modest when you consider that the road is fairly
wide at that point, and they’re not going to go much further in the thing, and I think, as my fellow
Board members have said, your arguments are very cogent. They’re very helpful. I had written
down, if so important, and I had some concern about cars parked, but you explained why it’s
important, and you certainly brought a reason in that most of us that aren’t in the business, the
problem of drive aways. This at least tries to minimize that, even though certainly, unless you station
somebody with the express job of looking out all the time, it’s going to happen, but I think it’s going
to be minimized, because people are going to recognize that their license plate is, in fact, visible to
the store. I think that’s important. So I really have no problem with this thing, primarily based upon
your explanation. It’s been very helpful. Having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance.
Go ahead, Norm.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2001 DECKER & COMPANY, INC.,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Route 149 and 9L. The applicant proposes construction of a gasoline island canopy. Relief required,
applicant requests 16.75 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel
Corridor Overlay Zone, 179-28. The benefit to the applicant is he would be permitted to construct
the desired canopy in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, well, alternatives may include
relocation to a compliant location, as approved previously in Site Plan 23-2001. However, I find that
the repositioning of them as proposed is a measure to improve safety and practical management,
which lessens feasibility of other alternatives. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
16.75 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the
neighborhood or community. Well, the proposed construction could be considered by many people
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
to be an improvement over the thing that’s there now, however it will be something new and perhaps
considered very busy by many people. Overall, we feel that it will not have a negative impact on
either the neighborhood or the community, and certainly the safety improvements, which are going
to be brought along with it, are a benefit to the neighborhood and the community, as well as the
customers. I recommend that we approve the application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. FORTUNE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-We’ll expect to see a beautiful, well, when the Planning Board gets done with you we
know it’s going to be pretty.
MR. FORTUNE-Thank you for your time again. I appreciate it.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2001 TYPE II GARY AND SUSAN HIGLEY AGENT:
JAMES MILLER AND MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR PROPERTY OWNER: GARY AND
SUSAN HIGLEY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: SOUITHEAST CORNER OF QUAKER
RD. & GLENWOOD AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,300 SQ.
FT. AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 46-2001, SPR 61-98 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 10/10/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 105-1-38.2, 38.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.07-
1-45.2; 302.07-1-45.1 LOT SIZE: 2.91 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-72
JIM MILLER & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-2001, Gary and Susan Higley, Meeting Date: October 17,
2001 “Project Location: Quaker and Glenwood Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 6300 sf auto service center. Relief Required: Applicant requests 45 feet
of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback per the Buffer zone requirement, § 179-72, A. The
buffer requirement calls for an undisturbed natural area. Re-grading for the stormwater control
devices constitutes a buffer violation. 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 site improvements in the preferred manner. 2. Feasible alternatives: feasible
alternatives may include reconfiguration of the site to provide a more compliant layout. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may
be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance. (90%) 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.): Sign Variance 2-2000 res. 1/19/2000 Lasting Impression
florist SP 61-98 res. 11/17/98 Mobile Home sales Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, the two parcels in question will be merged upon
Town approval of the plans. Consideration may be given to such a condition, of approval, as the
applicant has not requested relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. While the relief
requested; 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may appear substantial, the plan appears to
be an improvement from the existing site conditions on the adjacent Sports Page parcel. The
existing buffer separation is approximately 10 feet from the property line to the edge of pavement,
immediately north of an adjoining residence. The proposed development is adjacent to the
undeveloped portion of a residential lot and, with adequate mitigating screening/fencing, should
present only moderate adverse impacts to the adjoining property. Currently, a minimal amount of
landscaping and proposed along the buffer zone (2 trees). SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 10,
2001 Project Name: Higley, Gary and Susan Owner: Gary and Susan Higley ID Number: QBY-
AV-83-2001 County Project#: Oct01-24 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicants propose the construction of a new 6,300 sq. ft. Warren Tire Building
(auto service center). The proposed new building will be located on the undeveloped portion of the
Sports Page Building property. The applicant seeks relief from the buffer zone requirements. Site
Location: Southeast corner of Quaker Rd. and Glenwood Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 105-1-38.2
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
302.07-1-45.2 Staff Notes: The applicants request an area variance for the buffer zone to be at 20 ft.
rather than the required 50 ft. on the east side of the proposed building. The staff finds no major
issues with this request considering that the building is being situated to fit all other area
requirements. Staff recommends approval. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve”
Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 10/10/01.
MR. STONE-Gentlemen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Board, for the purpose of your record, I’m
Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me
is Jim Miller, who has done the design work on the project. With us also is Gary Higley, one of the
two owners of the site, and also Wayne Kellogg and Bob Kellogg who are principals of the tenant
that is going to occupy this new building, Warren Tire Services. Basically, what we’re looking for is
an Area Variance because of the site constraints. The buffer area that is along the back of the site is
being encroached upon. The property behind the site is zoned SFR-1A zone, and the site on the
front is an HC zone. Because of the change in zone there is a 50 foot buffer here. What we’re
talking about is, if you look at your map, from this point to the east only. All of this already exists.
We’re not talking about changing that. We’re talking about these 13 parking spots right here, which
we propose to have set 20 feet from the property line as opposed to 50 feet, and we’re talking about
a detention area in here for stormwater management, which I’m not sure how they measure it, but I
think they’re saying that requires 45 foot relief. Basically, we’re re-grading that. It’s going to be a
gravity type operation, when we’re done, and we’re going to collect the stormwater from the roof,
and some of the parking area. We’re going to pipe it out there, and then it will come back by gravity
to the front of the site, and that’s part of the stormwater management plan, so that we don’t put
more stormwater off site after, post development, as opposed to pre-development. We have a letter
from, and the adjoining owner, if you look at this property from here to here, is Mrs. Beaty, and we
have a very brief letter from here, indicating that, “I have spoken with Gary Higley on the proposed
Warren Tire Building. I have no objection to the project or the variance for relief from the buffer
zone. Thank you. Nancy Beaty 47 Glenwood Ave. Queensbury, NY 12804” Her property is on
Glenwood Avenue, and if you look at your area map that you have, that was part of the Staff
comments, she’s shown that, Nancy Beaty there, she actually owns that square piece that goes to the
full back of the site from here to here. We’re not actually changing the front piece here, that’s a small
house that’s there. This is all vacant land. It’s not occupied. It goes with the house. It’s out on
Glenwood Avenue. Whether it ever gets developed or not, I think is kind of a mystery. This piece
behind here is owned by I think Carol Whitney, who has a house that’s on North Road. I think if
you take that in proportion, you will see the distance from our site to their residence. I’m not sure
what the scale of this is. What’s your scale on this, Craig? Is there a scale? It’s probably a couple of
thousand feet.
MR. BROWN-It’s a long way, yes.
MR. STONE-It’s a long way.
MR. O'CONNOR-In fact, I think the Kaidas property, which is immediately to the east, is further, is
closer in structure, as well as, I think they have a, we obtained a variance for their detention area as
well, because that buffer zone extends across the back of their property. So we have really very little
potential for any significant impact to anybody. We have a dimensional requirement that we’re trying
to comply with. There’s a lot of planning that’s gone into this site. They’re utilizing one entrance off
of Quaker Road. They’re using a joint parking lot, if you will, and a joint parking scheme. That’s
basically the application.
MR. STONE-Is that one lot the whole, all one lot?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Higleys have stipulated that they will make it one lot. I think it is, it came in,
if I understand correctly, in two deeds to them, but they have stipulated throughout this process, and
probably as part of, we’ve got to go to the Planning Board, or we can do it here, we’ll stipulate on the
record, that they will make both of the lots one contiguous piece.
MR. STONE-I ask the question because obviously the western most lot of the two has been in
violation. I don’t know how long it’s been in violation with the buffer zone. I mean, technically it is.
I don’t know what the history of the lot is, when they started using.
MR. O'CONNOR-I try to choose my words. I wouldn’t say it’s in violation. I think it pre-exists. So
it’s not in violation.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it pre-exists.
MR. O'CONNOR-If it was built after the regulation, then it would be in violation. It, in fact, is in
compliance because it pre-exists, it’s non-conforming.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the question I should have asked.
MR. O'CONNOR-That was part of, my first recollection was Warner Pruyn, or AC Warner had a
lumberyard there that probably went out through the whole piece that we are now utilizing here.
Their principle piece was on the other side of the road, but they used this as their mill shop, and they
made windows and doors, door framings in there, and that’s 40 years ago.
MR. STONE-Is the lot behind where you’re talking, is that, it’s not landlocked, but highly
unbuildable?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not landlocked, but I think the only entrance is the Beaty property, that I’m
aware of, is the house itself, Harwood Beaty’s house, or Nancy Beaty’s house. I think they bought it
as a play yard for kids. They have a field back there. They play jarts or they do, I mean, their
children are my age.
MR. ABBATE-Mike, is this correct that, Staff notes indicate that the two parcels in question will be
merged upon Town approval?
MR. O'CONNOR-We so stipulate.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and basically they also indicate that your plans appear to be an improvement
from the existing site conditions on the adjacent Sports Page parcel. Is that, in itself, correct? In
Staff notes there, they indicate.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’re further, the parking that we propose is not as close to the boundary
line as the existing parking on the Sports Page parcel, if that’s what was the intended comment.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s a favorable portion of it. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Would you comment on, a minimal amount of landscaping is proposed, two trees. Is
that it?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would think that that would be sufficient, although the fellow next to me is a
landscape architect and probably could answer better. If you’ve driven back there, you’d find it a
very tough place to even hunt in, for some good distance between our line and where they have any
open area.
MR. MILLER-The existing property line is heavily wooded, and it’s wooded back into the adjoining
neighbor’s property, and there’s really nothing you can see there, nothing to screen. So we didn’t feel
there was a need to add anything there, especially since that neighbor didn’t have any problem with
what was being proposed.
MR. STONE-But there is a definition of a buffer zone, undisturbed.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s also an intention. I don’t think we’re even coming close to intention
here.
MR. MC NULTY-On the other hand, you can’t guarantee, as is stated here, that the adjoining lots
will remain wooded, and you can’t guarantee they won’t be developed at some time in the future. I
mean, you don’t have a deed restriction or anything of that sort on those lots.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, right.
MR. MC NULTY-So they could be developed and you could end up with a residential situation there
that no longer has the 100 foot buffer.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a 50 foot buffer.
MR. MC NULTY-Fifty foot on both sides. The commercial side’s responsible for 50, the residential
side’s responsible for 50.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if it is.
MR. STONE-Yes, it is.
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s 50 feet on both sides.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not going to argue with you, but in our ordinance I don’t think it is. I think
it’s from the commercial use only.
MR. MC NULTY-I can tell you it’s both sides. I’ve been through that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The parking that is nearer, are parking is less than what is already in
existence.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Either on this end, our parking is not as close as the existing parking. On the
Kaidas end of the property, they’re building and their retention area is closer than what we’ve
proposed.
MR. STONE-I’ll only quote something that got quoted of me once when I used to work for a living,
two wrongs do not make a right, but I understand what you’re saying. It’s certainly an improvement.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re talking about impact, and is there a new impact that we’re going to
put, even if somebody did develop that lot behind there. We’re not increasing the impact or we’re
not putting a new impact into the neighborhood. That’s why I cite what is there in existence.
MR. HAYES-That area in the back where there’s stormwater runoff, I mean, that’s going to be like
natural material or whatever, though, right?
MR. MILLER-That’s just going to be a grass depression, and there’s limited area in the front. So all
the roofed area in the rear parking lot will drain back there, and then the flow is restricted from that
basin to the front. So it’ll fill up, but it won’t stay wet. It’ll gradually drain to the front. So it’ll just
be a grass depression.
MR. STONE-But it’s flowing out to the swale.
MR. HAYES-So it’s not meeting the definition of being undisturbed, but yet it’s still green in the
end.
MR. MILLER-Well, yes. I was surprised. I think that’s the discrepancy. We’re providing a 20 foot
buffer, because I thought the buffer was going to be measured to the pavement, and not to that
detention area, because it’s going to be a grassed. It’s a grassed area now, but we would just make it a
depressed area.
MR. HAYES-You’re just going to swale it a little bit.
MR. MILLER-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s shown on the second page.
MR. MILLER-On the grading plan, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the area they’re talking about. The only structure might be the opening to
the pipe.
MR. MILLER-What we’ve done, we’ve just used a catch basin structure, it’s not even a culvert.
MR. STONE-And the property goes all the way back on that “L” shape?
MR. MILLER-Yes, it does.
MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions before I open a public hearing, gentlemen? Let me open the
public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody
opposed? Any additional correspondence, in addition to the one Mr. O’Connor read?
MR. MC NULTY-No additional.
MR. STONE-Which we’ll assume is part of the public record now.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-Will there be any trees or vegetation removed with the creation of those stormwater
areas?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. MILLER-I don’t believe so.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-I take it the buffer zone is, or the 20 foot zone you’re proposing, is also going to
maintained in its current condition, it’s going to be basically allowed to grow over?
MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, part of it will be grassed. It will probably be mowed where it’s along the
edge of the pavement, and there’s a swale along there. If you look at the grading plan, some of the,
there’s a swale there that drains over into the detention basin. So that would be maintained as grass,
but the area up higher on the hill, along the property line, where it’s existing vegetation, would
remain the same.
MR. STONE-Before we go any further, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Chuck McNulty, why don’t you start us off.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I hear what the applicant’s saying, and I have to agree that what they would
have behind their property is going to be better than what’s behind the adjacent properties. I also
hear what the adjacent property owner is saying, that they don’t have a problem with what’s
proposed, but I still have a problem with cutting into buffer areas. I know from experience when
you cut into buffer areas, you create problems, visual screening, noise, what not, and I don’t think we
can guarantee that that property behind this won’t some day be developed, and for that reason, I just
have a basic problem with cutting into buffer areas. I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Again, I look at the factors. The benefit to the applicant, he’d certainly be allowed
to utilize a larger portion of the lot than he otherwise would be able to. I don’t see any feasible
alternatives, though, because he needs so many parking spaces, and they’re basically fitting as much
as they can on this lot without too much breathing space, to be honest with you. So there aren’t too
many other alternatives, other than what’s been proposed. The relief is substantial relative to the
Ordinance, but I think Mr. O’Connor’s point that the effects on the neighborhood or community is
going to be diminished, it is a 20 foot setback, and I like 50 foot setbacks more than anything, but if
you look at the properties on either side of them, the Sports Page has got a nominal setback, and the
Kitchen and Bath has got that same problem, and there is nothing in that lot behind it, and as much
as I hate to have the residential property bit the bullet and have to provide the screening if it’s ever
developed in the future, I have to admit, there isn’t much of an effect on this neighborhood or
community, and I’m not certain that the difficulty is self created. I think you could probably put a
smaller structure on the property or a more modest business, but given this business, and given the
fact that the buffer zones pre-existed this proposal, I think that they’ve tried to submit as best a plan
as they can. I would like to have seen a larger buffer zone, and I’d like to have seen a buffer zone
that’s not used for drainage and kept mowed, but on balance, I think I’d have to go with the
applicant.
MR. STONE-Question, before I go next. Craig, explain, because we’re talking 20 feet, as Mr.
O’Connor talked about, this 20 feet where the 13 spaces are. Where do you get the 45, going all the
way out to Glenwood?
MR. BROWN-No. The closest point of the detention area, where they’re going to disturb that.
MR. STONE-The detention area. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s right on the corner of their property, that’s the closest point where they
disturb it, and that’s the technical part of it. The intent is still to keep a green space there, but,
technically, it’s disturbing within the buffer.
MR. STONE-Where on the property?
MR. BROWN-At the corner of the Beaty property.
MR. STONE-Is it on there?
MR. BROWN-Sheet SP-2. I’m just going with the final contour that they have there, the 323
contour. I don’t know if any grading is going to be done closer to the corner than that, but I just
went to that new contour line.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-That 323. So you agree that that’s the relief that you’re seeking?
MR. O'CONNOR-Forty-five feet from this point of the detention area, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And 30 feet from these parking areas here.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m in favor of the application. I think this’ll be a pretty good end result,
as far as the business, new business and so on is concerned. But in any event, for the buffer, the
parking, I’m sensitive to that, too, however the area where it’s closest is really just a quiet, non-
functioning area there. There’s no big machines or anything emanating from that that I would think
would be awfully bothersome, and you’ve got the parking places behind the building, which, in
respect, you know, you could kind of look at that as being, in some respect, adding to the formal 20
feet separation of the buffer. So it’s, what’s going on is quite a ways away from, I think, the property
line. So I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m inclined to agree with Norm. I think the feasible alternatives are
basically none, because it’s not unique to this particular application. There are other individuals there
who have the same basic problem. We talk about on balance, what’s in the best interest of the
Town, community, etc., etc., and in my opinion, on balance, this would end up to be an asset to the
Town of Queensbury, and, based upon the comments of my colleagues here, and my personal
opinions, I would be in favor of this application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I agree with what Mr. Abbate has said, and the other Board members. I think
the relief is substantial, but, based on what’s there now, and the interaction with the properties
adjacent to it, I don’t think it’s going to have any impact at all. So from that standpoint, and it being
an improvement, I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree. I think the County correctly pointed out that, as I look at these
plans, the buildings seem to be well placed. They’re logically placed, and they’re actually placed with
less of an impact on the residentially zoned property than some of the already existing buildings.
Additionally, in terms of the amount of relief, the heaviest part of the relief, if you will, is actually
ultimately going to end up being a grassy knoll area, and now while that’s not undisturbed in the
sense of the definition of our Code, from that point forward, it will be undisturbed, natural earth.
So, I’m not really troubled by that. I think that reduces the impact of the heaviest part of the relief.
In terms of the neighborhood, I think the other Board members have correctly pointed out that
we’re not really going to change the nature of Quake Road versus the neighborhood property
surrounding that. I mean, Quaker Road has become a business road and it’s going to stay a business
road. So, is this addition going to improve or degrade the property behind, I don’t think it will do
that. I think, as has been pointed out, that that lot, if developed properly, could actually be an
addition to the neighborhood, and finally, there is neighborhood support. The immediately impacted
neighbor has not expressed an undue amount of concern. They support the project. So, I think, on
balance, it falls in favor of the applicant, and I would be in favor.
MR. STONE-I agree. It’s, I mean, I hear Mr. McNulty, and I certainly don’t disagree with his
concern about buffers. I think we have to be very careful, but I think, as was pointed out, I think as
Mr. Hayes just did, the detention basin is a requirement of the project. It has to be there. It’s going
to be there forever, as long as the building is there. Otherwise we’d have problems. So it’s going to
be undisturbed, from this point on, it appears to me, and it is going to be not unattractive. I would
hope that the property owner would maintain that land so that it doesn’t look scraggly. It does the
job it’s supposed to do, but that’s not a requirement I’m placing on it. I just think that I hope, in
terms of having a good-looking piece of property, because, let’s face it, if you’re in business, if your
property doesn’t look very good, as we heard in the previous thing, the Getty Station, I mean, that’s a
property that doesn’t look good, and they want to make it better, and I assume that Mr. Higley and
the Kellogg’s want to make this a good property. So, on balance, I see no reason to grant this
variance. In fact, I’m in favor of it, without really hesitation. So I need a motion to approve,
gentlemen.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2001 GARY AND SUSAN HIGLEY,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Southeast corner of Quaker Rd. & Glenwood Ave. The applicant proposes construction of a 6300
square foot auto service center. Specifically, the applicant requests 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot
minimum setback for the buffer zone requirements of Section 179-72 Part A. The buffer
requirements call for an undisturbed natural area. The re-grading for the stormwater control devices
constitutes a buffer violation in this case. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be
permitted to construct the building and the site as desired. Feasible alternatives, I believe that
feasible alternatives, in this case, are limited by good business judgement and also a proper placement
of the building as far as balance on the site. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
Certainly 45 feet of relief on a 50 foot requirement is substantial, but as has already been pointed out
by the Board in this particular circumstance, much of that relief will ultimately be undisturbed,
natural terrain after it has been disturbed to create the catch basin. So I believe that mitigates how
substantial the relief is in this particular case, versus a building or a structure in the buffer zone to
that extent. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that they will be very minor or
moderate in this particular circumstance. As I pointed out, Quaker Road is a commercial corridor at
this point, and the two buildings that are immediately adjacent to this property are closer to the
buffer zone than this one is proposed, in this particular case. So I don’t think there’s any increase or
real impact on the neighbor, on the residential character behind there which the buffer zone is
designed to protect. Is the difficulty self-created? Only in the fact that this is the plan they’ve come
up with and the one that they desire, but I don’t believe that it is. I think that any plan that’s
submitted here, with the proper stormwater runoff management and other things of that nature, is
going to require some relief from the buffer zone. So I think on balance the test falls in favor of the
applicant and I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Before I ask for a second, I must apologize for my stupidity in asking where the buffer
violation was. I mean, it’s right in front of me, and I read it, but it’s getting late, and that’s why I
didn’t seem to understand where it was. Do I have a second to the motion?
MR. ABBATE-Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. STONE-There you go.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 TYPE II DAVID AND JANE HOPPER AGENT:
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID AND JANE
HOPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNAFORD ROAD APPLICANT ASKS
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE
REQUEST AND FOR A RE-VOTE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH
EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW
A 30 FT. TALL HOME. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-14
LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Keep in mind, gentlemen, that at our meeting on September 19, we had a motion to
th
approve. It was not approved. It was no action. It was three for, and three against, and, Mrs.
Hopper is back. Read the motion.
MR. MC NULTY-The tabling motion?
MR. STONE-Well, this was the motion, this was the no action motion. I wrote down, it says four,
three. I thought it was three, three.
MR. HAYES-It was three, three.
MR. MC NULTY-I think it was three, three.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-It was not denied.
MR. STONE-It was not denied. There was no action, but this says four, three on the resolution. It
should not say that.
MR. MC NULTY-It should say three, three.
MR. STONE-Right. Well, read it anyway.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This was a motion to approve Area Variance No. 62-2001 “MOTION
TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 DAVID AND JANE HOPPER, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
35 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,074 square foot 30.5 foot tall single
family home. Specifically, the applicant requests 2.5 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum
allowable height requirement of the WR-1A zone Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant would
be that they would be permitted to construct the house within those parameters, a new house in
replacement of an existing camp. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives in this case are limited,
to some degree, based on the contour of the land, particularly in the front of the house where the
relief is essentially being requested. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? At this point I
believe that the compromise of 2.5 feet would still be moderate, in this particular case. Effects on
the neighborhood or community. I believe that based on a reduced height variance request, I believe
that the effects, while there still will be some, in the case of precedent setting, I believe that they will
be moderate. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe the difficulty is self created, being that there is a
compliant construction site available on the property or a compliant design that could be obtained, if
the applicant went that direction. Therefore, I move for its approval based on what the applicant put
forward for a motion, essentially. I’d also like to make any approval, in this particular case,
contingent on the retention of existing screening to the extent possible, outside of the trees directly
impeding or preventing the construction as depicted. I’d also like to make the approval contingent
on the applicant providing the Code Enforcement Officer with a height depiction that indicates on a
final construction basis that the house is actually 30.5 feet or less.
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mr. McNally”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2001, David and Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: October 17,
2001 “Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 2,074 sf, 30 ft tall single family home. Relief Required: Applicant has
revised the application for relief to request 2 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable
height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Previously, 5 feet of relief was requested. 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 home in the preferred
configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a shorter proposal. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 28 foot requirement
may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as compliant construction
appears feasible. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 40-99 – res.
5/19/99 dock/boathouse SP 21-99 – res. 5/24/99 dock/boathouse Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed construction may
not pose a significant visual impact to the adjoining residences on Hanneford Road, an oversized
structure, atop a substantial ledge area above Pilot Knob Road, may present a moderate visual impact
when viewed from the lake. It does not appear as though a strict application of the requirement will
prevent the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. It appears as though SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. STONE-“It appears as though”, do you want to tell us what you meant?
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. BROWN-I’m sure that what I was thinking there was that it appears as though there are areas
for compliant construction.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Okay. Mrs. Hopper.
MRS. HOPPER-Hi.
MR. STONE-Identify yourself, even though I did.
MRS. HOPPER-Jane Hopper.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MRS. HOPPER-I didn’t apparently get my concerns across to the Board the last time. So, after I
talked to Craig, I thought to myself, maybe the best thing I can do is to bring you gentlemen pictures.
Because pictures can say a lot more than I can. So what I attempted to do in this short little, and I’ll
give it to you to look at, is I stood on my front porch and I took a picture of what I look at. Then I
took a picture of my neighbor’s new deck that the Board gave them the variance to build, which was
fine with me. It shows you the view he gets, once he got up a little bit higher. Then I took a picture
of my home, with my adjoining neighbor’s homes, to show you the height elevations that exist,
because my home sits lower than anybody else’s home on that stretch of Hannaford Road. Then the
Board had a concern that my home would be higher, I think one of the words the gentleman used on
the Board was looming over this section of the lake. So what I did was I went across the Bay and I
stood in the marina on their docks, which looks directly at this section of Hannaford Road, where I
propose to hopefully build this house, and I showed you all the houses in a row, and I put a little
arrow on the indentation of where I foresee to put the house. I also would ask the Board to take
note that I have owned this property for four years. I have not cut down one tree. I would have you
look at all the neighbor’s homes that have purchased homes in the last four years. There’s substantial
trees being cut. The first thing they do is cut down their trees and then come before the Board. So,
I’ll pass this to the Board members, and if you have any questions.
MR. STONE-I’m going to ask you, when everybody’s back, what you changed from the last
application.
MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Hansen has one hell of a deck.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, he does. I might admit, also, that when I bought this property, there was a
nice big tree that sits between Mr. Hansen’s property and mine. When I was in Florida the very first
year I bought this home, Mr. Hansen cut down a major tree that was there. He claims he did not,
but I know he cut down a major tree, because it blocked that view.
MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, while we’re looking at the pictures of the
applicant?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-My apology, but I was absent when you initially appeared before the Board. Can you
give me a brief synopsis of what you’re attempting to do?
MRS. HOPPER-I’m attempting to build a post and beam home, and the original, from the ground to
the peak, would have been 33 feet, and at the time my architect did this, I did not realize this. Once I
found out, Mr. Brown pointed out, you’re going to need a variance. Your house is five feet higher
than it’s supposed to be. I came before the Board, and they were not receptive to a five foot. So, I
tried compromising, to making it two and a half feet variance, which they were not too receptive to.
I don’t think I presented it in a light that the Board could understand what I was trying to do. So
therefore, I re-evaluated my position and thought I would try one more time to show them, with
pictures, what I was trying to achieve. It’s not just the look of the house, it’s the view. Because I sit
in a depression, this is the view I get from my porch. If I don’t get some relief, I’m going to build
this beautiful house with these lovely windows, and I’m going to be looking at telephone wires.
When we bought this property, we upgraded all of the electrical for our property, as well as my
neighbors now attached to the new poles that we put up. At that time I asked Niagara Mohawk if we
could bury some of those wires in front at our expense. They said they don’t do that in our section.
So I tried to alleviate what I saw when we bought this property, and I really did not think I would
have a problem in getting above them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. That helps.
MR. STONE-What is different about this proposal, compared to what you presented last time, even
with the compromise at two and a half? What have you done to the land?
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-I’ve done nothing to the land. I’ve done absolutely nothing to it. I have not
changed one single thing since I came before this Board.
MR. STONE-No. The land is the same?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-So is the house actually less high?
MRS. HOPPER-No, but I put a retaining wall. I’ve made the, the house is 28 feet. From post to the
top of the house is 28 feet. We’ve lowered the railings, the posts that it would sit on. They’ve been
lowered. So that I’m only asking two feet of relief.
MR. STONE-Twenty-eight’s the requirement. It’s 30 feet from the top of the retaining wall. You
measure to the ground from every particular point.
MR. ABBATE-But the house is 28 feet, except for those areas which is closer to the ground, then it
exceed that.
MRS. HOPPER-Exactly, and if you look at the pictures that I presented you, you’ll see that my home
sits in a depression. The homes alongside of me sit here, and if they haven’t sat there, they’ve built
them to sit there. So I would be in line with what my neighbors have built, and I also would alleviate
the view that you see from this porch.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask Craig a question if I may, please. Craig, what percentage of her home
exceeds the 28 foot?
MR. BROWN-Percentage? I have no idea.
MR. ABBATE-On a scale of one to ten. I’m trying to determine how drastic this really is, the
exceeding the 28 foot, because apparently it’s not completely around the house.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. ABBATE-Just approximately. I’m just trying to picture in my own mind, you know, just how
much of her property exceeds 28 feet.
MR. BROWN-Probably close to half of it.
MR. ABBATE-Close to half, 50% then, approximately.
MR. BRYANT-The other question relating to that is, the other houses in her neighborhood, do they
exceed the 28 feet, or is it because they’re on higher ground, or what is that?
MR. BROWN-I can’t find any record of any height variances having been issued for any of the
houses on Hannaford Road. The most recent one is the Koenig property. It’s right at the end, and
on the left, and that was proposed at 28 feet. No height variance was granted. Setback variance was
granted, but no height.
MR. HIMES-I’d like to ask something, too. I do recognize, I notice before and this week when I
went out to the place, that you sit in a little saddle there, but it also looked to me like the existing
house, what you’ve got there now, to the upper level porch it pretty close to the others. There’s
some difference, in so far as the telephone wires or utility wires are concerned, but what I wanted to
ask is you mentioned something about the trees, and you referred to the neighbors cutting their trees
down, and I think I commented at the last meeting that some of the areas are quite open and really
kind of come at you when you look from say the road, coming from Lake George, and I asked about
the trees in front of your property, and you said that some of them were going to be removed.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s why I took the pictures. Because, and I took one from across the Bay, so
you could get the whole view of that ridge. I am the only property of that ridge that has any
substantial trees left at all. The only trees I would cut down, which I’m going to have to no matter
what I build, is going to be the ones that interfere with the construction of this house, and they sit
basically right in front. I have a whole group of trees to the left hand side of my property that I have
no intentions of ever touching. I like them. I like the look they give the property. I like the shade
they give.
MR. STONE-Left hand you mean to the north, as you look at the?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-No. I’ve got them on both sides, sir. I’ve got them all around me, but on the left
hand side, the property near Mr. Hansen’s, the one with the big deck.
MR. STONE-Okay. The left side as you face the lake? That’s all I’m saying.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, there’s a lot on that side that I have no intentions of cutting down, any of
them.
MR. HIMES-But the ones looking out toward the lake.
MRS. HOPPER-There are ones as you saw in the picture, you can see them. They’re right smack in
front of the doors, right there. They have to come down. One of them is very diseased. In fact, we
had NiMo look at it and they may even take it down because it’s leaning over, threatening the
telephone poles. They may take care of that themselves. A good storm’s going to take that one
down. The leaves are gone. The tree is gray with bark, but there’s only four little trees that sit in
front that would go, but the main trees that you see there will stay. They would not be touched. The
trees in back of my home will not be touched. There’s substantial trees on Hannaford Road.
MR. HIMES-I was thinking of the ones that just kind of screen the house.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. HIMES-In regard to your comment about how exposed all the others were.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, as I said, the first thing, and I’ve talked, I won’t name names. I’ve talked to a
couple of people on this road, and they’ve said to me, the way they have gone about this is they buy
the land. They cut the trees, they do the landscape, they come before the Boards. You can’t discuss
taking trees down if they’re not there. I’ve been advised to cut those trees before I came to the
Board with my plans, before I ever came to this Board, and I have no intentions of doing that.
MR. STONE-I’ll tell you what my concern is. How close this is going to be to the edge, and how
quickly the land drops away, and therefore, the height is kind of artificial, by putting a retaining wall
in, because the land is moving away very rapidly, and when you, if it weren’t for the retaining wall, it
would probably be higher than 32 feet, or I mean 30. It would be more than 30. It would be 32 or
33. Because the land really begins to fall away there very quickly.
MRS. HOPPER-All the land on that section of (lost words).
MR. STONE-But that’s the land that you have to work with.
MRS. HOPPER-Exactly.
MR. STONE-That’s the only problem. Now, if you move the house back a little bit, then I would
get a truer picture of what 30 feet means, but where it is, I think it’s artificial, to me.
MRS. HOPPER-But we pushed her back as far as we, we angled her back as far as we could. If we
angle her differently, then we’re going to run into variances for setbacks to the neighbor’s property
or this neighbor’s property.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m talking straight back.
MRS. HOPPER-You can’t go straight back. You’re going to go smack into the mountain. There’s a
huge, huge rock boulder that sits right there. In fact, they’ve incorporated it into a step. There’s a
huge rock that sits right there that’s part of a mountain. You’d have to blast that out of there.
There’s just so far you can go with this before you literally run into it.
MR. STONE-Well, but then you have two options. You either blast, or you make the house smaller.
I mean, there are feasible alternatives. I hear what you’re saying. I understand you don’t want to do
either. That’s fine.
MRS. HOPPER-The house is only 1900 square feet. It’s not a big house.
MR. STONE-But I looked up from the road today. I went down there and looked at your house,
and I’m envisioning what you wanted to put in there, and it’s going to be a big house because it’s so
close to the edge. That’s my concern. My concern in this case is the view from the lake, which even
though you say, for example, it’s not a swimming area, but there are people who do look at it.
People come all the way around by boat, and people on the other side, and that’s the concern, and so
far you haven’t alleviated it for me. You may have for.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-Have you ever seen the home, Mr. Wright’s home that he built for his daughter that
sits next to his home, on the east side of the lake? It kind of sits in a little cranny there.
MR. STONE-On Pilot Knob Road?
MRS. HOPPER-No, it’s on the main body of the lake on the east side, maybe a mile up from
George’s Restaurant on the lake. Mr. Wright’s property sits right on the Point. It has the Statute of
Liberty that sits right on it.
MR. STONE-I’ve seen it.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, right in the little bay there he built his daughter a post and beam home. Very
similar to what I have proposed building. It’s basically on the exact same order, and that’s what this
one was fashioned over, and it.
MR. STONE-But that’s Lake George.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s the problem. Lake George does not have a 28 foot requirement that we do. I
mean, that’s the thing that’s facing, the problem that’s facing you. It’s that this is Queensbury, and
it’s 28 feet, and we have to decide, and I’m only one person, obviously. I don’t know how the rest of
the guys feel, but I’m concerned that what you’ve done is artificial, and I don’t like having things
artificially done.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, that’s why I took the picture, sir. I don’t know how else to describe to you
what I look out the window at. If I don’t raise this house up, I’m going to look exactly at the picture
I showed you. That’s what I’m going to see.
MR. STONE-The whole house is not going to.
MRS. HOPPER-That’s the living room. That’s where the house is going to be. This is when you
stand there and I stood up straight and I took a picture.
MR. STONE-I hear your concern.
MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-The neighbor, one of the photos shows your neighbor to the left, obviously the
property is substantially higher. Is that deck on the second floor or the first floor?
MRS. HOPPER-The deck is the first floor.
MR. BRYANT-The property is substantially higher. You can see the property.
MRS. HOPPER-See, that sits on a piece of property that falls right down. He has a large stone
retaining wall. Then he has these big posts that come up, and then he has his deck. So, aesthetically
from the lake, it’s not very pleasing. You have a huge stone wall, and then you have these huge
posts, and then you have his deck. That’s what you look at.
MR. STONE-Since you remind us that we gave a variance for that, maybe we made a mistake.
Thank you for pointing that out. You’ve got to be careful.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, I don’t intend to put a huge stone wall and huge posts up, sir. That’s not what
I propose to do.
MR. STONE-I understand. I’m only saying that he did get relief from those for that, and you’re
saying that you’re not happy with it, in the sense that it’s too big. It’s too imposing.
MRS. HOPPER-I don’t say it’s too big. I think he’s got a beautiful view, period. He’s got a lovely
view, and that’s what he wanted.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-And the neighbor next door to me has a porch, the same height as he does, and he
looks at the lake.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Our job, however, is to balance the benefit to you versus the detriment to the
community, and that’s what we’re talking about. I have no idea where we’re going, but that’s what
we’re talking about.
MR. MC NALLY-I’d like a question of Mrs. Hopper, and the other Board members. Just so I
understand this right. This house is going to be entirely new construction?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And the existing house that’s there, is that where the house is going to be?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So it’s not any further to the line.
MRS. HOPPER-No. It’s been moved back a little bit. It’s been moved back for the Board’s
concerns. We pushed her back as far as we could, before we ran into the mountains.
MR. MC NALLY-Back away from the cliff?
MRS. HOPPER-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-All right. Now, in this drawing that I got tonight, there’s a six inch concrete
retaining wall, and then it says on the side a three foot high wall.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s going to be along the bottom. The purpose of that is simply to hold up the
footings for the deck. Is that what you’re saying?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, can you help me?
MR. BROWN-There was another drawing that was submitted that shows that retaining wall is three
and a half feet from the house. It doesn’t go all the way out completely underneath the deck.
MR. STONE-Two and a half.
MR. BROWN-I think that’s a three.
MR. STONE-That’s a three, okay.
MR. BROWN-It’s three and a half feet out from the house, and there was only a couple of copies
submitted. So there should be one circulating on the Board.
MR. MC NALLY-How are the supports, then, for the deck to be placed along that retaining wall?
There’s only two and a half feet?
MR. BROWN-You’re going to have the house, and you’re going to have a retaining wall, and then
outside from that you’re going to have the posts for the deck.
MR. MC NALLY-The posts are outside the retaining wall.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Outside the retaining wall.
MR. MC NALLY-How long are these posts? I mean, is this a dimensional drawing? I mean, is this a
fair and accurate depiction? I got the impression these posts were inside the retaining wall. I mean,
you look at those retaining posts, those posts, they seem to stop at the top of the retaining wall.
MR. HAYES-This is the one that was submitted today.
MR. STONE-Well, there’s two walls. I think there’s one back further. I think one of the problems,
did we originally get a site plan, or a site location for this house on the property?
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s actually located, I think there’s a stone patio area there now.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-And the house is kind of centered where that stone patio area is. So from the existing
location, it’s south and east a little bit.
MR. STONE-South and east.
MR. BROWN-South and towards Hannaford Road just a little bit.
MR. MC NALLY-So, I had the impression the retaining wall goes out to here, maybe it’s raised a
little bit more, but apparently it’s not. It’s three feet six inches out.
MR. BROWN-Just maybe a question for discussion. I don’t know if, you’ll have to ask it again, but
has any consideration been given to lowering the pitch of the roof? It doesn’t affect the floor levels,
and the view’s not going to change from the floor level, just the house gets shorter.
MR. STONE-We mentioned that last time, I think. Did you do any thinking about that, to your
taking the pitch down?
MRS. HOPPER-No. Then I would have to throw this house away. It would totally change the
entire house. In fact, I did go back to the architect and ask him if we could do that, and he said if I
want to spend another $10,000 he will design me another house. Because this pitch of this roof goes
with this particular house. All the dimensions, all the rooms, everything goes with the pitch of this
roof.
MR. BROWN-Are there any rooms over this front portion of the house, or is that just one big great
room?
MRS. HOPPER-It’s one great big great room.
MR. BROWN-So you’ve got like a 16 foot ceiling in there?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-There’s no bedrooms up there?
MRS. HOPPER-No.
MR. BROWN-So it’s just cathedral all the way up?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-So by lowering the pitch of the roof you don’t lose any bedrooms?
MRS. HOPPER-If you lower the pitch of the roof, then you’ve got to lower this here. Then you’ve
got to, that’s where the porch is.
MR. BROWN-Those are two different roofs, I think.
MRS. HOPPER-I asked him, and you have to change the pitch of these roofs, and if you do that,
then you, instead of having head room in your bedrooms, you’ve got this. So he said, I only have to
go by what this gentlemen told me, that’s not an option.
MR. BROWN-Yes. To me, just by looking at the drawings, and I don’t want to argue with you, it
looks like they’re two separate rooflines where they could be separated.
MRS. HOPPER-This is what he told me.
MR. BROWN-Because if you look at the lakeside elevation, in the drawings that you have, there’s a
roof that looks like this, and right behind it there’s a roof that looks like this. So if you drop the one
down in the front, it doesn’t really affect.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t affect the height of the house in the back.
MR. BROWN-The back portion of the house, or it doesn’t appear. I’m not an architect, but that’s
all I have.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-See, what it appears, and I think what Craig is saying, if you look at this big great room
that you’re talking about, you could lower that. So that it conforms in the front, and the rest of the
house is going to conform in the back. It’s going to be less than 28 feet.
MR. HAYES-One question I have is this drawing shows 30 feet, and the application is for.
MR. BROWN-It’s been revised to 30.
MR. HAYES-Down to 30. You cut off a half a foot, then.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. It’s not just the pitch of the roof, gentlemen. It’s, as I said, that’s why I
brought the pictures. If you, I really don’t want to look at telephone pole wires and telephone poles.
MR. BRYANT-Mrs. Hopper, you knew that four years ago when you bought the property.
MRS. HOPPER-No, I never thought I’d run into this, to be honest with you.
MR. BRYANT-Well, when they put the wires up. I mean, in the design of the house, it could have
been just as easy to put the deck on the second floor. When they were designing the house, they
could have done that. That was an option.
MR. MC NALLY-Let me ask a question. Jaime says, or Lew says you dropped the roof and the
portion towards the lake two feet. The deck is still at the same height. So your view from the deck
should be the same. It’s just that the height of that great room that changes, isn’t it? Aren’t you at
the same (lost word) you’re at now?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-That’s the way I look at it, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t understand. I just want to make sure I understand.
MR. STONE-You say there’s nothing over the front of the house. It’s one big cathedral ceiling?
MRS. HOPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-And what we’re saying, if you dropped that, flattened it out, ever so slightly, that leaves
the deck exactly where it is, but the house is now at 28 feet at its highest point, at the ground’s lowest
point.
MR. ABBATE-So it meets the requirement.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there some reason it can’t do that? I want to understand what you’re saying. I
don’t understand. Do you see what I’m thinking about? What is your concern.
MRS. HOPPER-Maybe I should present the Board, how do I get this house above the telephone
wires? Maybe that’s the question I should ask the Board. How do I legally get this house above the
telephone wires?
MR. STONE-Wait a minute. You’re talking about from the deck level. Is that the front level of the
house, or does the deck go down?
MRS. HOPPER-No, the deck is level with the front of the house. How do I get this porch, bottom
part of my home, to the point where that I can take her and, I don’t need a view like Mr. Hansen’s
has. I just need a view that gets me this bit over the telephone wires.
MR. STONE-Why don’t you come here for a second, if you can. Okay. This deck just juts out here?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-But the floor of the deck is the same as the floor of the living room?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes. This goes right across. This was dropped down, so that you could walk down
the property. I cut this whole thing off, cut this corner off, and the reason I cut it off is, for one
thing, if you stood there, I’m hoping I could get up a little bit, these railings interfered with the view.
So I took the railings out. I also moved the house so I wouldn’t have the setbacks with my neighbors
on each side.
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Okay. I’ve got you. So then this floor, this floor here, is the same level as the floor in
here, the living room?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Even though these stairs seem to go up higher. These stairs seem to go higher than
that.
MRS. HOPPER-No. This floor and the living room floor are one and the same.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then what we’re saying, this is where your view is, right, from here?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-You don’t have a view from up here?
MRS. HOPPER-No.
MR. STONE-Because it’s cathedral ceiling.
MRS. HOPPER-Correct.
MR. STONE-So what, and this is the critical point right in here. Back in here the ground, this is not
anywhere near 28 feet.
MRS. HOPPER-No, Lord, no.
MR. STONE-So if you lower this roof, by squashing it down here a little, two feet, you get the exact
same view that you’re talking about, and you don’t require any variance.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MRS. HOPPER-And what I’m saying to you, maybe I’m not understanding any of this.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOPPER-I can accomplish that by cutting off a foot of this porch and just setting it on the
ground. I’m still looking at telephone wires.
MR. STONE-No, no. Are you looking at telephone wires here?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, then what have we changed? How are we helping you.
MRS. HOPPER-This is a three foot retaining wall.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MRS. HOPPER-This comes up, these feet, these are little, these would be the two foot from here to
here, which would raise my porch up a little bit. That gets me just a little bit, so I can look out and
just be above them a little bit.
MR. STONE-Well, help me. You’ve given us this drawing, which I assume is this drawing. It’s the
same house.
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. This, you’re saying this is what you want.
MRS. HOPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Whatever this view is, you say, I want that view. Right? I don’t care whether there are
wires here, or there are no wires. This is the level you want to be at. You agree? Let’s take it slowly.
This is the level you want to be at. You want to be able to stand on this porch and see what ever you
want to see. If you think you’re above the wires, fine, but whatever it is, you’re happy with that?
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-What the architect told me was I needed a five foot, this house should be 28 feet
from here to here, and the porch to here should be 28 feet. I need a variance to raise her up.
MR. STONE-That’s not what I’m asking.
MR. ABBATE-Let me try this. Look, if we approve this plan you would be happy, correct?
MRS. HOPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You would be happy because, standing on the deck, you would be able to see
above the wires, correct?
MRS. HOPPER-They’re telling me, yes, with a two foot variance.
MR. STONE-It has nothing to do with the variance.
MR. ABBATE-It has nothing to do with the variance. If you lower the top of the roof, we’ve, in
effect basically improved your view. If you lower that roof a snitch, we have improved your view.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. It hasn’t changed the view. It’s only affected the roof.
MR. MC NALLY-The peak of your roof.
MR. ABBATE-Right. It’s just lowered the peak of your roof. We gave you exactly what you’re
asking for.
MRS. HOPPER-I can put my retaining wall up, I can put my posts up, and I can build this house?
MR. STONE-If you lower the.
MR. HAYES-Not that house with that exact roof in the front.
MR. STONE-If this roof comes down here two feet, forget what’s down here, however you’re going
to achieve this porch at that level, all right, this is what you want. Our concern is about in here.
MR. HAYES-What he’s saying is if your head is here, and this is your view, if this roof goes down to
here, that two foot, that’s not changing.
MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t change a thing.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t change this view. It changes the view of the house, in that this front portion
comes down two feet from the back portion.
MRS. HOPPER-All right. Now my architect told me if I change that two feet, then all this changes,
all through here changes.
MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s all a great room, you’re telling me. That’s all a cathedral ceiling.
MR. HIMES-Jim has the figures, Lew.
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-Open the public hearing and then I’ll explain this. All right.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m opening the public hearing again, for this person.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a seven/ten pitch on the house.
MR. STONE-Would you state your name, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-James Underwood, for the record.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a seven/ten pitch on the house I’m building, and a I have a 32 foot
span going across, so my gain from the top, like right there, up to the peak, is 10 feet. So I figure
hers goes 24 feet across the front. So that would give her seven and a half feet of gain. So, in other
words, your great room would be, the top of your wall is that high, plus seven and a half feet up to
the peak of your roof. So that’s still going to give you a 15 foot high great room, which is, but there’s
nothing up there. It’s not going to affect your window.
MRS. HOPPER-No, but this roof sets back, and he’s telling me if I change the pitch of this roof, like
I said the last time, that it’s going to change this, that you can’t have the area that we have for the
bedroom area, which sits back from the great room, the back of the house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a totally separate roof, though. It’s primary beam just travels across
and there’s like two separate buildings when you get there.
MR. STONE-Right. Now you could shorten this, if you wanted to. I mean, and you could go back
up here. Your crucial area is this three or four feet in here, where you’re exceeding 28 foot from
grade. It doesn’t change this at all. You’ve got whatever view you’re going to achieve by putting in
this retaining wall. You’re just lowering this offending portion of the roof by flattening it out. I’m
sure he can do it. He may not want to do it, but I’m sure he can do it.
MRS. HOPPER-I’m sure he can, too.
MR. STONE-I mean, I don’t know what’s inside here. I mean, you haven’t given us a.
MRS. HOPPER-It’s a great room.
MR. STONE-And how far back does it go, to this door?
MRS. HOPPER-It goes back half way through the house. It goes back to the kitchen area.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it would be no problem to lower this a little. You’d probably never see it,
looking up to your ceiling. I mean, if you want to take it back to him, I mean, obviously, I sense a
concern.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, the other suggestion would be you might want to seek a second
opinion on this, from an architect, and find out why it can’t be done.
MRS. HOPPER-Well, it can be done.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-What happens if it’s done?
MRS. HOPPER-I guess what I’m also trying to say, gentlemen, is I don’t have the kind of deep
pockets to keep spending here.
MR. ABBATE-That’s why I’m suggesting maybe you should seek another architect. Maybe we’re
not talking about a lot of money. Maybe we’re talking about no money at all. Because the house
hasn’t been constructed. These are only plans.
MR. STONE-All right. Before we go any further, we’ve got to poll the Board. Why don’t you go
back. I think we’ve tried to explain it. Let me just ask the guys where we stand. Let’s start with
Chuck Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-I was afraid of that. Okay. I’ll take it on. I just want to get your attention, please.
MR. STONE-I want to approve or deny the application that’s in front of us. Let me know.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s all you’re asking for, as the plans are originally submitted.
MR. STONE-This one.
MR. HAYES-This is revised from.
MR. ABBATE-We’re talking about the revised.
MR. HAYES-She’s got it portrayed at a 30 foot instead of a 30.5. That is a difference.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MR. STONE-Right. That’s the latest one.
ROY URRICO
MR. URRICO-The original plans were 33 feet.
MR. STONE-Were 33. Well, we tried to go to 32 and a half last time, but the application is for two.
MR. HAYES-Well, we tried to go to 30.5, which was half, at that time.
MR. STONE-Yes, but this application has always been for 30, the way it is, according to Staff. All
right. Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-Based on the application that has been submitted, I would not be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Do you want to tell me why?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’ll tell you why, because I feel that there is a reasonable approach to remedy this
situation, and I don’t think that reasonable approach has been taken seriously. So, based upon that, I
would not approve the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. There is a reasonable alternative, and, frankly, I don’t
remember this Board ever approving a height variance. Maybe my memory fails me, but we generally
stick to the height variance to the tee, so I would be also opposed to the revised application.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Certainly this is a very close application, the applicant has legitimate concerns, and I
think we’re all concerned about that. I, like my other Board members here, feel that the feasible
alternative part of the test that we’re charged with employing to analyze these applications is possibly
a critical flaw right now, but I will also say, along with that, the I am not opposed to giving some
relief. I mean, sometimes a small amount of relief from the Ordinance is called for, in a balancing
test, and I’m not opposed to that. So right now I think there’s a feasible alternative on the table that
is possible, and I think it’s not quite there yet.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I was in favor of the compromise last time, and guess I still am in favor. I
have some concern that the way the house is designed, it certainly is going to present more of its
space, if you will, to the lake than some of the other houses, because some of the other houses sit on
a little higher land, but at the same time, it strikes me, given that this house would be on, in a
depression, that this peak probably is not going to be much above the adjoining houses, even though
they’re looking for two feet of relief, and I guess it strikes me that we’ve already got two or three
houses along that area that look essentially like this one’s going to look, and this one’s kind of filling
in the gap. So, the bottom line, I guess is I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-As I see it, the benefit to this applicant, looking above the wires, going to be
achieved even with a house that’s at a compliant height, and I think the importance of what the view
is from the deck, is what this applicant is telling us is important to her. The relief that she’s asking is
substantial to the Ordinance, only because this is such a high location on a bluff overlooking the lake.
So it compounds what would otherwise be a relatively minimal height in the middle of a forest
somewhere. I think that the effects on the neighborhood or community are significant. I’m leery of
granting it for that very same reason, it’s on a bluff. The Koenig property I’m told has no height
variance, and it is significantly higher, and I think the purpose can be achieved by this applicant by
having a house that’s compliant, and I think it’s self-created. I’m not sure, and I’ve made an effort, I
think, to try to understand what the architect was saying about the need for having a 30 foot tall
peak, but I don’t see it. So I would have to say it’s self-created, and therefore I’m against the
application.
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, am sorry to say as I was last time to say no to this application,
and I think it’s for the reasons that I’ve heard so far, and I might add to them only that I think maybe
most architects, I think, might be familiar with what the Codes are here, and maybe the house was
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
designed from the inside out, you know, rather than the other way around, that there are alternatives
that may require a lot of re-thinking and perhaps some changes in satisfying certain wishes that
haven’t been discussed here, but those are, I’d throw under convenience rather than some really
critical, substantive need. So I would be negative on it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I concur with the majority of Board, for several reasons. One, I’m
concerned with building up ground to make a house more legal, and that’s what’s been done here,
because you’ve admitted that you’ve made no changes in the house at all. You’ve just merely put a
retaining wall in, which reduces the height from the ground at that particular point. Secondly, we
have tried to explain, to the best of our effort, that if you’re concerned about the view, and the porch
that you show on this drawing will give you the view that you want, that you can then lower the peak
of the roof in the front of the house, without, at least as far as we know, we’re not architects, but we
certainly have a fair amount of experience. It would seem to us that there’s going to be minimal
change in the house if you brought the front of the house down to 28 feet. So, having said those two
things, unless you want to table it, I’m going to call for a motion to deny the application, which
means that, for you to come back to get a variance for this house would require, one, a substantial
change, and you have to convince seven of us that you’ve made a substantial change, and then we
still have the option, if you need a variance, of denying it, just so you know the facts of life. So,
without hearing anything from you, I will call for a motion to deny the variance. Do you wish to do
anything before I do that?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, would you, and I don’t want to argue for, and I hope you understand
that, would you consider if she wanted to table and have her architect back next week, maybe explain
why she can’t do this roof lower?
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. BROWN-I didn’t know if she was aware.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry. You can bring someone with you, come back, try to explain to us why you
can’t do what we think you can. You can make an argument if you want, and we can table it for that
reason.
MR. BROWN-And it could be as early as next week. I mean, we could put it on the agenda, if it’s
just a matter of keeping it at the 30 feet, and having somebody else come in and explain why you
can’t do.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-It’s up to you. It’s just an option to throw out.
MR. STONE-I’m willing to consider everything We do not like to not grant variances if we can see
our way to granting them. Obviously, we cannot see our way in this particular case, but we will give
you the option, if you want to come back.
MRS. HOPPER-I’ll give it one more try.
MR. STONE-You will?
MRS. HOPPER-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 DAVID AND JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
For one week, so that David and Jane Hopper can return with a further argument as to why the
variance in question should be granted. For the record, the Board appears to be for denying the
current application, by a vote of six to one, because the Board believes that there is a reasonable
alternative that would provide the applicant with her stated desire for an unimpeded view of Warner
Bay.
Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-So we’ll look for you next week.
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/01)
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
67